Terrorism

[KSMountain]

I have never been called a preacher before! That is awesome! Thank you. I can’t wait to tell my wife (seriously).

I did not say all muslims are violent Arraya, and I don’t believe that. I know and love people of many faiths and no faith.

But I did quote someone who wrote “Islam has bloody borders”. And if you research that quote you will find that it is well-substantiated by *fact*, inconvenient and surprising as you may find that.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.[/quote]

haha…

You can’t argue the preacher, he is a man of deep deep faith. He stands upon the mountain and decrees muslims not pure if they do not embrace violence.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.[/quote]

haha…

You can’t argue the preacher, he is a man of deep deep faith. He stands upon the mountain and decrees muslims not pure if they do not embrace violence.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.[/quote]

haha…

You can’t argue the preacher, he is a man of deep deep faith. He stands upon the mountain and decrees muslims not pure if they do not embrace violence.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.[/quote]

haha…

You can’t argue the preacher, he is a man of deep deep faith. He stands upon the mountain and decrees muslims not pure if they do not embrace violence.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.[/quote]

haha…

You can’t argue the preacher, he is a man of deep deep faith. He stands upon the mountain and decrees muslims not pure if they do not embrace violence.

[KSMountain]

Arraya I didn’t notice surveyor preaching much.

It seemed like a lot of passages he excerpted were *muslim* interpretations of the responsibilities of the faith – NOT *his* interpretations.

In response to a wide variety of quotes about Islam, you posted something about Fort Hood conspiracy theories. Kinda weak.

Then you went all ad hominem on the guy. Also a sign of inability to defend your position.

Here’s what I would find persuasive: show me something where actual leaders in the islamic world (preferably some not in the U.S.) are denouncing the violence, and saying “that’s not Islam”. Or, “that’s an old and archaic islam with no relevance to today”. I know *you’re* saying that, but I’d like to hear some leaders with some real influence and heft saying that to their constituents.

You got some of that? You post some of that and then I think you would be making a valid debate, rather than just namecalling.

[KSMountain]

Arraya I didn’t notice surveyor preaching much.

It seemed like a lot of passages he excerpted were *muslim* interpretations of the responsibilities of the faith – NOT *his* interpretations.

In response to a wide variety of quotes about Islam, you posted something about Fort Hood conspiracy theories. Kinda weak.

Then you went all ad hominem on the guy. Also a sign of inability to defend your position.

Here’s what I would find persuasive: show me something where actual leaders in the islamic world (preferably some not in the U.S.) are denouncing the violence, and saying “that’s not Islam”. Or, “that’s an old and archaic islam with no relevance to today”. I know *you’re* saying that, but I’d like to hear some leaders with some real influence and heft saying that to their constituents.

You got some of that? You post some of that and then I think you would be making a valid debate, rather than just namecalling.

[KSMountain]

Arraya I didn’t notice surveyor preaching much.

It seemed like a lot of passages he excerpted were *muslim* interpretations of the responsibilities of the faith – NOT *his* interpretations.

In response to a wide variety of quotes about Islam, you posted something about Fort Hood conspiracy theories. Kinda weak.

Then you went all ad hominem on the guy. Also a sign of inability to defend your position.

Here’s what I would find persuasive: show me something where actual leaders in the islamic world (preferably some not in the U.S.) are denouncing the violence, and saying “that’s not Islam”. Or, “that’s an old and archaic islam with no relevance to today”. I know *you’re* saying that, but I’d like to hear some leaders with some real influence and heft saying that to their constituents.

You got some of that? You post some of that and then I think you would be making a valid debate, rather than just namecalling.

[KSMountain]

Arraya I didn’t notice surveyor preaching much.

It seemed like a lot of passages he excerpted were *muslim* interpretations of the responsibilities of the faith – NOT *his* interpretations.

In response to a wide variety of quotes about Islam, you posted something about Fort Hood conspiracy theories. Kinda weak.

Then you went all ad hominem on the guy. Also a sign of inability to defend your position.

Here’s what I would find persuasive: show me something where actual leaders in the islamic world (preferably some not in the U.S.) are denouncing the violence, and saying “that’s not Islam”. Or, “that’s an old and archaic islam with no relevance to today”. I know *you’re* saying that, but I’d like to hear some leaders with some real influence and heft saying that to their constituents.

You got some of that? You post some of that and then I think you would be making a valid debate, rather than just namecalling.

[KSMountain]

Arraya I didn’t notice surveyor preaching much.

It seemed like a lot of passages he excerpted were *muslim* interpretations of the responsibilities of the faith – NOT *his* interpretations.

In response to a wide variety of quotes about Islam, you posted something about Fort Hood conspiracy theories. Kinda weak.

Then you went all ad hominem on the guy. Also a sign of inability to defend your position.

Here’s what I would find persuasive: show me something where actual leaders in the islamic world (preferably some not in the U.S.) are denouncing the violence, and saying “that’s not Islam”. Or, “that’s an old and archaic islam with no relevance to today”. I know *you’re* saying that, but I’d like to hear some leaders with some real influence and heft saying that to their constituents.

You got some of that? You post some of that and then I think you would be making a valid debate, rather than just namecalling.

[Arraya]

Ok, I went over this ALL before.

We already went round and round where I countered all his points.

All he has are interpretations, which by definition, does not make it universal.

If you want to argue A LOT, sure it’s a relative term though.

You can make the same arguments about other forms of religion.

Which I did according to the criteria set forth by the preacher. He ignored my data that showed other religions preaching violence according to scripture. Which is being done today. They are also interpretations that I do not place on a religion as a whole.

I am not going to rehash it. But there are plenty of religious scholars in christianity and judaism that preach violence. More so in Judaism when done in a population ratio basis.

You can go back to the first few pages if you wish and see my examples.

He is decreeing that violence in Islam has to be adhered to via scripture. And his interpretations are real and universal and others are not. That is what preachers do, plain and simple. He is preaching his interpretations are real and others are not..

It’s a circular argument based on HIS and OTHERS interpretations. UR did a good job debunking his Islam argument piece by piece.

I debunked his claim that it did not go on in other religions according to his criteria

His only argument was NO IT IS UNIVERSAL BECAUSE I READ IT. He is preaching. I’m done with the discussion because has reached absurdity. Hence my poking fun at his preaching. Which he is doing, by definition.

He is a preaching the true Islam according to surveyor, which he took from others. His true islam according to scripture. But not other scripture.

He is by definition, insane. Claiming one true truth because he interpreted a certain way.

[Arraya]

Ok, I went over this ALL before.

We already went round and round where I countered all his points.

All he has are interpretations, which by definition, does not make it universal.

If you want to argue A LOT, sure it’s a relative term though.

You can make the same arguments about other forms of religion.

Which I did according to the criteria set forth by the preacher. He ignored my data that showed other religions preaching violence according to scripture. Which is being done today. They are also interpretations that I do not place on a religion as a whole.

I am not going to rehash it. But there are plenty of religious scholars in christianity and judaism that preach violence. More so in Judaism when done in a population ratio basis.

You can go back to the first few pages if you wish and see my examples.

He is decreeing that violence in Islam has to be adhered to via scripture. And his interpretations are real and universal and others are not. That is what preachers do, plain and simple. He is preaching his interpretations are real and others are not..

It’s a circular argument based on HIS and OTHERS interpretations. UR did a good job debunking his Islam argument piece by piece.

I debunked his claim that it did not go on in other religions according to his criteria

His only argument was NO IT IS UNIVERSAL BECAUSE I READ IT. He is preaching. I’m done with the discussion because has reached absurdity. Hence my poking fun at his preaching. Which he is doing, by definition.

He is a preaching the true Islam according to surveyor, which he took from others. His true islam according to scripture. But not other scripture.

He is by definition, insane. Claiming one true truth because he interpreted a certain way.

[Arraya]

Ok, I went over this ALL before.

We already went round and round where I countered all his points.

All he has are interpretations, which by definition, does not make it universal.

If you want to argue A LOT, sure it’s a relative term though.

You can make the same arguments about other forms of religion.

Which I did according to the criteria set forth by the preacher. He ignored my data that showed other religions preaching violence according to scripture. Which is being done today. They are also interpretations that I do not place on a religion as a whole.

I am not going to rehash it. But there are plenty of religious scholars in christianity and judaism that preach violence. More so in Judaism when done in a population ratio basis.

You can go back to the first few pages if you wish and see my examples.

He is decreeing that violence in Islam has to be adhered to via scripture. And his interpretations are real and universal and others are not. That is what preachers do, plain and simple. He is preaching his interpretations are real and others are not..

It’s a circular argument based on HIS and OTHERS interpretations. UR did a good job debunking his Islam argument piece by piece.

I debunked his claim that it did not go on in other religions according to his criteria

His only argument was NO IT IS UNIVERSAL BECAUSE I READ IT. He is preaching. I’m done with the discussion because has reached absurdity. Hence my poking fun at his preaching. Which he is doing, by definition.

He is a preaching the true Islam according to surveyor, which he took from others. His true islam according to scripture. But not other scripture.

He is by definition, insane. Claiming one true truth because he interpreted a certain way.

[Arraya]

Ok, I went over this ALL before.

We already went round and round where I countered all his points.

All he has are interpretations, which by definition, does not make it universal.

If you want to argue A LOT, sure it’s a relative term though.

You can make the same arguments about other forms of religion.

Which I did according to the criteria set forth by the preacher. He ignored my data that showed other religions preaching violence according to scripture. Which is being done today. They are also interpretations that I do not place on a religion as a whole.

I am not going to rehash it. But there are plenty of religious scholars in christianity and judaism that preach violence. More so in Judaism when done in a population ratio basis.

You can go back to the first few pages if you wish and see my examples.

He is decreeing that violence in Islam has to be adhered to via scripture. And his interpretations are real and universal and others are not. That is what preachers do, plain and simple. He is preaching his interpretations are real and others are not..

It’s a circular argument based on HIS and OTHERS interpretations. UR did a good job debunking his Islam argument piece by piece.

I debunked his claim that it did not go on in other religions according to his criteria

His only argument was NO IT IS UNIVERSAL BECAUSE I READ IT. He is preaching. I’m done with the discussion because has reached absurdity. Hence my poking fun at his preaching. Which he is doing, by definition.

He is a preaching the true Islam according to surveyor, which he took from others. His true islam according to scripture. But not other scripture.

He is by definition, insane. Claiming one true truth because he interpreted a certain way.

[Author]

Posts