Message 37 of 182 (451600) 02-02-2004 2:39 PM

Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw 02-02-2004 2:05 PM

What little I can find about this book does not inspire confidence. So if thats all you've got I have to dismiss it as not being a credible source.

Message 41 of 182 (451604) 02-02-2004 6:24 PM

Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw 02-02-2004 5:28 PM

Add to that a recommendation from you - based on nothing more than the claims to accuracy made in the book itself - and the evidence favours the view that it is inaccurate - and likely dishonest - propagandam

Message 46 of 182 (451609) 02-02-2004 8:05 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw 02-02-2004 7:25 PM

I only point out that the book is obscure, hostile to its subject and promoted only by people either likely to be biased or most definitely biased. With no indication that the author has any significant credentials. And it was recommended by you - that's grounds for suspicion in itself.

If you can find an equivalent case of a pro-evolution book - then feel free to doubt it. But I doubt that you can find one that anybody here would care about.

And lets get this straight - it is YOUR job to do the research to back up YOUR claims. You didn't do it. And now you're telling me that you won't do it because it's somehow MY job ?

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-02-2004]

Message 53 of 182 (451616) 02-03-2004 3:17 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw 02-02-2004 11:11 PM

Are you capable of considerignthe quotes fairly. You're the one who said that Calvinism has nothing to do with Calvins writing saying that heretics should be executed. Do you apply that standard to these quotes ?

And why are you suggesting that it is wrong to question the accuracy of your source ? You said it was reliable but so far you havn't offered any real support for that. And the evidence I have found gives adequate reasons to suspect otherwise - indeed the fact that you are using t is adequate reaon to suspect otherwise. The fact is that you have already pushed one piece of anti-Islamic propaganda at us - ignored a contradiction within it even after it was pointed out to you and refused to accept that it might be wrong for a considerable time despite being unable to answer the objections. And you expect me to accept your word that THIS source is reliable when you have by your own admission done no reasonabel checks on it ?

So you say that it isn't obscure. But it's by a VERY small press, Amazon doesn't carry it very few sites mention it. It is obscure, and that's a fact.
How do I know it's hostile ? describing Islam as a deception and encouracging the conversion of Muslims hardly indicates a sympathetic view.
I've laready pointed out how a source can be unfair, biased and dishonest by relying on sources from the "other" side. If it is so fair and unbiased, does it let mainstream Muslim scholars have their say ? Does it allocate space to let them respond to the attacks made on their religion ?
As for your last remark you are encouraaged to read evolutionist material to learn the science because virutally ALL the relevant scineitic publications will be written by evolutionists. The equivalent book would be written by a genuine expert on Islam - and one who is at least moderately sympathetic. What you are *doing* is reading something that is likely to be equivalent to the infamous "quote boook" - a creationist collection of quotes framed so as to
mislead the reader.

You claimed that the book was a reliable source first. I asked YOU to support YOUR claim. You couldn't. SO what you are saying is that you don't have to d the research to support your claims - but anyone who challenges your claims does. Well you ran away from the discussion of the Olivet Discourse because you "didn't have time" to properly read the prophecy that YOU put forward as an example. Isn't it time that you held yourself to the same standard that you hold others ?

Oh and I did your Google search :

Your search - "Sahib of al-Bukhari" - did not match any documents.

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-03-2004]

Message 57 of 182 (451620) 02-03-2004 10:22 AM

Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw 02-03-2004 10:05 AM

Which shows that you hadn't tried it yourself - and still haven't.

Message 61 of 182 (451624) 02-03-2004 2:19 PM

Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw 02-03-2004 10:38 AM

He insisted that his disciples should arm themselves
"...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
(Luke 22:36)

He intended to bring strife to Judaea

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

He encouraged his followers to see martyrdom
"....he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39

He insisted that all who did not follow him were his enemies
"He that is not with me is against me..." Matthew 12:30

He even incited his followers to murder those who did not follow him
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

Some Christians will try to deceive you stating that this verse is part of apparable. But if you read it you will see that all the speech in the Parable is attributed to one or another character in the story. But Luke 19:26 starts instead "For I say unto you,...". Luke 19:26-7 is Jesus speaking for himself.

Message 69 of 182 (451632) 02-04-2004 2:36 AM

Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw 02-03-2004 7:55 PM

I specifically stated that I did NOT consider it to be "fair and balanced".

And the reason I said those things was so there would be no room for a genuine misunderstanding. So evasive resposnes could be clearly seen and noted.

And you evaded the point anyway.

And you didn't even do a good job with that. You didn't check Luke 22:36 in context. You've made it quite clear that you would reject readings similar to the one you put forward for Matthew 10:34. You use Matthew 10:39 to make an unsupported attack against Islam. You completely ignore the fact that Matthew 12:30 explicitly identifies everyone not on Jesus side as an enemy (including those who are not hostile but simply disagree) and your answer to Luke 19:27 was refuted in the post you are replying to !

So no, I wasn't afraid that you would refute them - and you didn't.
I WAS afraid that you would attack the quotes as a way of evading the real point - and you did.

Message 117 of 182 (451680) 02-10-2004 4:52 PM

Reply to: Message 115 by Dan Carroll 02-10-2004 4:29 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

And just for extra relevance to this forum Howard Ahmanson is both a former board member of the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation and major donor to the Discovery Institute