Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 228

Critiquing the Critics of Tyler Perry

Muhammad Rasheed - My problem with Jamilah Lemieaux's criticism of Tyler Perry ("...realize that black people need new stories and new storytellers...") is that it's the equivalent of being angry at Isaac Asimov for not writing more feel-good church stories.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tyler's forte is very specific types of stories with their own stylized humor/wit with the message that he feels he needs to get to his audience. If you want to see other kinds of stories, then find the type of storyteller that makes those kinds of stories or write them yourself. I'm not going to ask Bill Cosby to star in the next Blade or be angry at him for not auditioning for it when it is so clearly not his thing.
Demetria Dixon - AS a screen writer I say be the change you want to see. Tyler Perry is telling his stories. Rather than telling people how to tell their stories those who can write should write the change they want to see.
Demetria Dixon - Well maybe he's not telling his stories but you know what I mean.
Muhammad Rasheed - Yup. He's telling the stories he wants to tell. That's how "art" works. The artists creates what he's moved to create and the audience interprets/applies it to their own lives and experiences.
Muhammad Rasheed - My problem with Tom Burrell's criticism of Tyler Perry ("...messages and images that project us as dysfunctional or incompetent.") is that it ignores all the positive images of black folk in Tyler's films just to make an inaccurate point. I have that "intellectually dishonest" as Michael Daniels likes to say.
Ritch Von - I agree with you on all the above points.
Muhammad Rasheed - My problem with Spike Lee's criticism is the same as Burrell's.
Muhammad Rasheed - What kind of story would it be if every single character was the upright, perfect, goody-goody that looked like Denzel and had only a very specific and limited type of comedy? That's called the over-censored death of art and creative expression.
Jeremy Travis - On a serious note, Perry can tell the stories at he wants, that's fine. He DOES have some positive characters/stories to balance his negative ones. I'm just not a fan of his lackluster writing, directing and producing. I don't HATE him for it, just not a fan of it.
Muhammad Rasheed - And where did Tyler Perry say that he was a homosexual?
Muhammad Rasheed - I happen to agree 100% with what Dave Chappelle said about cross-dresing black comedians in his Oprah interview. My problem with the Perry critics who jumped onto that as a weapon against him, is that it had nothing to do with Tyler Perry or Flip Wilson. Those two used their characters as tools in their creator-owned franchises, and had nothing to do with a studio trying to pressure them into a dress like Dave described.
Tamara Rasheed - This sounds like the consequence of introducing a product to the wrong group and asking for that group's opinion on what they don't like. No product or media is a marketing "catch-all" - it's not going to get the approval of all people, and not everyone will "get it." Personally, I'm not a fan of Tyler Perry's type of art and humor, it just isn't my "thing" and I probably would gravitate toward talking about the things that I don't care for if someone asked my opinion about it. People do this to give certain things a bad taste in the public's mouth. If it isn't the thing of Spike Lee, he's going to say why it isn't his thing. Is it an issue where black people were asked because they're black, and not because they were fans of Tyler Perry's work?
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't know. I was exposed to his work because I married into fans of his work, and although I prefer more speculative fiction in my entertainment (superheroes, fantasy), I do believe in everyone being able to tell their type of story/art as they see fit. I didn't have a problem with Tyler's stories, per se, and found the specific critics against him to be ridiculously unfair and crabs-in-a-barrel in nature. Jeremy's comment above about how he just didn't like his writing, etc. was the only type of critic against Tyler Perry that actual seems 'normal' and fair.
Tamara Rasheed - Yeah, you're probably right about that too. It is much easier to find people who will attack someone's work versus someone who will be more fair about their criticism. Everyone wants their 2 minutes in the spot light, and some people use those criticism opportunities to try to get that attention, even if it means being unfair :(
Bakkah Rasheed-Shabazz - Why is it so acceptable to be a Bitch with a d*ck? The media is a powerful tool to create consent (Norm Chomsky). It's never been a "free market" system. The Jacobite offered Dave 50+ million, but they put their d*ck on top. What does that mean? Take your f*cking like a man?
Muhammad Rasheed - Dave's example of what you are describing doesn't have anything to do with Tyler Perry's character Madea. No studio execs approached him in an attempt to demean him with a Milton Berle type humor. Madea is Perry's own character developed before he went "hollywood." I hear what you are saying, but in Perry's case (and Flip Wilson's) it does not apply.
Bakkah Rasheed-Shabazz - Look at the way the Jacobite has used the media, starting with "Birth of a Nation, the first full-length film, to give a negative image of African American men. You cannot isolate Perry or Wilson from the context. It's not on a personal level; the implications are global. When the whole world sees you as inferior, you've got a group psychological problem. Perry's films were distributed and marketed to beauty shop owners, where I first saw them years before they were picked up by the mainstream. Ask yourself, why are the majority of the images of African Americans negative in the media, even those so-called owned and controlled by African Americans. Remember the war has always been waged against human ablity. Look at the messages and messagers who Hollywood (hollow wood) promotes. What's the affect of these messages over time? What happened when the talk shows first started to openly support homosexuality?
Muhammad Rasheed - The problem I have with this argument is that it is very similar to the argument against the Color Purple; critics say it is against black men, when it is a tale of redemption, not bashing. Tyler Perry's films are full of positive black men (usually portrayed by whoever is on the Black male Hot List) used as the counter-foil to whoever the antagonist was. Critics make it sound as if his films are 100% lopsided when that is not the case. Like any other storyteller he introduces the conflict then resolves it, with a positive, uplifting, God-fearing, pro-marriage message.
I do understand your above post; I think it would be impossible for any black American creator to not have been influenced to some degree by the continuous bombardment of the Caucasian Male Dominance message, and all of our works no doubt have some degree of that taint upon them. But I believe that in this case, the very last people we should be attacking are pioneering, black businessmen who are honestly trying to uplift our community with their own art/message. Madea is not a pro-homosexual stance, but only a character in a story that represents particular traits from women who've influence Perry over the last 41 years. There are numerous other female characters in all of his films that reflect other female traits.

Not Black Enough or Too Black: Do You Fit in the "Official" Mold?

Muhammad Rasheed - Pet Peeve #3: The implication that all black people think alike with a hive mind, and if you don't think along the hive mind line then you aren't black... a suggestion that usually comes with a degree of bs guilt-tripping.... In my opinion this concept is a brainwashing that has it's roots in the message of the film "Hollywood Shuffle." Hollywood and other mainstream media sources have been showing us and the rest of the world their idea of being black for so long... with no tolerance for any alternative idea of what 'black' is or might be... that both the American mainstream as well as the Afrocentic extremist thinks a 'true black person' can be summed up in just a few lines, like a stock character in a b-movie.

Nurah Rasheed - Uggggghhhhh I HATE that.
Radi Lewis - both Mainstream america and the Afrocentric Extremist are Black peoples worse enemy. Furthermore anyone who tries to prevent you from being you fits in that same category.
Elton Curtis - Good post. People want to define black as something beyond skin color when it only hurts us in the long run. White people are allowed to just be people, and that's what I want for us Negroes instead of having to fit into stereotypes such as a "smart black person."
Tom Racine - People just like things simple. In little boxes. "All (insert race) people do this." "All Liberals think this." "All religious people think that." If we'd take the time to listen...learn...understand...maybe even talk. What a concept.
Gerald Welch - Uh, did you clear this with Al Sharpton first?
Radi Lewis - LMAO Gerald Welch
Chris Suess - Well said Muhammad.... and well played Gerald.
Samax Amen - It WAAAAAAAY predates Hollywood Shuffle!
Muhammad Rasheed - I said it has its roots in the MESSAGE of Hollywood Shuffle... not that it came from Hollywood Shuffle.
Vanisha Renee Pierce - CO-sign. Real talk, dude.
Yenny Polanco - Tell them like it is Muhammad! I'm Dominican, and they think we all have a temper! I say we are just emotional! And i hate it when people are like: What are you? Or you speak Spanish?, because i am dark Dominican...Black, white, brown, who cares?!!! We are human beings!
Marie Ruggirello - So you don't drive a Buick Riviera?

Is Religion God's Gift to Mankind, or Man's Stranglehold Upon Himself?

Nina Savino - Muhammad Rasheed, I've read many works and listened to many people that claim to be the word of God, or representing the Word of God. And while I believe it's very true, that faith and spirit, the communion with God, is very much and individual walk, I disagree that religion has anything to do with God whatsoever.
Muhammad Rasheed - It’s easy to see why someone would think that, but it is not true.  The religion is the lifestyle of the believer… composed of the rituals, tenants, and faith… that encodes the message within the system of day-to-day routine.  I pray regularly to keep God at the forefront of my thoughts to lesson the chances of dwelling on mischief.  I recognize the right of the needy to a portion of my regular income and give accordingly.  I fast to not only strengthen my personal discipline, better enabling me to resist temptation, but also to give a glimpse into the lives of those less fortunate than myself that I may better empathize with them.  It is this that is my religion that keeps me on the Path, and brings me closer to my Lord.  It is very much from Him, and in my belief system, perfected by Him. 
Nina Savino - I suggest to you, religion is little more than unionized, organized thuggery... Carefully designed to enthrall masses of people and benefit those at the upper echelon of those religion... Show me one religion, One Global religion, I don't mean just small sects like the Cathars or the Quakers or even the Bahai.... Whose leaders do not enjoy wealth highly above that of the mass of people with in the confines of their religion.
Muhammad Rasheed - Inevitably, human administration bureaucratic institutions build themselves up around the religion of God.  This always happens, and around secular business concepts as well, initially fueled by the basic necessity of keeping order when large groups of people congregate and have the same needs.  Also inevitably, greedy people are attracted to these administrative institutions that facilitate the peoples' belief system, and they often take advantage and manipulate the people for their own ends.  This isn't a strike against the belief system, contrary to popular atheistic opinion.  In fact, the religion itself teaches against the actions of those same greedy men.  What they do is only parasitic  behavior connected to the faith, but not of the faith.
Nina Savino - It is said that the lamb recognize the voice of the shepherd... And I dare to proclaim to you that there is more God in an atheist that is kind to the least of his brethren, than there is in any lunatic spoutng hate and division amongst creation, regardless of his religious affiliation.
Muhammad Rasheed - Hm.  There is God in neither of them. Not in the hypocrite who spews his hate, nor in the one who rejects his Maker while performing vain kindnesses that will profit him not.  There is nothing any human being does that doesn’t lie dormant within other men.  The message of God addresses both of these.  Religion is an individual walk.  In truth it is a competition, and the Lord judges only who among us is the most righteous.  If my fellow practitioner is doing it wrong, should I throw the whole religion out as somehow tainted?  That concept makes little sense to me, yet I hear this argument of yours all the time.
Nina Savino - I believe the Lord God himself will judge me based on what I tell you now and I have no fear.
Muhammad Rasheed -He will judge you based on whether you believed in Him, and what your actions were during your lifetime.  You should study His message and learn what it is He requires of you.  You do yourself a disservice in rejecting His religion based on the actions of the uncommitted. 
I use the traditional, standard definition of religion in this context: the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Religion is the active lifestyle that reflects the faith you have in the Maker. Personally I think it's better to learn what He requires of us and do that in our walk along The Path, rather than try to reinvent the wheel on our own. My soul is too valuable, and Eternity is far too long, to treat matters of the spirit like a VCR. I'd rather take the time and read the instruction manual. lol
The human being of earth is contentious by his nature. It's one of his weaknesses that the Word of God came down to address. Should we be surprised if humans still do it even when they proclaim belief in the faith?
Proclaiming that belief does not instantly wash the believer of his inherent weaknesses. It just means he has a tool that he can both use to aid him keep his weaknesses in check, as well as knowledge that he will be accountable for his mistakes on the Last Day. Humans never stop being humans no matter what they claim to follow. The message of God does not claim otherwise.
Nina Savino - He did not qualify his words with what church did you attend or how many times did you pray that day.... He spoke of the Samaritan man that could not pass a beaten brother laying in the road... And of a Roman with such faith even his own people did not have. This is the guide of my conscience, Rashid, no church.. No religion. And a t the end of my days, if I am found to be wrong I can still be happy."
Muhammad Rasheed -  The Holy Qur'an 2:62
"Those who believe in the Qur'an, and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians… ANY who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
It's possible sure to get to God without subscribing to one of the faiths sure, but I'm just saying I personally would rather be sure and study to show myself approved using the Word He sent down for the purpose. It genuinely seems odd for a professed believer to reject His mercy on earth to guide you. But to each his/her own, of course. I wish you great good luck on your journey. 
Nina Savino - Oh and Rashid, I dare say I HAVE done my homework... My opinions are based on my research and my struggles and my prayers... I find it ingenuous of you to suggest otherwise."
Muhammad Rasheed - No offense was intended. It's just that every time you mention the religion and how you perceive it to function, it is 100% at odds with what is described in the Book. I don't doubt you when you say you've "done your research," but it does seem you were focused on something other than what was actually important for the sake of your soul's salvation.

Stallone's Rocky: Vanity Project for the White Boxing Fan

Muhammad Rasheed - [shared online quiz] IMDB Top 250 Movies of All Time

Muhammad Rasheed - I got a 107. Some of them I wish I could un-watch, so does that make my score lower? I would totally give Rocky and Slumdog Millionaires back and take a 105.
Brett Barton - Wait. Rocky? You don't like Rocky?
Brett Barton - What. The. Hell.
Brett Barton - 134. So dat.
Muhammad Rasheed - You can have my portion.
Muhammad Rasheed - You can have Rocky, Slumdog Millionaires, The Matrix, Gran Torino, and The Bourne Ultimatum.
Abdur Rasheed - Slumdog was awesome! You are high. Fight club was some bullshit!
Muhammad Rasheed - Fight Club was cool until the bs reveal. I can always cut off the DVD before that part comes. Slumdog was only cool when you were telling it. It was bs to actually watch. I started to drive up to MI and sit in front of you with my popcorn to finish it. And if I hear that damn song from it again I'm going to Kim Jong-Un India...
Jeremy Travis - Fight Club AND Slumdog are EXCELLENT. You two doofuses don't know anything.
Jeremy Travis - The Matrix was great, too!
Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: " I started to drive up to MI and sit in front of you with my popcorn to finish it."
Then there was this tiger on this boat... wait that was the Life of Pi. All those dot head movies are all starting to run together. Throw that Last Airbender horse shit on the pile.
Muhammad wrote: "And if I hear that damn song from it again I'm going to Kim Jong-Un India..."
[stops the hindu rap musical extraviganza ear gasm o face]
I don't even know you anymore.
Abdur Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "The Matrix was great, too!"
Word?
The timeless tale of the young boy who don't know shit about shit and can't take five steps without falling down fifty or more times until the people who have dedicated their whole lives to learning and living a different way of life give him a few lessons which becomes more of a mild Inconvenience on his way to becoming the master because he's really the CHOSEN ONE?
The reason WHY it's timeless is because Hollywood keeps telling the same bullshit story.
Alright, alright, white people (and Jayden Smith in the karate kid remake) are AWESOME because of their determination and heart! FUCK I GET IT!
Now make a movie about an Indian poor kid on a gameshow so I can guess what will happen for a change.
Maybe a tiger an Indian boy on a boat.
Life of Pi advertisement wrote: "Just like James Cameron's Avatar"
Me: "FUCK I hope not! You mean the story about the crippled white boy who was the chosen one/bestest big ble fucker on the planet????"
same shit.
Bullet curving fuckers!
same shit
Kung Fu fucking Panda!
same shit
FUUUUUCK!
Abdur Rasheed - FUCKING ROCKY!!!!
Fucking Rocky was so fucking bad at this bullshit narative (or good depending on if it gave you a chubby or not) that they have an actual statue of Fucking Rocky in the city and he wasn't even a real fucking boxer.
Heavy weight champion Joe Fraser was and the first man to EVER beat Muhammad Ali in the ring.
B-hop defended his middle weight title 20 times and has the record of the oldest boxer.
Over 100 world champions from Philly and they have a statue of Fucking Rocky??
In fairness to Fucking Rocky it is a timeless tale of the young boy who don't know shit about shit and can't take five steps without falling down fifty or more times until the people who have dedicated their whole lives to learning and living a different way of life give him a few lessons which becomes more of a mild Inconvenience on his way to becoming the master because he's really the CHOSEN ONE?
Brett Barton - @ the brothers Rasheed;
Rocky is a symbol, Merican' Icon of "what if"
Rocky is an underdog tale not the same as a "chosen" one tail, similar only because Apollo chooses Rocky when he is looking for nobody's to give "a chance" ( a ruse fight)
Rocky had a story and life outside of the ring before all that developed...
I love the damn movie.
The story behind the movie is an even better tale, all true.
Agree about the statue and bit honoring actual boxers from famed cities, however it is picturesque and iconic in the film. I see why there is one.
Real life fighters only get the 15 minutes of fame in the ring.
Sometimes one comes along and everybody knows the name when mentioned but for all the greats there are 1,000 just doing it (Nike style)
Michael Daniels - Not to interrupt your very intertaning fiction, Arah, but how is Rocky "The chosen one." if he loses in the end?
Abdur Rasheed - You mean at the end of the 8th movie when his Parkinson's kicked in on him?
Doesn't count.
Brett Barton - He loses in the first movie. Just puts up a hell if a fight, which was supposed to be a walk in the park for Creed.
Watch the movie.
Michael Daniels - No, goof, the first movie...lol...You know, the one that we're freaking discussing, the one that won the Oscar for Best Picture???????
Brett Barton - @ Michael DanielsHaters gonna hate
Michael Daniels - Clearly Bruh, clearly....and dem Rasheed boys have it down to a science.
Abdur Rasheed - Brett Barton wrote: "He loses in the first movie. Just puts up a hell if a fight, which was supposed to be a walk in the park for Creed."
[Gasp]
Then what happened?
Abdur Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "...the one that won the Oscar for Best Picture???????"
Imagine my joy.
Didn't Monsters Ball win one of those to?
Michael Daniels - "Then what happened?"
In an iconic moment in cinematic history he calls for his developmentally delayed girlfriend....and then the credits roll.
"Didn't Monsters Ball win one of those to?"
No, the movie didn't. Halle Berry won one for her performance in that movie...and it was deserved.
Abdur Rasheed - Brett Barton wrote: "Agree about the statue and bit honoring actual boxers from famed cities, however it is picturesque and iconic in the film. I see why there is one."
So they should have wrapped that fucker up, put it in a crate and gave it to Stallone.
The only reason why they didn't is because Stallone said, "nuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh uuuuuuhhhhhhh"
Roughly translated to mean " I'm not a real fucking boxer. What in the hell am I supposed to do with this heavy ass thing? Just leave it."
Somebody should have wheeled that fucker in that pawn shop in Vegas by now to score some crack and hookers.
Abdur Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: ""Then what happened?"
In an iconic moment in cinematic history he calls for his developmentally delayed girlfriend....and then the credits roll."
Now you din ruined it for me.
How about a spoiler alert, Rev!
FUCK!
"Didn't Monsters Ball win one of those to?"
Michael Daniels wrote: "No, the movie didn't. Halle Berry won one for her performance in that movie...and it was deserved."
I'll say. It to talent to get bent over a couch by a racist who pulled a shotgun on some little kids.
I watch movies with that kind of acting in it damn near daily.
Cat woman was better.
Michael Daniels - You do realize you're denigrating the writing which didn't win an Oscar...not the acting, right? And in order to challenge the acting performance wouldn't you have to have seen the other nomnees it was up against. Here they are:
Halle Berry in "Monster’s Ball"Judi Dench in "Iris"Nicole Kidman in "Moulin Rouge"Sissy Spacek in "In the Bedroom"Renée Zellweger in "Bridget Jones’s Diary"
I've seen 4 out of the 5, and yes, Halle takes it.
Brett Barton - Lol at nuuuuuuuuhhhhhuuuuuuhh
Abdur Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "I've seen 4 out of the 5, and yes, Halle takes it."
Yeah she did.
Brett Barton - Lol.
Brett Barton - She took it real good.
Muhammad Rasheed - Brett wrote: "He loses in the first movie. Just puts up a hell if a fight, which was supposed to be a walk in the park for Creed."Deacon wrote: "No, goof, the first movie...lol...You know, the one that we're freaking discussing, the one that won the Oscar for Best Picture???????Brett Barton wrote: "Haters gonna hate"Deacon wrote: "Clearly Bruh, clearly....and dem Rasheed boys have it down to a science."
I don't dislike Rocky because I'm a hater, I’m already familiar with the Ali/Wepner fight’s inspiration for the original script, and I do understand the message of "heart" and the concept of perseverance against the odds as a virtue. The reason I don't like Rocky is because it's just a vanity project for white people. Sports tend to be racially polarized anyway, but the sports that were famous for keeping blacks out altogether (tennis, golf, boxing) are especially so. During the time period when Jack Johnson became champion, there was none of this modern racist talk about how blacks had been bred during slavery to be superior physical specimens like they were farm animals. In those days blacks were considered inferior in every way except maybe watermelon eating contests, so when Johnson took the greatest prize in sports it shocked the world. In fact, the beating he gave then champion Tommy Burns was so dominant the police stepped in the ring to keep a white man from being disgraced like that. Likewise Joe Louis’ undisputed reign, as he disposed of his white challenger “bums of the month’ for over eleven years, flew in the face of Hitler’s ‘aryan ideal’ of white superiority.
Whenever there’s a dominant black champion the whites who long for the return of the champion from their own race settle for the ‘heart’ thing. If the black champion didn’t slap the white challenger around and the challenger puts up a good fight, then they immediately go on and on about how much ‘heart’ the challenger had. That’s their consolation prize. “They may have the belt [especially during a time period when it looked like there would never be another white heavyweight boxing champion ever again], but at least we have heart! They can take our sport, but they can’t take our heart away from us!” So they made a movie about “heart” and white folk threw their awards at it, and gave the fictional white champion with heart the key to the city of Philadelphia and ignored the great, undisputed black champion with heart who was not only actually from Philly, but whose training methods were ripped off and given to the fictional white boxer. As an added slap in the face they made a statue of the fictional white boxer and set it at the top of the very same steps that the black boxer ran up during his actual workout; they wanted to make sure he saw that damn statue every time he did it, I guess.
This is what I think of when I see the film Rocky. The story is CLEARLY not intended for me, no matter what Deac may believe. In the sequel, ‘Chuck Wepner’ who trains like Joe Frazier showed up and actually defeated ‘Muhammad Ali’ exactly what I would expect to happen in the sequel of a film that was a white man’s fantasy tale. What else would’ve happened?
The black man is the villain in it based on real life white dislike of a champion I like. A real life black man’s life was ripped off to build the white character and the real life black man source was given no credit for it, so that when the film made its great wealth on that black man’s back, it wouldn’t have to share any of it with him. I don’t like that movie, and I see no reason why I should. It wasn’t made for me, and I love my own people too much to temporarily turn off that love just to get into that story... the same way I imagine white people dislike After Earth. They love white privilege and white nepotism too much to want to allow a successful black family in on that monopoly, so they made sure to smear it enough before it was released so it would fail. "Hopefully a bunch of influential and wealthy black folk won’t try THAT again! *whew!* We dodged a bullet."
Brett Barton - I think maybe there is some racial tension between you and the movie Rocky.
I don't take that from the movie, though being white... I still know many a black that love the movie and don't take the same feeling or idea you have towards the movie.
I feel with the statue.... the story makes the training montage iconic completion with his workout at the top of the stairs.
The statue as a symbol for what the movie stands for. Not necessarily the fictions champion itself.
Set the race card aside and watch the damn movie, how it was made, and the story of hope behind it.
Also what Sly did with the money after the movie.
I feel the story pays homage to real life fighters and the struggle.
Through out the entire franchise there is an underline black/white thing and how you overcome that, get out of your comfort zone and be friends regardless.
-Message-
Muhammad Rasheed - Brett wrote: "I think maybe there is some racial tension between you and the movie Rocky."
lol
Muhammad Rasheed - I've seen the movie, Brett. That's why I would like to give those memory synapses to you, and fill the void left with a movie that actually has value for me. Rocky holds none. Other black people live their own lives and can choose or not choose whatever for themselves. Like Deacon. But for me, I can't use that movie. I'll find a better work of art with the same overcoming message that would speak to me better. This movie has the race card built into it, and what I described IS how it was made. I can never enjoy it because it has racism at its heart and it's some bullshit.
Muhammad Rasheed - No thank you.
Muhammad Rasheed - Brett wrote: "I feel the story pays homage to real life fighters and the struggle."
Of course it does! And I said that. It pays homage to all the white fighters who showed 'heart' when they demonstrated a better performance than what was expected by the Vegas gambling odds when they were up against against a dominant black champion. Like the guy that fought Jon Jones and Wepner and the Raging Bull, etc., etc. But that message isn't for me. It's for YOU. I can't use it. I don't spend all my time wishing the combat sport champions were white.
Tom Racine - But...but...it's got turtles named "Cuff" and "Link!" C'mon, man!
Muhammad Rasheed - Don't try to change my mind, Tom! I'm committed to disliking Rocky's nonsense. lol
Tom Racine - And his dog, "Butkis!" C'mon!
Muhammad Rasheed - I SAID I"M COMMITTED!
Brett Barton - I'm for all fighters. Race aside. Even if the story is of one or the other, it applies to all.
You just keep in holding out for "Tyson" by Tyler Perry and Spike Lee
Muhammad Rasheed - Sure, I could tell you were for 'all fighters' during your comments for the last Jones fight and the last Silva fight. Right, Brett. smh. #getoutofherewiththefakeness
Abdur Rasheed - This was AWESOME!
Spike Lee’s Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth
Muhammad Rasheed - What's the difference between this and that other Tyson film he made a few years ago?
Tyson (2008)
Abdur Rasheed - One is a movie and the other is a broadway play.
Muhammad Rasheed - But once Spike makes this version, it'll be a movie, too. Covering the same material as the other movie.
Brett Barton - I don't care for Silva, though awesome. I have never really liked him. Showboat but no Ali. We saw how that went for him recently. Not sue it wasn't a dive.
Jones another great fighter, don't cheer for him for via smashing of some of my favorite dudes and well he lost (the majority) of that last fight in my opinion... But the champion always get favored on judges score cards so no surprise.
So whoever (when) beats Jones is gonna have to submit or knock him out
Abdur Rasheed - The competitor who is the most relaxed and confident will dominate the scared one. All things being equal relaxed and confident wins the vast majority of the time.
That relaxed confidence can allow you to accomplish almost superhuman feats (i.e...Jordan flying from the free throw line, Roy Jones holding one hand behind his back, and showing it to his opponent only to knock him on his ass with it, Silva dodging multiple shots just to KO his opponent with a hard front kick, Tyson dodging multiple punches while moving in for the kill.)
How relaxed and confident looks to one person looks like showboating to the next, but I can tell you that once you are in that situation and all eyes are on you...you will be glad to break into character and let your confidence flow.
People use all kinds of personal tricks in order to limit their nervousness in high stress situations.
Jesus isn't going to help one fighter over the other for money.
You had better have a backup plan.
Showboating is amazing when you can back it up.
Silva was very overconfident and he even looked bored in his last fight. It seemed like he was tired of being champion.
If so it will play in the back of his head that even if he wins he won't really accomplish anything.
Time will tell where his head is at.
Rah
Muhammad Rasheed - @ Brett - Integrity Check: How did you feel about the showboating that Rory MacDonald displayed when he fought B.J. Penn?
Abdur Rasheed - Brett dosent like any showboating of any kind from anybody anywhere ever.
Brett Barton - I actually do like a little for the sport of things Abdur.
I've been in the situation.
@ Muhammad
Again some is ok.I love BJ so....
I do think Anderson is one of the, if not the best PFP of all time.
Doesn't mean I have to like him.
Abdur Rasheed - What man doesn't love a BJ?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Here's the thing, in my experience white sports fans ALWAYS mention showboating when black athletes do it, and NEVER bring it up at all when white fighters do it. That's a fundamental prejudice trait and has to do with what they are projecting when they see each athlete: For the white athlete he's just playing around and it doesn't mean anything worth mentioning, whereas when the black athlete does it it's arrogance personified and "why the fuck did we let these fuckers in our gotdam sport?!"
Brett Barton - I lost interest in routing for Anderson Silva when he was showboating on a brown person.
Argument invalid with me.
Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. It's valid. You're the one who brought up the showboat thing in this thread, pretty much on cue. You don't even remember Rory showboating even though he was beating up your boy while he was doing it.
Abdur Rasheed - Brett Barton wrote: "I lost interest in routing for Anderson Silva when he was showboating on a brown person.
Argument invalid with me."
Silva was showboating because some athletes showboat. Whoever their opponent/team is doesn't matter. The ethnicity of the athlete doesn't matter.
We're not talking about Silva's perceptions. We're talking about the majority's perceptions and who they feel CAN showboat and who they don't like because it feels wrong.
Brett Barton - @dur
I think some is ok. There is a level that is not even sportsman and disrespectful to the opponent and anyone watching.
The crap in the Maia fight wasn't acceptable in my opinion.
I was waiting for a Tea Bag or something....
Just finish the guy when you are that much better. Don't waste everybody's time.
Problem was more time taunting than actual engagement.

Banishing Cain & The Neanderthal Enigma

Michael Daniels - Mo said "Cain left his family. That's what banishment means."No, banishment in Cain's case meant leaving the area.
Gen 4:11"11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand."
He left and set up his own area which he named after his son.
Gen 4:16-1716 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
When humanity (his extended family) started spreading out they no doubt encountered Cain, but were forbidden to kill him.
Gen 4:1515 But the Lord said to him, “Not so: anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
Mo said "The neanderthals and other hominid species weren't human/angel hybrids, just other hominid species we shared the earth with..."
Scripture gives no indication, whatsoever, that this is true and science's evidence is scant at best...99% conjecture.
Mo said "necessary so their would be a womb for the first homo sapien to grow in."
Scripture is very specific on the method God used to create man. No womb required.
Gen 2:7"7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Mo said "It is yet unrevealed who or what exactly the Nephilim were."Not really. Scripture seems pretty clear.
Gen 6:1-4"When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I corrected that 'their' typo before you posted this. Waaayyy before.
2.) Scripture leaves out a LOT of stuff regarding how people lived during the ancient days. We have no idea what the First Family's life style was like. None at all. "99% conjecture" comes from everybody that talks about stuff not associated with the moral point that God told us the tale in the first place for.
3.) If Cain wasn't banished in the normal usage of the term sense, then why did you write: "When humanity (his extended family) started spreading out they no doubt encountered Cain...?" That's the area his family was in, the one he was banished from.
4.) ALL MEN are made from the dust of the ground. Everything in us is found in the dirt. In the Qur'an God said He made the Christ no different than the technique He used to make Adam in the first place, i.e. from scratch in his mother's womb.
5.) The scripture mentions the Nephilim, but we currently have no idea who or what they were in history. Other than the scripture's brief mention, the record of these creatures/beings is completely lost. Arbitrarily slapping that label on any random bone you pull from the ground is asinine. We shared the earth with other human-like creatures, whose mixture very clearly made the proper and perfect genetic soup for the miracle of homo sapien to make his debut. Neither neanderthal... nor any other of the hominid species around at the time... were Nephilim. They were just other versions of humans. Cain may or may not have taken his wife with him when he was banished from his people. I doubt it, but no one has any actual knowledge on that lost tidbit of history.
Michael Daniels - 1) Okay...I didn't even notice you made a typo, lighten up.
Michael Daniels - 2) I didn't comment on the first family's "life style" whatsoever.
Michael Daniels - 3) Because Cain and Abel apparently lived in the vicinity of the former Garden of Eden (which for several reasons I believe is actually modern day Israel). Cain moved East of there to Nod (again, I believe this area would eventually be known as Babylon and is now known as Iraq.) My point was that he was not prohibited from associating with his family (which by the way is not the normal usage of the term) just from the area that was associated with the presence of God. So if his family came to where he was it was no big deal as long as they didn't kill him.
Michael Daniels - 4) Chapter and verse of the Qu'ran, please (as I provided with the Bible)...If it says this the way you're indicating I can add it to the list of places the Qu'ran conflicts with God's legitimate Word. Of course all men are composed of the same elements. We're all descendants of the same two people.But Adam was formed in a unique way specifically outlined in the Bible. Eve was as well. There is no need for idle and false speculation on this point.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "1) Okay...I didn't even notice you made a typo, lighten up."
HOW DARE YOU?!? [kicks over stool]
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "2) I didn't comment on the first family's "life style" whatsoever."
You insinuate a lot of stuff that isn't there at all. Don't worry about it, I'll point it out every time you do it. I got chu.
Michael Daniels - 5) I didn't arbitrarily slap a label on anything. I said "Neanderthals fit the profile of the Nephilim ". That means I don't know for sure but it's a strong hypothesis based on scripture. Btw the word translated "mighty" in Hebrew is the same word for giant or humongous in english. It's the same word used to describe Goliath who we know was larger and had some extraordinary features.THe reason I think neanderthals fit the scientific profile of the Nephilum is that phrase "and also afterward" quoted above. If you look at the genetic discovery in the article you'll see that a certain amount of Neanderthal genetic material still exists in humans. Genesis chapter five gives us the bloodline of Noah through Seth which appears to be pure on the male side, but in later generations some of that Nephilum ancestry could have crept in on the female side. Even one of the wives of Shem, Ham or Japheth could have been mixed with Nephilum. There is no scientific or Biblical evidence that "we shared the earth with other human-like creatures,,,". That's just unsupported silliness.
"....Nephilim. They were just other versions of humans." What is your standing to say this so definitively when it appears to contradict the Bible (one of the parts you "say" you believe in)?
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "3) Because Cain and Abel apparently lived in the vicinity of the former Garden of Eden (which for several reasons I believe is actually modern day Israel)."
The Garden of scripture is paradise. They were kicked out when they disobeyed, and they settled on earth. Because of the time period the area they settled in was no doubt lush and green and it reminded them of the heavenly garden of their former home, so they probably named it "Eden." This is my working '99% conjecture' regarding it that I believe is stronger than your boring one.
Michael Daniels wrote: "Cain moved East of there to Nod (again, I believe this area would eventually be known as Babylon and is now known as Iraq.) My point was that he was not prohibited from associating with his family (which by the way is not the normal usage of the term) just from the area that was associated with the presence of God."
He was 'banished' from everything and everybody he knew for his evil. Period. You're just making up stuff that doesn't make sense.
Michael Daniels wrote: "So if his family came to where he was it was no big deal as long as they didn't kill him."
If his family came to were he was, he would have to pack up and leave again because he was banished.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "4) Chapter and verse of the Qu'ran, please..."
You've read it before several times. "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was." ~ The Holy Qur'an 3:59
Michael Daniels wrote: "Of course all men are composed of the same elements. We're all descendants of the same two people.But Adam was formed in a unique way specifically outlined in the Bible."
The unique way was the same unique way Jesus was created, and that would be from scratch in his mother's womb.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "5) I didn't arbitrarily slap a label on anything. I said "Neanderthals fit the profile of the Nephilim "."
That's a clear arbitrary label slapping because no they do not.
Michael Daniels wrote: "That means I don't know for sure but..."
...but you're going to go ahead and say it anyway because no other evidence for who the Nephilim really were has come forth so I'll just slap the label on the neanderthals because arbitrary.
Michael Daniels wrote: "...it's a strong hypothesis based on scripture."
It's an extremely weak hypothesis based on a hasty eagerness to fill in a puzzle without having the proper pieces.
Michael Daniels wrote: "Btw the word translated "mighty" in Hebrew is the same word for giant or humongous in english. It's the same word used to describe Goliath who we know was larger and had some extraordinary features.THe reason I think neanderthals fit the scientific profile of the Nephilum is that phrase "and also afterward" quoted above. If you look at the genetic discovery in the article you'll see that a certain amount of Neanderthal genetic material still exists in humans. Genesis chapter five gives us the bloodline of Noah through Seth which appears to be pure on the male side, but in later generations some of that Nephilum ancestry could have crept in on the female side. Even one of the wives of Shem, Ham or Japheth could have been mixed with Nephilum."
[duck bill flapping motion with hand] What does all that babbling have to do with the neanderthal/nephilim connection? Who the heck told you the neanderthals were giants? Deac there is no need for idle and false speculation on this point.
Michael Daniels wrote: "There is no scientific or Biblical evidence that "we shared the earth with other human-like creatures,,,". That's just unsupported silliness."
Okay then you are now banned from ever using the word "neanderthal" again. Doofus.


Michael Daniels - "Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was."
I'm trying to stick up for the Qu'ran here. It doesn't say they were created in the exact same way, just that they looked the same and their physical bodies were composed of the same materials.
Only having had one human parent Jesus only retained Mary's genetic substance, hence the "Seed of the woman" prophecy in Genesis.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "....Nephilim. They were just other versions of humans." What is your standing to say this so definitively when it appears to contradict the Bible (one of the parts you "say" you believe in)?"
Sloppy writing on my part. I said neither the Neanderthals, nor any other hominid species, were Nephilim. Those other creatures were only other versions of humans. We don't know who or what the Nephilim are.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels "Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was."
I'm trying to stick up for the Qu'ran here. It doesn't say they were created in the exact same way, just that they looked the same and their physical bodies were composed of the same materials."
You're interpreting it from an odd and small minded place. "Likeness" meaning "similarity in how they were made" not physical likeness, dummy. What the heck...?
Michael Daniels "Only having had one human parent Jesus only retained Mary's genetic substance, hence the "Seed of the woman" prophecy in Genesis."
They both only had one human parent, and what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
Michael Daniels - Is there anything else supporting your view that this scripture says Adam and Jesus were created in the exact same way....because your word "similarity" only makes it more vague and does nothing to support your assertion?
Michael Daniels - If you want to blatantly ignore what the Holy Bible says about who th Nephilim are be my guest. It's not like you don't disbelieve the Bible on some far more important points. Whether or not these bones that are found and attributed to a species called neanderthal are Nephilim is an educated guess on my part. They could just as easily be examples of malformed humans. But all humans are descended from Adam, and there were no versions of humans before him.... that is a clear and true Biblical statement. In 100,000 years if scientists dug up the femur of a Watuzi and one of a Pigmy would they attribute them to be the same species (assuming they had a similar level of technology we now have)? Genesis indicates that angels contaminated the gene pool and the flood cleared up that mess.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol It's cut n dry to me. But you're predisposed to dismiss the Qur'an anyway. You shouldn't.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "If you want to blatantly ignore what the Holy Bible says about who th Nephilim are be my guest."
I do believe that they were human/spirit hybrids the way the bible says, sure. I just don't believe in labeling every stray toe bone found in the ground as a Nephilim.
Clear now?
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "But all humans are descended from Adam, and there were no versions of humans before him..."
Remember when I said I was going to point out your wild insinuations about what the bible didn't say as proof of a fact? There's one.
Michael Daniels - Cut and dry? Is this a belief typical to Muslims, that Adam was incubated in a neanderthal womb rather than formed and shaped directly by God Who blew into his nostrils as the Bible clearly states?
Michael Daniels - Really? you don't think the Bible says Adam was the first human? Is this a point you really want to challenge me on, Bruh?....Lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Adam WAS the first human being. The first homo sapien. But there were other hominids around, who lacked the 'communicating with the spirit' component we have. It was in one of their bellies that Adam was created in.
Michael Daniels - And you're saying that these two sentences "Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was." is proof of that? And that it's cut and dry? Please nswer my question, "Is this a common belief in Islam?"
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Cut and dry? Is this a belief typical to Muslims, that Adam was incubated in a neanderthal womb rather than formed and shaped directly by God Who blew into his nostrils as the Bible clearly states?"
The actual science behind it is yet to be discovered, but the scriptures say the similarity between the two was what it was, and we KNOW how Jesus got here.
I reject all literal interpretations of anthropomorphic descriptions of God. That is a major weakness of the Christian. No offense.
Michael Daniels - "I reject all literal interpretations of anthropomorphic descriptions of God."And yet, that's how God consistently chooses to reveal Himself culminating in the literal anthropomorphic Person of Jesus of Nazereth. Apparnetly God used those anthropomorphic descriptions to prepare us for His earthly arrival.
Michael Daniels - Okay, now I see you reject your own scripture as well as mine15:26 (Pickthal)"Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered,"(Shakir)"And certainly We created man of clay that gives forth sound, of black mud fashioned in shape."
15:26 (Pickthal)"So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him."(Shakir)"So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down making obeisance to him."
It seems as though these scriptures are pertinant to the discussion. I wonder why you didn't quote them to me.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "And yet, that's how God consistently chooses to reveal Himself culminating in the literal anthropomorphic Person of Jesus of Nazereth. Apparnetly God used those anthropomorphic descriptions to prepare us for His earthly arrival."

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "It seems as though these scriptures are pertinant to the discussion. I wonder why you didn't quote them to me."
Pertinent in what way? We already talked about that. He fashioned ALL men of dust/dirt/clay/mud.
And you're supposed to interpret scripture as your profession???


Muhammad Rasheed - Get off my timeline, Deac!
Michael Daniels - But you're saying he didn't fashion/form Adam directly from the earth but grew him in the womb of a pre-created neanderthal woman. For the third time......"Is this a common belief in Islam?"
Michael Daniels - You can post humorous pictures of Jesus, and yet Muhammed images are off limits?
Muhammad Rasheed - Do you believe that pic is Jesus?
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "But you're saying he didn't fashion/form Adam directly from the earth but grew him in the womb of a pre-created neanderthal woman."
God fashions us all from clay in that method. That's how He does it. In the normal biological gestation cycle. He's using metaphor to describe it.
Michael Daniels wrote: "For the third time......"Is this a common belief in Islam?"
Is it a common Christian belief that the Nephilim were Neanderthals or that the Garden of Eden was in Israel? Why ARE you asking me that foolishness so often?

Climbing Ararat: Exploring the Mysteries of Noah's Ark

Muhammad Rasheed - [shared meme]


Ikyena Yahaziah Green - Any Black child, raised up in the church, knows this look QUITE well!! LOL
Nurah Rasheed - Lmao Milan Johnson
Daniel McNeal - lmao.......
Jersey Peach - Yuuuup...been there myself AND put my kids through it....lol...TRADITION!
Michael Daniels - My kids have had that look a time or two......THIS WEEK......BWHAHAHAHAHAH.
Tony Boyd - Ha! I was that kid.
Jason Herring - HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON......whatchu know 'bout this Sheed...you muslim....whatchu know 'bout that CHRISTIAN church tradition??
Jerome Scorpiochild Dickens - omg
Dustin S Hunter - That moment when you go... and the kangaroos left the arc and went where? Why no dead kangaroos anywhere outside of Australia? You know... I think you might be making it up as you go along... I could have been playing Nintendo! .... maybe that's just what I see.
Michael Daniels - I've put some thought into that question and how a worldwide flood may have had cataclysmic implications for geological functions including sn accelerated continental drift. Btw, evolution doesn't have a solid explanation for their isolated existence either.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dustin S Hunter wrote: "That moment when you go... and the kangaroos left the arc and went where? Why no dead kangaroos anywhere outside of Australia? You know... I think you might be making it up as you go along... I could have been playing Nintendo! .... maybe that's just what I see."
Noah was one of several prophets who had the same mission: Collect the animals and the sciences of your people and put them, you, and the believers in a place of safety so the coming global cataclysm doesn't destroy them too. Noah was real, but he also represented an archetype... prophets from all over the world who did the same thing he did... obeyed God and saved humanity from the Deluge. The kangaroo was rescued in someone else's "ark" or whatever that particular prophet's means of safety happened to be. People from all over the world tell the tales in their origin legends of the terrible cataclysm that smashed their distant ancestors back to the stone age, and the civilizing hero figure that helped them build their civilization anew.
Michael Daniels - Dislike!
Muhammad Rasheed - What is this? Is that supposed to be your official response?
Muhammad Rasheed - The scriptures are full of examples of prophets who were contemporary with each other, and the tales of the prophets were told to instruct us in the lessons gleaned from the experiences of those particular men. The tales of most of the holy prophets have not come down to us because for one, we didn't need to know their stories, and for two, they were probably no different than the tales we'd already read. People from all over the world tell the stories of their very own "Noah" that kept their civilization from going extinct in the wake of the global cataclysm. We only needed to know one of those tales from the lesson involved as far as the reason why revealed scripture is on earth.
Michael Daniels - Many cultures have a Noah/flood story because they all sprang from the same man/incident. People didn't migrate until a few generations later when God confused the languages.
Genesis 6"9 This is the account of Noah and his family.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for ALL the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to ALL people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
1 Peter 3:20
Scripture is clear on what happened. Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe the Bible is the word of God instead of pussyfooting around it. It's one thing to speculate on issues the Bible is silent on such as the geographical location of the Garden of Eden, but it's quite another to contradice the Bible outright. You should be ashamed.
Jeremy Travis - And this, kids, is where we all lean our heads back onto the wall and sleep standing up because THESE TWO YAHOOS gotta debate about the flood and the ark.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: “Many cultures have a Noah/flood story because they all sprang from the same man/incident.”
They all reference the same catastrophe, but the rescue took several men of God from around the world. In the bible, there were many prophets whose missions overlapped others. God said some of the prophets He told us about, others He did not. What would’ve been the point of telling us about a prophet whose story was identical to Noah’s?
Michael Daniels wrote: “People didn't migrate until a few generations later when God confused the languages.”
Based on what?
Michael Daniels wrote: “Genesis 6 -"9 This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for ALL the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to ALL people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
Scripture is clear on what happened.”
Yes. God put an end to all the people of the earth except for His messengers and those people who followed them.
Michael Daniels wrote: “Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe the Bible is the word of God instead of pussyfooting around it.”
Why don’t you stop worshiping the messenger, repent of your blasphemy, and submit your will to the One God who made you as a Muslim?
Michael Daniels wrote: “ It's one thing to speculate on issues the Bible is silent on such as the geographical location of the Garden of Eden, but it's quite another to contradice the Bible outright. You should be ashamed.”
It’s a shame how the reverend demonstrates again and again such a poor insight into the scripture. Maybe you should consider some kind of formal training?
Stick to the topic at hand, Deac and stop being a jerk. Argue your case for the Noah thing and confine your other opinions to the shame of your own deficiencies.
Michael Daniels - @Mo.....In both of his epistles under inspration of the Holy Spirit, Peter specifically stated that only eight people made it through the flood. Your beef is with a designated Apostle and ultimayely Almighty God, not this lowly preacher, Take it up with them.
1 Peter 3:202 Peter 2:5
Muhammad Rasheed - "Two epistles in the New Testament are ascribed to Peter, although the majority of biblical scholars rejects the Petrine authorship of both."
New Testament History and Literature (The Open Yale Courses Series) by Dale B. Martin
Muhammad Rasheed - Jason Herring wrote: "HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON......whatchu know 'bout this Sheed...you muslim....whatchu know 'bout that CHRISTIAN church tradition??"
lol I think it's clear that I know more about Christian traditions than you know about Muslim traditions, Jason. Plus my own household duplicated this scene with my wife.
Michael Daniels - So typical....When you're shown by established Scripture to be completely wrong and out of your mind you attack the Scripture itself. As I said before, take it up with the Holy Spirit. And while Peter may not have actually written down one or both epistles (as Mark was known to be his Scribe) they most definitely originated with him along with the Holy Spirit. The early Church Fathers (including Peter himself) never questioned their origin or content.
Here's a novel idea. Why don't you provide some type of Scripture that you think supports your erroneous assertion of multiple Noahs (The Gospel According to Mo doesn't count....I'll be waiting with bated breath.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "So typical....When you're shown by established Scripture..."
You quoted some scripture, and then you gave a very shallow and uninsightful interpretation of it. What you usually show me.
Michael Daniels wrote: "...to be completely wrong and out of your mind you attack the Scripture itself."
So... posting the title of a book by a Christian scholar of Christian scriptures is "attacking the scripture" how exactly? If anything I'm attacking what you like to pass off as scholarship. You're done here, Deac. You were supposed to be posting your theory of Dustin's kangeroo question, but instead you decided to attack ME when I posted mine. You seem to have a problem sticking to the topic without attacking the person you're discussing it with. How come? Is that part of being a reverend?
Michael Daniels - What! Look in the thread. At first I merely expressed general displeasure for you're contradiction of the word of God. You begged me for a more specific response. And then, a month later, as I was eating a bowl of oatmeal you tried to pick a fight again. Don't get mad at me if I provided you with what you asked for...and prevailed.
I'm not going to share my kangaroo theory until it is better researched and more set in my mind. WHy would I if jokers like you would just pick it apart (even though between the two of us I'm guessing only one has recently taken a course in advanced geology).
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: “What! Look in the thread. At first I merely expressed general displeasure for you're contradiction of the word of God.”
There was no contradiction.
Michael Daniels wrote: “You begged me for a more specific response.”
I asked if “Dislike!” was the extent of your response. Instead I received: “Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe the Bible is the word of God instead of pussyfooting around it. You should be ashamed.” as an unprovoked attack from you.
Michael Daniels wrote: “And then, a month later, as I was eating a bowl of oatmeal you tried to pick a fight again.”
I shut the notifications off early because too many people were ‘liking’ this church kid pic and I was tired of the alarm going off for it every four seconds. When I scrolled down my Timeline a few weeks later I saw your crazy, insulting, off topic response.
Michael Daniels wrote: “Don't get mad at me if I provided you with what you asked for…”
I asked you for an intelligent, rational response.
Michael Daniels wrote: “...and prevailed.”
But all I got were attacks and the usual weak insights into your own scripture.
Michael Daniels wrote: “I'm not going to share my kangaroo theory until it is better researched and more set in my mind.”
You’d better not if it’s just going to be as dumb as your ‘neanderthal’ hypothesis. Keep it.
Michael Daniels wrote: “WHy would I if jokers like you would just pick it apart…”
lol You’re scared to put it out there for fear someone will poke holes in it and reveal how dumb it is. Too bad you didn’t consider that with the Neanderthal thing. smh
Michael Daniels wrote: “(even though between the two of us I'm guessing only one has recently taken a course in advanced geology).
Ah. That must be where you learned to interpret scripture. NOW it makes sense.
Michael Daniels - I believe that the plate tectonic shift, formerly known as continental drift was completed after the flood. I believe the flood exacerbated the natural process God had already set in motion. I believe that up to a few generations after Noah the continents were still accessible to each other via boat or land bridge. When the languages were confused linguistically and culturally compatible folks banded together and migrated via these vehicles, which would explain the aborigines in Austrailia. By this time the animals had already found their way to the places they were most comfortable in. It's a simple theory, but, one that fits all the observable facts and the Bibklical record.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "I believe that the plate tectonic shift, formerly known as continental drift was completed after the flood."
How long does it take continental drift to move a landmass? Compared to how long humans have been on earth?
Michael Daniels wrote: "I believe the flood exacerbated the natural process God had already set in motion."
By doing what?

The Case Against Noah

QUESTION #1: Where in Genesis, prior to Noahs's story, does it say getting drunk on wine is a sin?
Question #2: Where in Genesis, prior to Noah's story, does it say getting naked "IN YOUR OWN TENT!!!" is a sin?
****
Tamara Rasheed - Hmmm... it's possible that THE FLOOD said that it was a sin lmao ! Everything prior to that is irrelevant?
Muhammad Rasheed - ???
Explain, please.
Tamara Rasheed - I'm really just joking saying that, but the flood wiped everyone out because of their iniquities. Whatever the Children of Adam were doing seemed to be 1) pretty distracting from belief, and 2) really sinful.
Tamara Rasheed - I would ask this question: What did those who believe refrain from doing that the people who didn't believe did do? I think that is where I would move to answer those questions. Did the prophets and believers who followed them prior to Noah partake in getting drunk on wine and getting naked in their tents? What were the circumstances under which they did that, if they did do those things?
Muhammad Rasheed - Worshiping 'gods' other than the One God was the iniquity. My question is toward the modern stance of slandering Noah over that infamous incident that probably didn't happen anyway, but if it did... why is it being interpreted as if he was wrong when there was no precedent that being nude and drunk on wine in the privacy of your own domicile was a sin?
Tamara Rasheed - Does that even matter since he was chosen by God? God says He chooses who He will. Whatever kind of person Noah was before he was chosen became irrelevant.
Muhammad Rasheed - It very much matters. God said that Noah was a righteous man who walked with Him. THAT'S the kind of man he was. So if this righteous man got nude and drunk in the privacy of his own tent, why are we saying he was other than what God said Noah was?
Since when... pre- or post-Great Flood... has being nude/drunk in the privacy of your own home a sin in the OT? Where is the verse that says it is so?
Tamara Rasheed - I think someone who chooses to look at Noah's turn toward belief as being a sign for them that God is oft-forgiving and Most Merciful to those who mend their ways and believe is much better off than someone who chooses to slander a prophet and find something ill in him. They're obviously unable to take anything good away from such a profound instance of mercy and have much deeper problems, IMHO.
Tamara Rasheed - That's my very point though, Muhammad. God chose Noah for the same reasons He chose every prophet. When I say "Does it matter?" it's my way of saying that God's choice supercedes anything that we as mankind would feel is relevant in that situation. He even showed Moses that what makes sense to him wasn't on the same level as what commandments he gave his other messengers (like when Moses asked one of God's messengers if he could follow him to see what he was doing, etc.) Some things are beyond our knowledge, but we can't be satisfied by that. Just like being satisfied by God's choice is beyond us.
Muhammad Rasheed - One of the problems I find with that is that God said Noah was a righteous man who walked with Him BEFORE the wine incident.
Muhammad Rasheed - So the stance you are taking is irrelevant here. btw I take the traditional Islamic stance in this regard: That God chose the people to be His messengers because they were already obedient to Him. He didn't chose "sinners" in the Christian sense to be the messenger/prophets. He chose people who were proof that you could believe in God, reject temptation and work righteous deeds as the men who would instruction us in wisdom and scripture.
Tamara Rasheed - But the Holy Qur'an says that God forgives anything except giving Him partners. That doesn't mean that no one ever did anything sinful after they believed. It just meant that they were willing to take on the punishment from doing things they shouldn't have been doing. I think that is very much relevant here.
Gerald Welch - The operative phrase is "Old Testament" under which we are no longer bound (see Acts 15)
Tamara Rasheed - God didn't choose infallible people to be prophets - that's an oxymoron. Righteous and infallible aren't the same.
Muhammad Rasheed - Evidence Against Vilifying/Slandering Noah
Exhibit A: You're SUPPOSED to be naked in your private residence. That's what having your own home is FOR.
Exhibit B: Noah's growing a vineyard, making wine, and getting drunk is the very first mention of alcohol in the bible. There is no scriptural precedent stating that getting drunk was a sin.
Muhammad Rasheed - Honestly, Tee, I see no evidence that Noah did anything that needed to be repented of at that point.
Tamara Rasheed - And I'm saying that regardless if there was anything to be repented for or not, it's not up to us to say that because Noah was a prophet.
Tamara Rasheed - And I think that makes the whole debate irrelevant.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm saying that it is up to scripture to say whether he was or not, therefore someone please show me where Noah was wrong at based on the scriptural evidence.
Muhammad Rasheed - @ Gerald - I specified "OT" in that part because God does give a light-weight command in the Holy Qur'an telling the believers to leave intoxicants alone.
Michael Daniels - There was no admonition against getting drunk prior to Noah's time. For all we know Noah could've invented alcohol. The sin was Canaan's for laughing at and disrespecting his grandfather. That doesn't mean Noah was sinless the entire 950 years of his life because he wasn't. "For all have sinned and fall shourt of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. Your sister is right, Mo. Calling someone righteous does not mean he or she was sinless. 
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "There was no admonition against getting drunk prior to Noah's time. For all we know Noah could've invented alcohol. The sin was Canaan's for laughing at and disrespecting his grandfather." 
He disrespected him by laughing at his humorous, drunken condition? I don't understand. What was the nature of the disrespect? If a close relative makes a silly spectacle of themselves and you laugh, do you really consider that disrespect? I realize before you respond that families will differ from household to household on what they would consider inappropriate or not, but that still seems a bit over the top.  
Michael Daniels wrote: "That doesn't mean Noah was sinless the entire 950 years of his life because he wasn't. "For all have sinned and fall shourt of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. Your sister is right, Mo. Calling someone righteous does not mean he or she was sinless." 
Repentance purifies you of sin, and that gift was bestowed on to Adam. I'm confident that the messenger of God died both righteous and sinless, Deac. 
Michael Daniels - "He disrespected him by laughing at his humorous, drunken condition? I don't understand. What was the nature of the disrespect? If a close relative makes a silly spectacle of themselves and you laugh, do you really consider that disrespect? I realize before you respond that families will differ from household to household on what they would consider inappropriate or not, but that still seems a bit over the top" 
Honor your father and mother is a fundamental element of God's message. Canaan, and possibly Ham as well, did the opposite of that.Now clearly it's Noah and not God, Himself that assigns the curse to that portion of his family but it seems he was speaking as a prophet rather than just a pissed off old guy. And the Holy Spirit chose to include this portion in Scripture for a reason. 
"Repentance purifies you of sin, and that gift was bestowed to Adam. I'm confident that the messenger of God died both righteous and sinless, Deac." 
The blood of Jesus purifies sin. If repentance was all that was necessary why would God require the sacrifice of life from Adam to Cain and Abel to Noah to Moses all the way until the final sacrifice, His own Son. Furthermore, if Noah was sinless there was no reason for him to die as "the wages of sin is death." 
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Honor your father and mother is a fundamental element of God's message." 
I'm still having problems seeing how involuntary laughter at something silly you think is genuinely funny is a sign of disrespect. When i was a kid I would bust out laughing whenever my dad farted, it didn't mean I lacked respect for him. How was this supposed to be a sin? 
Michael Daniels wrote: "Canaan, and possibly Ham as well, did the opposite of that." 
I don't see it. 
Michael Daniels wrote: "Now clearly it's Noah and not God, Himself that assigns the curse to that portion of his family but it seems he was speaking as a prophet rather than just a pissed off old guy. And the Holy Spirit chose to include this portion in Scripture for a reason." 
There was no curse. That concept was only Jewish folklore that was allowed to be added to the canon.  
Michael Daniels wrote: " The blood of Jesus purifies sin. If repentance was all that was necessary why would God require the sacrifice of life from Adam to Cain and Abel to Noah to Moses all the way until the final sacrifice, His own Son." 
I'm not sure why the sacrifices are needed. If that is what they are for, as part of the repentance ritual, then again, I'm confident that the messenger of God was aware of this fact, and died both righteous and sinless. 
Michael Daniels wrote: "Furthermore, if Noah was sinless there was no reason for him to die as "'the wages of sin is death.'" 
We all live in a finite terrestrial state as human beings on earth. Being born is how we arrive, and death is how we leave. The death of our physical body is not a punishment, it's only the natural order of things; the normal end of our life span, already recorded in heaven before we were born. The law of our existence on earth.

Rejecting Concepts Based On a Version of Them That You Made Up

Tony Steed – [shared meme] SO agreed..


Bill Jonke - That's why Atheism is moving right into my mindset. And why do we need bodies anyway if we're only going to be floating around as spirits? I don't get that!
Muhammad Rasheed - So because you don't "get it," Bill, it means it should be done away with?
Is that the mindset you are seriously advocating?
Bill Jonke - I'm the product of a project engineer. Logic is starting (after 60 years, for crying out loud) to sink in. Now Deism makes more sense, but correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but I'm not sure eternal life fits into that picture.
Muhammad Rasheed - I’m not a project engineer, Bill, but objectively speaking it seems obvious to me why we would need bodies first if we are later going to be floating around as spirits. According to the tenants of the religions we:
1. live in our bodies for a finite time period2. our deeds during that time period are recorded3. we are judged according to those deeds4. the ruling of the judgment determines our quality of life in our spirit forms
It seems like these would be fundamental points to contemplate during any serious effort to understand why we would have bodies if we were just going to float around as spirits anyway. I really don’t think the whole system should be thrown away if someone -- who didn’t care to think about it much at all because of their bias against the material -- didn’t “get it.”
Maybe you aren't saying that all religion should be abolished, but that stands out as weird to me based on the general theme of Tony's Timeline.
Bill Jonke - Maybe I should put it another way: In my 60 years, as precise as religion seems to be, we as humans, and all forms of life, as well as inanimate objects, are entropic. I'm not sure that any God could take on all of this, even if he/she or it really tried! I also need a reason why this whole entropic circus was put together in the first place, and to date, there is none, excepting maybe we're the result of a freak chemical reaction. I'm still an Agnostic, not a full blown Atheist, YET.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Jonke wrote: "I'm not sure that any God could take on all of this, even if he/she or it really tried!"
You're doing it again. In these past 60 years you've never come across the term "omnipotent" at all? Why would your limited-by-design understanding of the behind-the-scenes aspects of life be relevant at all? That exclamation mark, and what it's supposed to represent, kills me. lol
Bill Jonke wrote: "I also need a reason why this whole entropic circus was put together in the first place, and to date, there is none..."
So when you completely dismiss the source materials which have this info within them, and then turn right around and say stuff like that, it becomes impossible to take those kinds of opinions seriously, Bill.
Bill Jonke - I've been "indoctrinated in the term "omnipotent," but it still sounds like a flimsy excuse for keeping a false set of morals-God is always watching you drivel. When I use the word entropic, I'm expressing the fact that "perfect" does not, and will never, exist, God or no God. Religion tends to bleep over that fact and take responsiiblity away from people, and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that's when the prosyletizing, preaching and hypercritical thinking start rearing their ugly heads, therefore, the word "entropy, including conflict and ignorance and sometimes leading to violence on a horrifically broad scale." If you're referring to the Bible as a source of materials, it was written, rewritten, reinterpreted, misinterpreted over and over again and has turned into a big whopping piece of fiction being used for people to hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it, by humans!
Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Jonke wrote: “I've been ‘indoctrinated in the term ‘omnipotent,’ but it still sounds like a flimsy excuse for keeping a false set of morals-God is always watching you drivel.”
“Omnipotent” means all-powerful. “Omniscient” is the one you are describing.
Bill Jonke wrote: “When I use the word entropic, I'm expressing the fact that "perfect" does not, and will never, exist, God or no God.”
Everything you know, or can know, was invented for you within the confines of this universe and its laws. The Perfect Being that created this stuff (built upon the frame work of mathematics that He also created) exists outside of those laws. Without being aware of those kinds of concepts in place, how can you make such definitive pronouncements?  Based on what?
Bill Jonke wrote: “Religion tends to bleep over that fact…”
It’s only a “fact” within a very narrow philosophical mindset that actually doesn’t match up at all inside of religious philosophy, Bill.
Bill Jonke wrote: “…and take responsiiblity away from people…”
Here’s another one. I have been gifted with the Free Will to do whatever I want to do in this life, and as a believer, recognize that I absolutely will be judged and held accountable for every deed I decided to do during my mortal lifetime. That is Abrahamic Religion 101 and is literally the exact opposite of “taking responsibility away from me.” The Ultimate Reward or the Ultimate Punishment are mine to choose based on what actions I want to perform in this life, so please explain to me what version of religion you are supposed to be rebelling against here, because it is quite alien to me as a student of Judaism, Christianity, and Al-Islam.
Bill Jonke wrote: “…and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that's when the prosyletizing, preaching and hypercritical thinking start rearing their ugly heads, therefore, the word 'entropy, including conflict and ignorance and sometimes leading to violence on a horrifically broad scale.' If you're referring to the Bible as a source of materials, it was written, rewritten, reinterpreted, misinterpreted over and over again and has turned into a big whopping piece of fiction being used for people to hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it, by humans!”
So far in this thread your knowledge of what may or may not be in the bible is suspect and cannot be taken seriously. I suggest you take the time to actually learn what the religions are all about for real, instead of continuing to pass around this weird, inbred version of what atheists believe religion is, seemingly based on some dream the first one had or whatever, and build your personal disbeliever argument around that.
Muhammad Rasheed - Ann Druyan wrote: "By definition an immortal creator is a cruel god…”
Where did you get that definition from? Where is that written?
Ann Druyan wrote: "…because he, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do.”
It actually doesn’t work that way in the Abrahamic organized religions. At all. You’re missing a MAJOR component of those religions that you are either stupidly ignorant of, or you are deliberately ignoring in favor of making this stupid point. The fear of death is an illusion to those who believe, because the earthly mortal life is but a test. We are “spirit beings having a human experience.” The believer in the Eternal Creator is well aware of this concept, that the death of your finite earthly shell is merely a freeing of your true immortal self. As long as the believer does as God instructed in His message, death is by no means a cruelty.
Ann Druyan wrote: "Why should he do that? If he's omniscient he could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death.”
That’s exactly what He did do. Your true self is immortal and lives on after this mortal shell. In other words, death is an illusion. It isn't lost on me this typical demonstration of the fact that many members of the agnostic/atheist community simply invent out of thin air what they believe the religions are about -- which is quite at odds with actual religious philosophy -- and then build these crazy arguments against this Bizarro version of the faith. It's genuinely weird to me, and I think a potent symptom of a narrow-mind.
Ann Druyan wrote: "He sets about creating a universe in which at least many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies... It's a little bit like the rich imposing poverty on the poor and then asking to be loved because of it."
It’s actually nothing like that. A more accurate analogy is it’s a little like the rich bestowing upon the poor all the tools, and an instruction manual, on how to also be rich that the poor are 100% free to use or not use as they so desire.
Tony Steed - My knowledge of major religions is pretty deep, especially since I spent nearly 3 decades being a Baptist, and jumping into Islam for a short time, a couple years. But I also tend to research ALL religions, because as a recent Atheist,(2008), I've come to know that religion is based on disbelief in the other religions about it. All religions are agnostic/atheistic against another religion. Every religion claims to have the truth, but none to date have been able to back up any of their truths with facts.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "Every religion claims to have the truth, but none to date have been able to back up any of their truths with facts."
That's what everybody says when they lack any and all insight and understanding into what religion is about.
Tony Steed - Fact is right now our concept of anything like the soul, which is theorized, and tested so far with an Illegal experiment on head transfers, between a monkey. Is that it resides in the head, and everything that makes us us, is embedded within the neurons. Religious folk can only use their texts and beliefs to say where they came from, and where they intend, or believe they are going. Fact is I don't know where I came from, I don't know what I did before I was born, or where I was "chillin" at. I don't have a clue as to what happens after we die either. But I think that particular problem will be solved in the next couple decades. That will definitely change the way religions are taken. But none of us can say for sure, what's what. Even us Atheists. That still doesn't mean Gods deserve our worship, just because people think we are here to be "tested". I think that's a silly notion myself. tested for what? Recorded for what? Yes my thinking may be limited to fleshly things, but I see no evidence to support the religious theory of testing anywhere in the books, EXCEPT in Vedic teachings, and some mormon stuff, since they basically say when we die will be going to war against evil for God. An evil that God himself/herself created.
Tony Steed - I'm pretty sure I know what religions are about, having been involved with a few of them. Even Now I study Wicca, and Hare Khrishna,
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Fact is right now our concept of anything like the soul, which is theorized, and tested so far with an Illegal experiment on head transfers, between a monkey. Is that it resides in the head, and everything that makes us us, is embedded within the neurons.”
Any scientific experimentation that has come close to touching on what “soul” can be is built from Dr. Rick Strassman’s experiments.
Tony Steed wrote: “Religious folk can only use their texts and beliefs to say where they came from, and where they intend, or believe they are going.”
Yeah?
Tony Steed wrote: “Fact is I don't know where I came from, I don't know what I did before I was born, or where I was "chillin" at. I don't have a clue as to what happens after we die either. But I think that particular problem will be solved in the next couple decades. That will definitely change the way religions are taken.”
How would that be? Remember religions said that the universe was created from one particular point in the distant past, and at first, the atheist scientists doubted it, until the expanding universe evidence proved the universe did come into being from one particular point in the distant past. Notice that it didn’t change the way religions are taken.
Tony Steed wrote: “But none of us can say for sure, what's what.”
*shrug* None of us can say for sure where we came from because scriptures are not definitive regarding that info. We can’t know for sure about what the future holds for us because our actions and decisions yet to come will determine that.
Tony Steed wrote: “Even us Atheists.”
You know that there were/are/will be believing scientists, right? Who told you that atheists have some kind of monopoly on knowledge? That was certainly not demonstrated in this thread.
Tony Steed wrote: “That still doesn't mean Gods deserve our worship, just because people think we are here to be ‘tested.’”
God deserves to be worshiped because He is God. By definition.
Tony Steed wrote: “I think that's a silly notion myself.”
It doesn’t matter.
Tony Steed wrote: “tested for what?”
To prove yourself worthy of paradise, Tony. The Ultimate Reward.
Tony Steed wrote: “Recorded for what?”
For evidence for or against you on the Day of Judgment.
Tony Steed wrote: “Yes my thinking may be limited to fleshly things…”
This will be your undoing. I suggest you repent and change your thinking.
Tony Steed wrote: “…but I see no evidence to support the religious theory of testing anywhere in the books…”
Then you have not studied the books as you claimed.
Tony Steed wrote: “…EXCEPT in Vedic teachings, and some mormon stuff, since they basically say when we die will be going to war against evil for God. An evil that God himself/herself created.”
Evil is an act… one that we perform. It’s not a separate alien force swirling around like in a Disney movie.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "I'm pretty sure I know what religions are about..."
Then you should try harder to demonstrate it.
Tony Steed wrote: “…having been involved with a few of them. Even Now I study Wicca, and Hare Khrishna,”
Slow down.  Try to get a handle on Christianity first before you start confusing yourself with equally poor understandings of more exotic flavors.
“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” ~Bruce Lee
Muhammad Rasheed - Throw down your rod.
Tony Steed - I have. The issue when discussing religion is that eventually it turns into a circular firing squad with everyone looking for position. So we discuss and argue for pretty much nothing. The testing is a silly notion because life in and of itself is a test of you versus the natural world, and your relation to it, and the people around you.
Tony Steed - I remember back when I was a Christian, my friend Cory asked me how did I know If God spoke to me, I could never answer that. I'd say stuff like well I feel that he does, and he says certain things, I also thought when my mom passed away it was my fault for fornicating outside of marriage, and it was a punishment to my family. When My granny died, I was the last to see her, thought it was my fault for not praying hard enough.. I thought it was a test of my faith to believe in Gods plan and will for my folks.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “I have.”
*raised eyebrow*
Tony Steed wrote: “The issue when discussing religion is that eventually it turns into a circular firing squad with everyone looking for position. So we discuss and argue for pretty much nothing.”
You either have an argument or you don’t. Your theories as to whether religious discussions are valuable or not is not an interesting topic.
Tony Steed wrote: “The testing is a silly notion because life in and of itself is a test of you versus the natural world, and your relation to it, and the people around you.”
This world as a test to determine the quality of your afterlife is only a silly notion if you choose not to believe in the afterlife. For those who believe, it is a silly notion not to believe in the test.
Tony Steed wrote: “I remember back when I was a Christian, my friend Cory asked me how did I know If God spoke to me, I could never answer that. I'd say stuff like well I feel that he does, and he says certain things…”
What did the bible say about it? Did you ever try to find the answer in the source texts? The fact that you even shared that means you did not. Why? Did you somehow think that the holy spirit was going to download the info into you? Why would you think that when Christianity says you are to study to show your own self approved? Did you simply make up your own version of Christianity as you went along instead of actually taking the time to learn exactly what your Lord required of you? Don’t bother to answer; these are all rhetorical. All of your religious posts I’ve read have demonstrated that you never stopped behaving in this way, which is why I’m dismissive of your claims of having “studied” these religions. We both know you have not, Tony.  This thread of yours, above all others, has revealed that like other atheists, you are also full of much passionate rhetoric, but very little actual study into these concepts you reject.  Please recognize that in the End, as you dangle over the Pit, you will have nothing but your own arrogance to blame.
Tony Steed wrote: “I also thought when my mom passed away it was my fault for fornicating outside of marriage and it was a punishment to my family.”
Can you quote the specific biblical verse[s] that led you to think that?
Tony Steed wrote: “When My granny died, I was the last to see her, thought it was my fault for not praying hard enough.. I thought it was a test of my faith to believe in Gods plan and will for my folks.”
Can you show where in Christian doctrine that these beliefs came from? If so, then I will understand why you abandoned your faith for the road of the unrepentant hellbound. If not, it will only confirm my opinions of your version of religious "scholarship." You may consider this a test.
Tony Steed - It doesn't matter What I post, your eyebrows will be raised and my topics dismissed. Your doubt in what I know is already self confirmed, so it makes sense to me, to just leave it at that. Theirs deaths didn't lead me away from religion however if that's what you're thinking. The Bible, led me away from it. But I bid you Good day. I do hope to continue discussions in the future on other things including religion, but this particular one is fini. For me at least. I still enjoy your art.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Everything we know of punishments and rewards, come from Dante.”
Nope. It comes from scripture, and outdates Dante far into prehistory. Today it is reflected in modern scripture, like the Qur’an, but the available evidence reveals that the concept came from ancient scriptures of the distant past that have not survived to the present day except in mentions from later copied sources.
Tony Steed wrote: “…the deadly sins are nowhere in the Bible.”
The “seven deadly sins” aren’t actual tenants of the Christian faith anyway, they are just theologian philosophy concepts.
Tony Steed wrote: “No sin is greater than another.”
Sure there are sins greater than other sins. Why wouldn’t there be? There is even one truly grave sin that God refuses to forgive no matter what.
Tony Steed wrote: “But I don't acknowledge biblical sins to even exist.”
It doesn’t matter.
Tony Steed wrote: “Yes even Atheists who don't study religious texts, and culture can speak from ignorance, because they are passionate.”
There is no one more ignorant than the one who rejects the One who made him.
Tony Steed wrote: “It's no excuse for them to argue without being able to back up a point with documentation, and sources. I despise those angry atheists also.”
Tell me what your source is for believing that “Everything we know of punishments and rewards, come from Dante.”
Tony Steed wrote: “There's no need to get angry and attack a person if the facts lie with you. So no, Atheists don't have all the knowledge in the world. But the intelligent ones seek it out.”
Then why don’t they believe?

Atheist Social Media Terrorism

Tony Steed – [shared meme]


Muhammad Rasheed - John 15“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's metaphor. smh
Tony Steed - Problem is some, most fundamentalists take the bible, the Torah, Koran, etc as facts and some act on it. You can make any of those texts say good or bad. That's like going against the teachings of Zeus, or Ananki, people still believe in them and take their works seriously.
Muhammad Rasheed - The problem is that some people who are determined to vilify religion lack the ability to discern between people who are acting on the bible/Qur'an, versus those who aren't but just say they are Christian or Muslim. This is because they really don't know the bible or Qur'an themselves but just enjoy the rush of slandering people out of their ignorance.
The meme above is trying to claim that Jesus said he wanted the people to burn other people to death, but a casual peek at the context of the quote revealed it said something different. The person who made it was either stupid as hell, or deliberately deceitful, knowing that the average Facebooker, like you, wouldn't bother to look up the verse because he was so eager to continue to vilify mainstream religion.
Muhammad Rasheed - So... you are saying that the problem lies in "fundamentalists" taking the text "as fact," yet here we have an anti-religionist deliberately misrepresenting the texts to stir up hatred against the religion.
And that's the team YOU support, huh?
Tony Steed - Yeah I am saying fundamentalists take the text as fact. The average Christian treats it for what it is parable. That person is anti-religion, I concede that. But nowhere in that chapter of John is the point made in the picture nullified. I don't take teams. I post relevance. I'm personally against religion as fact, religion as comfort yes have at it. But when Religion tries to influence politics we got issues. Fundamentalists try to influence that.. we got issues.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: "But nowhere in that chapter of John is the point made in the picture nullified"
Then imagine their confusion when they notice that they aren't made out of wood and sprouting leaves. For someone that is too stupid to tell the difference between a command, and a metaphor to meditate upon – with enough power to influence political policy – what would change if religion were removed from the table? Will stupid people magically not misinterpret law, policy & procedure now that they are free to not misinterpret sacred scripture? How would that work exactly?
Tony Steed - If religion were removed from the table. Stupid people would still exist, as would murderers and racists, and terrorists, adulterers, etc. They exist now, they just use religion as their excuse then pray for forgiveness. With religion off the equation 500 years ago. We'd probably be on other worlds right now, arguing over resources. But no one killing in the name of some deity. People would have to think and really come up with ways to hate someone not like them. They'd have to actually use science to determine whether the fetus is alive or not, or whether being gay is genetic or not. Whether women should be treated as lesser, and forced into wearing and acting in certain ways. There are far more pluses to losing religion than keeping it. Morality is not a religious thing it's a human thing.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “If religion were removed from the table. Stupid people would still exist, as would murderers and racists, and terrorists, adulterers, etc. They exist now, they just use religion as their excuse then pray for forgiveness.”
What would keep them from replacing that excuse for another excuse?
Tony Steed wrote: “With religion off the equation 500 years ago. We'd probably be on other worlds right now, arguing over resources.”
You admitted above that the average believer doesn’t misinterpret the text and “act on” the misinterpretations, only the stupid ones do that – the stupid ones that have the political power to prevent us all from exploring these other worlds you are talking about. So if we remove religion, what would prevent these same stupid people from continuing to hold us back over something else they think?
Tony Steed wrote: “But no one killing in the name of some deity.”
In the name of which deity were the millions of people killed during the two World Wars? What about the millions and millions of people slaughtered under the atheist communist regimes of Mao, Stalin and Lenin?
Tony Steed wrote: “People would have to think and really come up with ways to hate someone not like them.”
Like saying black people are only ¾ of a human being? The eugenics movement? The black people have low IQs movement? What deity’s name were those concepts created under?
Tony Steed wrote: “They'd have to actually use science to determine whether the fetus is alive or not, or whether being gay is genetic or not.”
Are you saying the fetus is not alive and you can prove this through compiled scientific data?
Tony Steed wrote: “Whether women should be treated as lesser, and forced into wearing and acting in certain ways.”
You’re saying that it is because of religion that women are treated as less than men, not because men are assholes? Religion did it? lol
Tony Steed wrote: “There are far more pluses to losing religion than keeping it.”
Sure if you don’t know anything about it but only think you do. There’s all kinds of things that I don’t know anything about that I could ignorantly believe we can do without because I don’t I know any better.
Tony Steed wrote: “Morality is not a religious thing it's a human thing.”
Meanwhile everything we know about morality/ethics came directly from religious philosophy. Every bit of it.
Tony Steed - 1) There will always be excuses for people to use. But violence would indeed be reduced. 2) Religious politics is one of the problems of our time, along with term limits. people vote religion when they vote in politics along with finance. But people who vote tend to vote for the same guys who share their religion instead of the best interests of the community.
Tony Steed - 3) i LOVE when people bring up Mao and Stalin, and Lenin, or whatever atheist boogeyman they can think of. But it's always those three, and sometimes Hitler, even though he was a Catholic. Those dictators you mention didn't kill because they were atheist, they killed because they were douchebags. Atheism doesn't promote murdering millions of people. They killed because they had a belief that they could run the world better than a government of the people and for the people, and whatever biases they had towards certain groups. Read this to understand more. The use of those three is old, Religion needs some new Atheist boogeymen. Try Degrasse tyson or Bill Maher maybe?
Tony Steed - http://www.skepticink.com/.../a-great...
Tony Steed - The Eugenics movement was horrible, especially since a lot of it happened in North Carolina. The myth about blacks has it's roots in religion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...
Tony Steed - A fetus is a fetus it is not a person according to the bible. It is LESS than a human being until it takes it's first breath. A fetus according to current scientific data is not viable outside of the womb and therefore not a living entity. We can grow organic body parts that move as if they were grown in a human being. They aren't viable without assistance. Until a fetus reaches a certain point in development then yes it's not a technical living entity. A recently fertilized egg is not alive either it's potential. http://www.bubblews.com/.../3307223-g......
Tony Steed - Numbers 5:21-28 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath--"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. " " 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. http://www.biblestudytools.com/number......
Tony Steed - Numbers 3:15-16English Standard Version (ESV)
15 “List the sons of Levi, by fathers' houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.” 16 So Moses listed them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded.

Tony Steed - Leviticus 27:6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;http://biblehub.com/leviticus/27-6.htm
Tony Steed - About women Here ya go As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35
You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24 NLT)
Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. (1 Peter 3:1-2Give no woman power over you to trample upon your dignity. (Sirach 9:2
Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) Numbers 31: 14-18 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Tony Steed - The one about women was a bit too easy. As a former Christian Reading the bible is what made me an Atheist
Brian Wenger - Knowledge bombs be droppin'.
Tony Steed - Not everything about morality came from the bible. There were moral people FAR before there was religious doctrine. Every single religious person is agnostic towards another religion where they have their own beliefs of morals. There are countries and cultures who've NEVER heard of Jesus or Mohammed, and live just fine. Humans develop morals so that we don't be douchebags to each other not the gods we create.
Tony Steed - @Brian Wenger… Lol, one of the benefits of having spent much of my life as a Christian and having read the book, and having read the Koran when I "rebelled" and became a 5 percenter was gaining knowledge of various religions. Then it led to studying the torah, the koran more, the book of mormom, vedic teachings, and the lore of Buddha, and hare khrisna's. As an Atheist I need to know what i'm talking about.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “1) There will always be excuses for people to use. But violence would indeed be reduced.”
No, it would not. People kill each other because they want to, not because religion forces them to. They may use a bible verse or two, or my personal favorite simply invent a story about the past biblical figures, and use these to justify their wrong that they wanted to do anyway, but it is illogical to say that the system is making them do wrong that they otherwise would not commit.
Tony Steed wrote: “2) Religious politics is one of the problems of our time…”
Define “religious politics.” Just because someone who subscribes to a particular religion makes a political stance, it does not mean that stance is automatically endorsed by the tenants of their faith, no matter how much they may wish to interpret it as such. Those who have that opinion about politics are ‘sheep’ in their own right and believe it for no other reason than because the like-minded believe it.
Tony Steed wrote: “…along with term limits. people vote religion when they vote in politics along with finance. But people who vote tend to vote for the same guys who share their religion instead of the best interests of the community.”
Everybody votes for their own interests, for the issues that mean the most to them, whether we’re talking religion or not.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “3) i LOVE when people bring up Mao and Stalin, and Lenin, or whatever atheist boogeyman they can think of.”
You: “With religion off the equation 500 years ago. We'd probably be on other worlds right now, arguing over resources. But no one killing in the name of some deity.”
Me: “In the name of which deity were the millions of people killed during the two World Wars? What about the millions and millions of people slaughtered under the atheist communist regimes of Mao, Stalin and Lenin?”
You said that if there were no religions that no one would have been killed “in the name of some deity.” I asked what deity’s name were the hundreds of millions killed under the great communist regimes of the 20th century. The answer of course is “None.” In other words – since you seem confused on this point – that without religion human beings would kill each other anyway despite your obviously false claims to the contrary.
Tony Steed wrote: “But it's always those three…”
You know why it’s always those three? Because more people died under their modern-progressive Godless regimes than all the “religious wars” combined. Can you see why that would be relevant?
Tony Steed wrote: “Those dictators you mention didn't kill because they were atheist…”
So? That’s wasn’t why I mentioned them. Try to stay on topic. To recap: You said that if there was no religion 500 years ago, no one would be killed in the name of some deity. Meanwhile these three guys who didn’t believe in the deity slaughtered hundreds and hundreds of millions of people in the modern, post-Marxian era.
Tony Steed wrote: “…they killed because they were douchebags.”
So let me get this straight: human beings without religion can be douchebags who commit great wrong upon other humans just because they feel like it. Thank you for making my point for me.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “The Eugenics movement was horrible, especially since a lot of it happened in North Carolina.”
lol Oh, is THAT why it is horrible? smh lol
Tony Steed wrote: “The myth about blacks has it's roots in religion.”
The myth about blacks has its roots in attempts to justify wrong doing to others with alternate and fraudulent interpretations of the text. Originally Ham was cursed because he preferred slave-like behavior (squatting on the land of others instead of taking ownership of what his father had bequeathed to him), and only centuries later did the text change to saying all of his descendants would be coursed for more ambiguous reasons. In other words, the religion originally was black & white and clear about a non-racism based issue, and only raw politics changed it to racism and the people in power tried to force it into the religion itself.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “http://www.bubblews.com/.../3307223-g......”
This website you quoted regarding the ‘abortion in the bible’ claims was the worst one you posted. That guy is ignorant as hell on all points, and possesses zero understanding and insight on even the most basic level of scripture in a clumsy attempt to shoehorn it into his ideology (interesting was all of the folk saying “thanks for this!” in the comments, proving that raw stupidity is actually a bottomless pit.) The part where he says the bible claims that children under a month old “are not even worth anything” even though it says clearly that they are worth 5 shekels. In modern Israel, their version of the shekel is worth only $0.27, but in biblical times it was worth significantly more and was used as a bartering material, not a minted coin, and could be silver, bronze or gold.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “A fetus is a fetus it is not a person according to the bible.”
Considering how much wealth is generated from these aborted unborn baby tissues and fluids that the unscrupulous medical industry doesn’t have to pay for (in fact, they actually get the suppliers to pay THEM to take that highly-valuable raw material from them), only the MOST ignorant people actually think this is a religious topic.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Numbers 5:21-28 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath…”
This is not an abortion ritual. The point of it is to conflict the woman who had been accused of adultery but denies it. It’s letting her know that a curse will be on her if she is lying. The ‘heaviness’ of the ritual is supposed to weigh upon her, and if her conscious is still potent, she will eventually confess her sins.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed posted: “Numbers 3:15-1615 List the sons of Levi, by fathers' houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.”
Tell me this: Why would they list younger children in the census when the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) was so high in those days? Hm?
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Steed wrote: “Not everything about morality came from the bible.”
All morality came from religion. It didn’t pop into the world by itself, but was specifically birthed from religious philosophy.
Tony Steed wrote: “There were moral people FAR before there was religious doctrine.”
There has ALWAYS been religious doctrine among us. It defines our humanity, and is what civilized us in the first place.
Tony Steed wrote: “Every single religious person is agnostic towards another religion where they have their own beliefs of morals. There are countries and cultures who've NEVER heard of Jesus or Mohammed, and live just fine.”
That’s a strawman. Those two weren’t the only messengers of God. If you truly studied the religions you claimed to study then you would know that, unless atheists mean something different when they say the word “study.”
Tony Steed wrote: “Humans develop morals so that we don't be douchebags to each other…”
So without religion, we wouldn’t have morals, and we thus wouldn’t have anything to check our douchebaggery? Interesting…
Tony Steed wrote: “@Brian Wenger… Lol, one of the benefits of having spent much of my life as a Christian and having read the book…”
I’m skeptical of you having bothered to read it.
Tony Steed wrote: “…and having read the Koran when I ‘rebelled…’"
And there’s no way you read THAT. Not a single one of your posts have given away a hint that you have.
Tony Steed wrote: “As an Atheist I need to know what i'm talking about”
So when does that part start kicking in?

The Mayweather Arrogance: Real or Projected Haterade?

Salvant Breaux - I really would like to know how much of the Floyd hatred and rhetoric do you guys think comes from the fact that he is a young rich Black Man from the hood with limited education and yet he possesses exceptional business savvy......it's just a question and a thought that kinda jumped in my mind that has to do with the money aspect. ..not saying it's true but it's just a question
Keenan Reeves - That's exactly the reason
Joe Pounds - I think for some people that is the real reason why they dislike Floyd. I think for others that "I got money" schtick gets old after a while.
Kyle Richard - It's really not. It's his attitude; his overall behavior. It's not because he's black and does well for himself. I don't think he's ever been able to shake his heel image. Sometimes he's eloquent in interviews, other times he sounds ignorant and immature. He burns money. He's been accused several times of abusing women. He talks a lot of shit... and, of course, he's constantly accused of ducking opponents.
David Howard - You absolute prick.
Pete De Prince - I think more of it comes from over prideful phillipinos and butthurt pac fans. Almost every boxer has came from very little and a good majority are black. People will get on Floyd's case for being a cocky douchebag then praise fighters like Ali, naz, rjj and so on. Pure hypocrisy.
Salvant Breaux - @Keenan I'm not gonna go that far but I'm starting to think it plays a larger role then most expect it does on a very subconscious level
Kyle Richard - It's not because he's black.
Brandon Stewart - I think his bad ass...
David Howard - Why would anyone respond to this crap with a serious reply? It warrants nothing.
Salvant Breaux - Okay this is not about Floyd vs. Manny not at all this is about the fact that NO MATTER who he fights they always talk about how much much he is making it always no matter what boils down to how much he is making and and how little the other guy gets...it always comes doe to the business aspect.... the only reason that you hear the business aspect of it is because Floyd is a young black guy who learned that he didn't need a promoter and because of that he doesn't have an extra pair of hands in his pocket so they wanna say he is greedy but in reality if he had the promoter he would ask for the split that's he wants and he would get it but he would be splitting the cash with someone else and that's the problem he cut out the middle man and they can't stand to see all that money going to Floyd but it would still be the same amount they just don't like taking a beating in the boardroom from a young black dude
Tom Kavanagh - I agree with Kyle Richard
Charlie Hustle - People loved Ali, Tyson, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns. All black, all talk trash, all fly & flashy in their own way. The difference is that they put up or shut up.
Keenan Reeves - David Howard if you don't like the topic don't fucking comment
Keenan Reeves - Floyd Mayweather sells entertainment that's why he makes so much money you either love him or hate him. but at the end of the day you watch him.
Craig McClary - @Charlie Hustle…Ray Leonard was way worse. He ducked hagler way more than may ducked pac so he never put up and shut upSalvant Breaux - Never mind I thought I could have an honest thoughtful conversation in here about boxing politics and race and see what people thought it wasn't about race I'm using this in concert with something more subliminal. ..but the intelligence , honesty or open mindedness doesn't allow for this kind of thought provoking paradigm shift in here.....I just find it funny that all these leagues NFL, NBA, MLB, Not to mention soccer in other countries but all these black millionaires in here leagues and no minority owners and Jay-Z and the rest don't count....but when we look at the world's highest paid athlete he is considered selfish, greedy, Arrogant and he is all of those things it's his personality...but when we talk about is business acumen we go back to our overall hatred of him and his personality flaws...and never consider that he wants more money because he is acting as fighter and promoter. ...he deserves that on both ends
Keenan Reeves - Salvant Breaux your right
Adam Corley-Jabbar - Charlie Hustle put it best. Although I do think it has alot to do with his current fighting style. .people tend to forget he took all the tough fights at super featherweight. Corrales n manfredy wer genuine 50-50 fights not to mention genaro hernandez rip. He just won so easily it takes away from his legacy that they weren't tougher fights..also the inability to get the Pacquaio fight done hurts his popularity...hes fought plenty of excellent fighters and thrashed alot of them. ..if they'd been wars and had to come back from adversity he'd of got more respect.
Kyle Richard - @Salvant Breaux I see where you're coming from, and that's an interesting point.
Joe Pounds - He is definitely an intelligent businessman no question about that.But I can also see how some dont care for him and those folks have good reason.
Charlie Hustle - I agree with that about Hagler Craig McClary. That's the one a asterisk I have for Leonard. He waited too long to take that fight and I'm still torn on the outcome. Leonard throwing pitter pat flurries at the :10 mark doesn't do it for me.
Van Cleef - I have absolutely no problem with his success, in fact he's set an excellent example for all athletes on how to market yourself and be successful at it. I also think he's one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time. But with that said, I find his personality absolutely classless. There's a lot of people with a lot more money than him who don't brag and boast about it.
Craig McClary - He also ducked aaron pryor throughout his career also
Tallahassee Hancock - Hes an asshole who beats women. He's a coward. And that had nothing to do with being black or rich.
Keenan Reeves - @Adam Corley-Jabbar I agree with you. But he did have his fair share of wars and overcame adversities in a number of fights
Tommy Munro - HE is not an intelligent businessman....only thing he decides is what cars he wants to buy with his play money...there is a very expensive & financially competent team in the backround making ALL of Floyds business decisions.
Adam Corley-Jabbar - @Keenan Reeves u right but people have selective memory considering floyds career. Chavez, Augustus, Hatton just 3 that spring to mind
Keenan Reeves - @Tommy Munro he'll be the first to tell you he has a great team behind him
Keenan Reeves - @Adam Corley-Jabbar …mosley, judah, corley, midiana 2
Jasper Driver - Al Haymon is more hated than Floyd because he has got boxing by the balls
Salvant Breaux - But he didn't have that team in place when he decided to ditch Uncle Bob....but hey it was just a point that came to mind people went too far like I said this was just a hypothesis. ....based on his level of perceived greed when it comes to how much he makes for his fights that's allPatrick Merkel - It's because the "money" thing is old as the hills. Floyd, we get you like and have money. Everyone likes money. You can talk about something else once in a while.
Ian Holmes - @Salvant Breaux That's exactly what it is!!
David Howard - Keenan Reeves, why bring race into it? And I'll comment on anything I wish.
Feel free to pipe down bitch and fuck off.
Or did I only say that to you because you're black? Absolutely ridiculous question.
Is there anything else we can pull the race card on?
Salvant Breaux - my question isn't about his fights, it isn't about his personal shit outside the ring I'm asking what do people think about his business savvy having to do with his hate and how he is painted as being greedy
Patrick Merkel - I like Floyd and he's earned his money and can live anyway he wants. Most of the hate is in his own mind used a motivational tool.
Charlie Hustle - @Salvant Breaux......bruh, next time be direct about what you want to discus. Peoples feelings on an individual fighter vs the politics of sports is two completely different conversations.
Natasha Olleia - For me, none. My vitriol comes from the fact that he is a woman-beater and a narcissistic pig.
David K A Roulland - Beating women and acting like an arrogant prick, always makes me dislike someone for some reason. I dont give a fuck what country people are from, what race they are, or what economic status they grew up in , some people are pricks, and some people are good, I think most people think in the same way.
Patrick Merkel - Before he became "money may weather" he was more likeable I would say. Maybe the money changed his personality
Salvant Breaux - @David Howard it is so very unfortunate that your limited evel of intellectual ability won't allow you to understand the nature of this conversation. ...the race card hasn't been pulled I asked a question regarding race, as it pertains to social stratification and ones ability to accept individual outcomes outside of those perceived roles
Mike Fortson - Why's it always gotta go to the race card. People don't like Floyd because he's a dick NOT because he's black SMDH
Charlie Hustle - Boxing fans want good fights. We don't really care how they get done.
Wayne Smith - Lots of Top Business Men .. Are not very good with letters .. But Extremely good with numbers ..
Charlie Hustle - Everything is political and involves money. Floyd changed the game and some people can't stand it, but it probably has more to do with promoters not getting their hands on his money than it being a personal issue.
Salvant Breaux - @Patrick Merkel when PBF came to welterweight he couldn't get any more fights they started ducking him so he became the man in the black hat in order to see the fights...but I'm not starting that conversation on this thread some of you people can't be objective for shit
Salvant Breaux - @Charlie Hustle that's my point the fact that the promoters out out so much bullshit about his greed stems from the fact that he is walking away with more money then them and they can't stand it
Patrick Merkel - Ok, but what does that have to do with the fans? We aren't promoters? He isn't taking my money.
Cynthia Marcoux - @Salvant Breaux How can you be objective while you're pretending to know that they started ducking him? Were you behind the scene as they were negociating?
Charlie Hustle - I can't say its race tho', Salvant Breaux. Old money always hates new money because they missed the boat. If he was a young white boxer taking money out of their pocket & had the same attitude, they would hate him too.
Mel Turner - Has absolutely nothing to do with him being a rich Black Man!!! dont know why you have to bring the race issue into it?!! Personally I dont understand how everyone can support a guy who has a big track record in beating up women and in the case where he ended up in prison for it...threatened two of his kids he claims to love!! Even forgetting the guys arrogance, he is just an obnoxious, unpleasant bloke.
Salvant Breaux - @Cynthia Marcoux I know what came out of their mouths.....they ducked him Oscar, Shane, Kostya Tszyu...not to mention the Prince and Stevie Johns
Salvant Breaux - @Charlie old.money damn sure don't like niggas with new money....ijs
Patrick Merkel - Holyfield was a very rich black fighter who was beloved. I believe it's more Floyd's attitude. As I stated before his persona doesn't really bother me.
Salvant Breaux - @Mel Turner your missing my point bro I'm not bring race into it you need to read further into the thread I explained it pretty conciselyPatrick Merkel - If I had Floyd's money you can bet I wouldn't be driving a Camry either.. My suits would be custom made too. Maybe I am part black? :P
Salvant Breaux - everybody loved Pretty Boy Floyd the Olympian. ...ijs
Wayne Smith - Unfortunately when the get that rich .. They lose touch with reality .. Mike Tyson .. Michael Jackson etc
Salvant Breaux - Patrick you're such an arse bwahahahahahahaha
Patrick Merkel - hahahaha Nice cars and nice clothes would be part of the deal
David Howard - Yes Salvant, my "limited evel"
My limited what??
Keenan Reeves - @David Howard maybe you think all people from the "HOOD" are pricks white, black, Asian etc.
Mike Fortson - How'd he duck Oscar I'm sure they fought
Mike Fortson - How'd Oscar duck him rather
Ian Holmes - @Wayne Smith depends how u look at it.. That's their reality!
David Howard - No not all, I myself am from the hood, born in Mexico, raised in L.A.
Well, born and raised in England, but that's pretty similar, right??
Tommy Munro - His success is undenyable....but its the arrogance (not the confidence....the arrogance) that has made him so many haters. And i dont think race is a factor (but i´m not from the US so i cant gauge the feeling there)
Salvant Breaux - you guys missed the point. ....and Oscar ducked him for what over 5 yrs and Shane for like 8 yeah ijs
Salvant Breaux - Kyle Richard is the only person to see where I was TRYING to go with this post.....you guys took it other places
Tom Kavanagh - Well i think you got a definitive answer don't you?
Patrick Merkel - I think I missed the point
Salvant Breaux - Patrick nope actually you're pretty funny...can I have a BMW please and a tailor made sharks skin suit or two
Jerry Landry - So sick of these bullshit, blame race for people not liking floyd, plenty of young rich black dudes from the hood in boxing and other sports and yet floyd is the one who gets the hatred . Figure it out yourself
Patrick Merkel - Sure. I think Floyd is in Aston Martin territory now. BMW is for the common man lol
Brandon Cavanaugh - Grand rapids aint the hood js
Salvant Breaux - @Jerry Landry that's not the question I'm asking .....smmfh....why don't you read it again...smmfh
Patrick Merkel - Grand Rapids has a black section
Brandon Cavanaugh - I knowi just was there last weekend
Tommy Munro - @Salvant...over 75 comments....you said only 1 (Kyle) has understood?....could it be that the problem is the ambiguity of the question itself?...or are you just too clever for all of us?
Patrick Merkel - Well Brandon it looked hood to me when I was there.
Salvant Breaux - Grand Rapids is very racially segregated I lived there most of my life
Salvant Breaux - Tommy Munro maybe if you go back and read my comments again it won't be so ambiguous
Tommy Munro - Thats what you´ve told about 15 others on this thread.....how many more before you edit it?
Salvant Breaux - either they are incredibly stupid or have poor comprehensive skills why is it that one person got it and the rest didn't. ....or is it the fact that when race is brought up people automatically become hyper defensive about their views
Jerry Landry - @Salvant Breaux because your constant looking for excuses other than the dude is an ass , as to why floyd is not liked is weak at best. floyds race , lack of education and business savy have nothing to do with fans feelings for floyd. first of all business savy is not something you learn in school so his education dosen't come into play, nor does his race. like i already said floyd is not the only black athlete from the hood with poor education who is business savy, yet he is the one people hate. signs are all there yet you are the only one who can't see them. so smh smh right back at ya rev al.
Keenan Reeves - Everybody likes to talk about how much of an ass he is but he has some good qualities too
Muhammad Rasheed - It's a double-standard that is cultural as reflected in the mainstream. I strongly suspect it is part of the American racism legacy. If a black man doesn't act humble and downplay his skills/talents, the mainstream refers to him as "arrogant." The exact same behavior in a white celebrity is not treated the same way.
For example, the "showboating" dance that is normal for fighters who rely on counter-striking -- obviously they do it to goad the opponent into attacking so they can take advantage of the opening. When blacks do it it's called "arrogance," and solicits instant boos from the white audience, but when white athletes do it it's called "goading the opponent into attacking so they can take advantage of the opening," and considered "smart" and "intelligent" strategy.
Salvant Breaux - They missing the point I wasn't even talking about the personal aspects of his personality I was talking about his perceived GREAT and the dislike of him...say what you might but he is the only black from a bad neighborhood with little education that calls his own shots and doesn't have promoters agents etc dipping in his pockets and I think that plays into it a little bit more than we know when it comes to the media persona given to his business side
Jerry Landry - lmao at people alays looking for deeper meaning into why floyd isn't liked. some celebrities are assholes and people dont like them for any other reason than the fact that they are assholes.
Muhammad Rasheed - There's nothing wrong with Floyd's attitude. He gets more crap for his "arrogance" than Andrew Golota got for being a complete jackass. Double-standards.
Keenan Reeves - Jerry Landry are you racist?
Salvant Breaux - Never fucking mind you bring up race and people get upset. ..smmfh. ....that's why this country won't heal because people can't be honest about the racial bias that still exists. ..that's all I'm saying if he had asked for a 60/40 or even a 70/30 deal and he had a promoter this fight would have been made a long ass time ago....because they wouldn't care about the bulk of the money going to Floyd because the promoter gets his cut out of that....but when there is all that money going essentially to one person that's why it's a problem especially a young arrogant black with no education. ...ijs.....rich whites have made their money for a long time off of this game and Floyd cut them.out and because of it he is the highest paid athlete every damn year tour missing the subtleties of what I'm trying to convey all you see is that I said one word BLACK
Jerry Landry - oh i get it now floyd is hated because hes a black dude who dosent let people dip in his pockets.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Landry wrote: "lmao at people alays looking for deeper meaning into why floyd isn't liked. some celebrities are assholes and people dont like them for any other reason than the fact that they are assholes."
There’s always a reason. Your penchant for wanting to superstitiously chalk it up to 'magic' doesn't mean there isn't an actual psychological reason behind why certain people respond to certain people the way they do.
Salvant Breaux - ^^^^Bingo^^^^ Muhammad
Jerry Landry - this country wont heal because people like you always crying wolf, seeing racism when it;s not there kind of makes us not see it when it is there.
Salvant Breaux - Jerry it's ALWAYS here
Salvant Breaux - It's never left
Muhammad Rasheed - @Salvant... Whites like to pretend that they are the good guys in the story, so they hate when the 'race' thing comes up and forces them to look at the reality of the issue. They will never admit to what an objective view reveals as patently obvious.
Jerry Landry - its not there in this case
Keenan Reeves - Jerry Landry is a racist!!!! point blank period
Jerry Landry - @Muhammad Rasheed. the fact that what you wrote is well written dosen't make what you are saying any less ridiculous.
Jerry Landry - Keenan Reeves is a complete fucking idiot, point blank period.
Salvant Breaux - people like you think Zimmerman wasn't guilty because he defended himself from an attack...and so he stood his ground...what happened to Trayvon right to stand his ground on a cold rainy night at the age of 17 being followed by someone he doesn't know he takes off running and the guy starts running as well...doesn't he have a right to defend himself...NO he doesn't cause he is dead and the man who killed him walked free...warming to anybody don't ever follow me home cause I fight exceptionally well and I carry registered .45
Keenan Reeves - Lol
Keenan Reeves - Jerry Landry lmao at least I'm not a racist
Jerry Landry - oh chris get off your fucking soap box sal this is a boxing thread, now you wanna bring trayvon into a floyd discussion.
Keenan Reeves - Jerry Landry You have to live with the fact that you have hate in your heart not me
Jerry Landry - oh chris get off your fucking soap box sal this is a boxing thread, now you wanna bring trayvon into a floyd discussion.
Keenan Reeves - Jerry Landry You have to live with the fact that you have hate in your heart not me
Jerry Landry - hates a little strong kennan, i dont hate floyd just don't like what know of him. never met him and never will so i can only go by what he shows the public and what he shows the public is an asshole, just the fact that the dude can't even hold on to his own friends tells me something.
Tommy Munro - ....and the winner is:....Charles Greaves.. who correctly predicted where this thread was going to end up...Well Done.
Salvant Breaux - Jerry you know I have to stir the pot in order to get your brain working on all cylinders my dear friend I'm trying to get you to start looking at things differently
Muhammad Rasheed - lol @ Tommy
Muhammad Rasheed - @Salvant - GOOD LUCK!
Muhammad Rasheed - smh
Salvant Breaux - this is NOT where Charles Greaves thought the thread was going. ....I KNOW where he thought it was going I'm steering rather well follow me Tommy you might learn something
Jerry Landry - and keenan im not one of those white boys who folds the minute a black dude calls me a racist, im not one but it dosen't bother me even a little bit if you or anyone thinks i am. im not going to do the dance so many other whites do to defend that accusation.
Muhammad Rasheed - ^He's the kind that shoves his fingers in his ears and thinks happy thoughts...
David Howard - The Carlton dance?
Keenan Reeves - Jerry you know what you are
Salvant Breaux - Jerry Landry is not racist not by any stretch of the imagination. ...a little ummm jaded maybe ever so slightly and definitely stubborn but not a racist and he doesn't fold
Jerry Landry - i know what u are keenan, and thats what really counts.
Muhammad Rasheed – ^(the n-word…?)
Jerry Landry - Muhammad Rasheed shoves his fingers in his ears and uses race as an exuse and a reason for everything and anything.
Muhammad Rasheed - In America it almost IS the reason for any and everything.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's our number one export.
Jerry Landry - so move then
Muhammad Rasheed - Why?
Jerry Landry - why what?
Muhammad Rasheed - Why should I move because you advised it?
Salvant Breaux - jeeze now you guys are going to far
Salvant Breaux - I'm gonna delete the thread if you can't calm it down
Jerry Landry - im not advisng anything , your more than welcome here , just seems if i felt the way you do i would move. when i go to a party or a club and it sucks i leave, sounds to me like you think america sucks .
Muhammad Rasheed - Why do you assume that my being willing to talk about the race issue means I want to leave my country?
Muhammad Rasheed - You don't find that unreasonable?
Muhammad Rasheed - Should I advise you to leave America every time you complain about any of your pet peeves? How would I sound?
Muhammad Rasheed - Is that a preprogrammed thing to say to black people when they talk about something that makes you feel uncomfortable? "Go back to Africa?"
That's a racist trait, Jerry. Don't do that, please.
Jerry Landry - my pet peeves have nothing to with america, sounds like yours do.
Muhammad Rasheed - So you admit "racism" is an American thing, hm?
Salvant Breaux - I sounds to me like the global perspective from everyone is that America sucks...ijs
Muhammad Rasheed - America is great, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have pros & cons like everywhere else.
Patrick Merkel - Racism is a worldwide thing
Muhammad Rasheed - Who else goes around telling people to "so move" whenever they vent about a pet grievance?
I only know one demographic that routinely does that to a certain other demographic on a specific topic.
Muhammad Rasheed - Patrick Merkel wrote: "Racism is a worldwide thing"
I know. I said it was America's number one export. It spread faster as the world began to shrink with the rise of the telecommunications tech.
Jerry Landry - you fell for the trap i set, Muhammad Rasheed i am deeply disapointed in you, i knew when i said leave you would twist it into go back to africa even though i never once mentioned africa. you are so brainwashed with your racial bullshit that you put words and thoughts into my mouth that were not there. get your fucking head out of the sand muhamad , stop twisting everything into race. iv'e said the same thing to white people who bitch about the country, i say the same thing to coworkers who bitch about our job. stop putting words into my mouth muhamad thats a racist trait dont do that please. and no i dont admit that racism is an american thing you are the one who said its our number one export. and if you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that racism is not exlusive to america it's a worldwide thing.and it didn;t stary here
Jerry Landry - im out love to sit here all day and debate race but i thought this was a boxing site , but there are always spammers pushing their agenda , i i wanted to debate this bullshit i would join a political or social site.
Charles Greaves - Holy shit! You leave the internet for a few hours and look what happens. Hahahaha. I knew this would go down the tubes.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Landry wrote: “you fell for the trap i set, Muhammad Rasheed”
Am I supposed to believe you know what a trap is?
Jerry Landry wrote: “i am deeply disapointed in you…”
In a person you don’t know from Adam? Really? How does that work?
Jerry Landry wrote: “i knew when i said leave you would twist it into go back to africa even though i never once mentioned africa.”
When a certain demographic tells a certain other demographic to “so move” when the latter makes them uncomfortable on a specific topic, it has always meant “go back to Africa.” Every single time.
Jerry Landry wrote: “you are so brainwashed with your racial bullshit…”
No. I’m brainwashed with your peoples’ racial bullshit. You invented it, remember? Chattel slavery delegated to one particular race was your idea inflicted on me. Did you forget so soon?
Jerry Landry wrote: “…that you put words and thoughts into my mouth that were not there.”
They’re always there. Don’t be silly. It’s me.
Jerry Landry wrote: “…get your fucking head out of the sand muhamad”
Of all the people you “know,” Jerry, I’m the one who doesn’t have his head in the sand.
Jerry Landry wrote: “…people , stop twisting everything into race.”
Do you know what it’s called when the racially privileged class tells the racially disenfranchised class that? Racism. Get your head out of the sand.
Jerry Landry wrote: “iv'e said the same thing to white people who bitch about the country…”
lol And I’m sure it sounded just as intelligent as you sound in this thread, too. hahahaha
Jerry Landry wrote: “…i say the same thing to coworkers who bitch about our job. stop putting words into my mouth muhamad thats a racist trait dont do that please.”
Then try harder to say what you actually mean.  ;)  [trap set]
Jerry Landry wrote: “and no i dont admit that racism is an american thing”
Yes, you did. #integrityCheck
Jerry Landry wrote: “you are the one who said its our number one export.”
It is. Ask me how.
Jerry Landry wrote: “…and if you were half as smart as you think…”
???
Are you peeking at me as we take a piss at the urinals? EYES FRONT, F*CKER!
Jerry Landry wrote: “…you are you would know that racism is not exlusive to america it's a worldwide thing.”
Of course, because America exported it out to the rest of the world. That’s the third “export” reference thus far. Do y’all even know what “export” means? geez…
Salvant Breaux - Charles Greaves swear I thought I could contain it
Muhammad Rasheed - Boxing is inherently racially polarized. Just let it go, dude. lol
Tom Kavanagh - Boxing is universal kid wake up
Charles Greaves - Hahaha. It's all good, Salvant. It was a pipe dream, my friend.
Muhammad Rasheed - Universally polarized by race & ethnicity.
Salvant Breaux - Muhammad swear I love you......omg we will have sooooooooooooooooooooo much fun on my page
Muhammad Rasheed  - :D
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Tom Kavanagh - You got issues Muhammad...

Tommy Munro - Sooooo....lets round this one up guys: Who´s better...Blacks or Whites?
Muhammad Rasheed - I LOOOVE it when mental midgets call me retarded.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's AWESOME.
Charles Greaves - AAAAANNND DONE!
Muhammad Rasheed - lol @ Tommy (again)
Salvant Breaux - we are all human
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry is human?
Muhammad Rasheed - I think I'd need to see some papers...