Warcraft II Forum
General => Moderated General Discussion => Play Pen-itentiary => Topic started by: tora is a simp bitch for billionaires on December 15, 2017, 05:16:13 PM
-
i thought the purpose of this forum was to limit actual trolling, not babying speech by removing curse words.
how can the word "shit" be a bannable offense while our own mod spams the the forums regularly with reactionary garbage? ;D
-
Let's think through your comment.
Currently there is the main forum, which you are still free to use, and the Moderated Section, which has standard forum rules that are used in many forums throughout the internet, especially child-friendly forums. This being a video game forum, where younger people are likely to venture, I think having a moderated section is a positive all around.
Now that you have made an infraction of the Moderated Section rules which have been posted for months, since September 20, 2017, and have received the ban prescribed by the rules, you complain that something "wrong" has happened.
Essentially, if we extrapolate, you are asserting that all people must communicate and operate according to the feelings of marx was right. No one should have the freedom to operate in a different way (ie. by having a forum with rules that regulate obscene speech).
I am not saying that all people must operate according to the feelings of BabyShark. The entire rest of the forum is almost completely without rules and you are still welcome to post there.
Therefore, I am more for freedom than you are, because you want to have people ONLY allowed to operate according to your personal feelings and opinions. I would like to see increased fairness in the rest of the forum, sure, but I'm not suggesting that the mods should or should not have certain particular rules, only that the rules should be enforced equally for all people for equal infractions.
If you found the forum rules objectionable, you should have started fighting the new forum rules the instant they appeared, and especially when others (including myself) succumbed to their authority, instead of waiting for the enforcement to be carried out toward you in particular.
You were already banned previously (under mousey's permaban system) and were granted mercy and given another chance.
At this point, the system is set so a person can regain entry after every ban until the 6th one. I think it's quite fair and not at all extreme.
Punitive Measures
1st offense: 1 week ban
2nd offense: 1 month ban
3rd offense: Permaban with exactly one chance for redemption via meaningful community service that will be approved by me
If a user is able to re-enter the Moderated Section through a community service activity that has been approved by me, they will go through the tiered ban system a second time, with no redemption possible at the 3rd stage permaban, which is essentially their 6th ban for repeated infractions.
I don't think that any wrong has occurred here, and in a week, you will be back in.
I have to enforce the rules for everyone.
And trolling (my definition of trolling would be play-lying for entertainment where no one is harmed) is actually not against the rules of this section.
I'll repost the rules here:
General Guidelines
Flaming is 100% disallowed in this section of the forum. Posters are encouraged to limit their posting here to substantive, conversationally ethical posts relevant to the topic of the thread & to express any disagreement they may have with any individual or stance in a coherent & respectful way. Other things which are highly discouraged & likely to result in punitive measures (determined on a case by case basis via the application of common sense) include: content that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, torturous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene*, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable or generally unlawful.*
*All forum users have an equal right to use the moderated section; prohibition of vulgarity/obscenity in this section does not extend to usernames, avatars or signatures.
The rest of the forum is still there, and you are able to engage in any topic in General Discussion or other section, as you prefer.
-
i'm not reading your trash. you're a bad moderator and should be removed.
-
Every post you make drives home further the truth that you are unable to engage in a reasonable way, by presenting a point of view with logical arguments and reasons.
It is exactly people like you that Adam J. Macleod is referring to, who are enslaved to feelings and react out of feelings and simply seem to be unable to think past the immediate feeling of the moment to give a reason for anything they say.
I have just explained reasons for everything I did. You can only respond with labels and/or anger.
The forums are wide open for you to express your viewpoint with reasons and explanations and rationale and logic, but you don't seem to have much to say, other than pointing an angry finger full of hate at anyone you happen to disagree with. BAD! BAD!
Why is it bad? Can you explain what you mean?
BAD! BAD! BAD!
Do you have anything to add?
BAD! BAD BAD BADBADBAD!
Oooooh kay then!
-
you're denying you're a bad moderator tho?
you spam alt-reich youtube videos.
-
Mousey made Babyshark moderator for the sole purpose of making the forums more active.
The fact she is an idiot who doesn't fit in modern society isn't really important.
She has done what mousetopher wanted.
-
you're denying you're a bad moderator tho?
you spam alt-reich youtube videos.
I honestly am not familiar with the expression alt-reich and don't know what you are trying to say with it. Can you explain what it means to you? And then tell me how you think it pertains to anything I said or posted? And then can you tell me why you think there's something bad about it and what exactly those bad things are?
I don't think I am a bad moderator. I think I'm kind, and fair, and reasonable, and most people like me.
-
you're denying you're a bad moderator tho?
you spam alt-reich youtube videos.
I honestly am not familiar with the expression alt-reich and don't know what you are trying to say with it. Can you explain what it means to you? And then tell me how you think it pertains to anything I said or posted? And then can you tell me why you think there's something bad about it and what exactly those bad things are?
I don't think I am a bad moderator. I think I'm kind, and fair, and reasonable, and most people like me.
don't play dumb. alt-right aren't smart enough.
-
Can you or can you not explain it? Do you or do you not have an argument? If you do, present it. If you don't, then your superior and condescending attitude is just empty arrogance.
-
i don't know what to do if you're too stupid to understand anything.
-
I don't know either. Do you have any suggestions?
-
yes , your right-wing views are objectively false, so begin to rid your brain of that backwardness.
also stop taking heroin.
-
Which views are false? It's not enough to blanket all of my views as "false" when you are unable to identify and engage with even one of them in a rational way (ie. without simply labelling, insulting, scoffing) and actually talking about the ideas themselves.
I asked you so far to explain how Lauren Southern is a white supremacist (she isn't) and you were unable to support your view with evidence, such as direct quotes or articles or videos showing that Lauren actually believes that white people are superior to other races and should destroy or dominate other races and rule the world.
white su·prem·a·cy
noun: white supremacy; plural noun: white supremacies
the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.
I asked you so far to explain what alt-reich means in your usage, and you were unwilling or unable to do so. You resorted to the only thing you have in your arsenal, which is labels and insults.
Google search shows this meaning:
Altreich or Altes Reich ("Old Empire") is a German term that may refer to: A synonym for the medieval Kingdom of Germany in prior German historiography, i.e. the territory of the German stem duchies excluding the Saxon and Bavarian eastern marches.
I don't see how this meaning has anything in the slightest to do with me or anything I've said or posted.
I gather intuitively that your insinuation is that I am somehow a Nazi sympathizer or some other such complete and utter nonsense. I know you've also labelled people "racist" and I've already shown numerous times how the belief that some races are move evolved or more superior is NOT founded in Biblical teaching, but rather in evolutionistic teaching that white people are more evolved than other races. This teaching is a lie. All people are made by God of one blood. I don't even believe in different "races", which was an idea invented in recent history, propagated by Darwin and his buddy Huxley. I believe in one "race", the human race, in which a lot of variety is present.
Those who subscribe to the evolutionistic worldview are more racist (since the teaching of evolution straight from Darwin himself was that white people are more evolved than other lower/inferior/savage races) , and more in line with what Hitler was trying to accomplish by wiping out races he considered inferior by slaughtering them, along with people like Christian ministers who opposed the evil he was doing.
Your continuing to call me a racist, when I have explained multiple times that that is simply not in line with my beliefs and views, is you just being deliberately recalcitrant and wanting to wallow in misinformation, slander, and lies because you can't fathom another way of thinking other than what has been spoon fed to you all your life, particularly by mainstream media that twists and perverts everything to their own liking.
I don't have anything in particular against labels or insults that can be defended rationally. But you haven't shown any evidence that you can support any of your views with rational arguments.
The forum is still wide open for you to explain your views, share your views, because contrary to your apparent beliefs, people can't read your mind.
I'm happy to engage with you if you have anything to actually say.
But my wild guess is that your next line will be...more of the same! Oh joy!
What label or insult will he come up with next?
Also, I have never in my life taken heroin or any other kind of illicit drug.
-
also stop taking heroin.
Also, I have never in my life taken heroin or any other kind of illicit drug.
Aww gee wiz BS, for a second then I thought you were a rock-n-roll wild child ;D
No, but seriously MWR, huge troll fail: heroin users are way too chilled, nobody would ever believe that - you should have said crack...
-
Hmmm for some reason i thought cursing wasn't forbidden anymore. Either way though that's a very weak infraction and posters can be reinstated whenever deemed deserving. Someone kicked for using a bad word could easily be forgiven quite quickly with the right attitude imo
-
Hmmm for some reason i thought cursing wasn't forbidden anymore. Either way though that's a very weak infraction and posters can be reinstated whenever deemed deserving. Someone kicked for using a bad word could easily be forgiven quite quickly with the right attitude imo
both my bans have been for trivial nonsense, lol.
-
Which views are false? It's not enough to blanket all of my views as "false" when you are unable to identify and engage with even one of them in a rational way (ie. without simply labelling, insulting, scoffing) and actually talking about the ideas themselves.
I asked you so far to explain how Lauren Southern is a white supremacist (she isn't) and you were unable to support your view with evidence, such as direct quotes or articles or videos showing that Lauren actually believes that white people are superior to other races and should destroy or dominate other races and rule the world.
white su·prem·a·cy
noun: white supremacy; plural noun: white supremacies
the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.
I asked you so far to explain what alt-reich means in your usage, and you were unwilling or unable to do so. You resorted to the only thing you have in your arsenal, which is labels and insults.
Google search shows this meaning:
Altreich or Altes Reich ("Old Empire") is a German term that may refer to: A synonym for the medieval Kingdom of Germany in prior German historiography, i.e. the territory of the German stem duchies excluding the Saxon and Bavarian eastern marches.
I don't see how this meaning has anything in the slightest to do with me or anything I've said or posted.
I gather intuitively that your insinuation is that I am somehow a Nazi sympathizer or some other such complete and utter nonsense. I know you've also labelled people "racist" and I've already shown numerous times how the belief that some races are move evolved or more superior is NOT founded in Biblical teaching, but rather in evolutionistic teaching that white people are more evolved than other races. This teaching is a lie. All people are made by God of one blood. I don't even believe in different "races", which was an idea invented in recent history, propagated by Darwin and his buddy Huxley. I believe in one "race", the human race, in which a lot of variety is present.
Those who subscribe to the evolutionistic worldview are more racist (since the teaching of evolution straight from Darwin himself was that white people are more evolved than other lower/inferior/savage races) , and more in line with what Hitler was trying to accomplish by wiping out races he considered inferior by slaughtering them, along with people like Christian ministers who opposed the evil he was doing.
Your continuing to call me a racist, when I have explained multiple times that that is simply not in line with my beliefs and views, is you just being deliberately recalcitrant and wanting to wallow in misinformation, slander, and lies because you can't fathom another way of thinking other than what has been spoon fed to you all your life, particularly by mainstream media that twists and perverts everything to their own liking.
I don't have anything in particular against labels or insults that can be defended rationally. But you haven't shown any evidence that you can support any of your views with rational arguments.
The forum is still wide open for you to explain your views, share your views, because contrary to your apparent beliefs, people can't read your mind.
I'm happy to engage with you if you have anything to actually say.
But my wild guess is that your next line will be...more of the same! Oh joy!
What label or insult will he come up with next?
Also, I have never in my life taken heroin or any other kind of illicit drug.
yes indeed i've thoroughly proved lauren southern is a white supremacist using her interviews and the people she interacts with.
do you need me to further investigate the islamophobic videos that will be traced to neonazi youtube channels? should we investigate the comments on the videos and watch the little nazis sieg heiling all over the place? or do you want to stop being dumb now?
-
I've freed Lambchops and will free jon when he acknowledges that profanity isn't allowed for whatever reason
-
yea i had no idea that was a rule.
-
I've freed Lambchops and will free jon when he acknowledges that profanity isn't allowed for whatever reason
Well thanks, as mentioned I didn't support MWR being banned and thought I should also be banned if he was. But I do support the moderators right to ban us.
We're playing by someone else's rules in the moderated section - that's the idea. So let's see if we can sit at the conservative grown-ups table without getting another smack ;)
-
This was the first profanity infraction for each of you, which is a very minor violation. You're both free now as per Play Pen rehabilitation protocols. If you continue to be sent here for profanity you wouldn't get out quite so easily in the future.
-
This was the first profanity infraction for each of you, which is a very minor violation. You're both free now as per Play Pen rehabilitation protocols. If you continue to be sent here for profanity you wouldn't get out quite so easily in the future.
this is true & i agree with it, but we can also see that jon's entire tone in this conversation runs contrary to the stated purpose of the moderated section. it's entirely predictable that some people won't be willing to engage in any conversation without resorting to being hateful & insulting, which is fine, but at some point that's going to have to equate to an indefinite ban. just something to keep in mind
-
you got a mod who spams videos on blanket fearing-mongering, hate-mongering of all muslims. what's wrong with you, seriously, lol. if this is a joke forum some come out and say it already.
-
if she's wrong just say why she's wrong, if you don't have a more coherent argument than "you're a fucking moron" etc then that's on you. and anyway you're perfectly welcome to use that ad hominem drivel anywhere else, just not in this section! :) really don't see any problem here
-
i don't think it needs explaining why she's wrong, lol. obviously it's a strawman as well to say i had no coherent argument other than "you're a fucking moron". you seem to be sympathetic to anti-muslim rhetoric, sad.
-
Jon actually got banned for appending "or some shit" to the end of an otherwise okay post, not for insulting anyone.
In terms of argument, I looked at that thread and babyshark was asking for "evidence" to support the potential "defamation" of calling people who make their careers peddling white supremacy "white supremacists." There's definitely a point where it's not worth engaging anymore imo.
-
so apparently posting 1000 videos of anti-muslim rhetoric from neo-nazi youtube channels without any semblance of a coherent argument is deserving of actual debate. it's totally not inciting in any way and just part of le rational discussion.
-
See if they curse in the youtubes
-
Just make two different moderated sections. Make one that BabyShark runs and one that Marx runs.
-
See if they curse in the youtubes
they don't curse, they just insinuate that all blacks and muslims should be killed.
-
Just make two different moderated sections. Make one that BabyShark runs and one that Marx runs.
This was actually kind of my idea for a forum one time. It was called "The SS Free" and the idea of it was everyone would be made moderators after they signed up where people could constantly edit / delete other peoples posts making it a big warzone. Never took off though.
-
Just make two different moderated sections. Make one that BabyShark runs and one that Marx runs.
LOL.
@mousEtopher problem solved.
-
haha, burton's brilliance so underappreciated :thumbsup:
i don't care if anyone debates babyshark or not, if you feel it's not worth doing then don't. if you wanna trash her for what she believes, or if you wanna make any point on any subject in a confrontational/provocative way then you can do it in another part of the forum, that's all. it's easier than everyone's making it!
-
i don't even understand what everyone is arguing about re muslims -- bs isn't saying "kill all muslims" or anything, she's saying "oppressive practices associated/condoned by islam should be abolished" which obviously anyone can agree with. fundamentalist interpretation of scripture as justification for oppression is inarguably something that happens, whether it's islam or christianity, and it should be opposed in all forms. culture never justifies oppression. but if she's making the mistake of thinking 100% of muslims are oppressive assholes or something, well, that's simplistic and requires some reeducation! hate is not a solution
-
I actually suggested this idea to mousey before XuRnT did, and I think it's great.
I suggested blid should have his own moderated section, for which he can make and implement his own rules, and call it "Blid's Moderated Section".
I have no problem with this. :)
-
haha, burton's brilliance so underappreciated :thumbsup:
i don't care if anyone debates babyshark or not, if you feel it's not worth doing then don't. if you wanna trash her for what she believes, or if you wanna make any point on any subject in a confrontational/provocative way then you can do it in another part of the forum, that's all. it's easier than everyone's making it!
The General section reads like reddit.
-
why am i still banned?
babyshark just claimed evolution teaches that white people are superior to blacks, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't know. I unbanned you again, same for Lambchops. If you find yourself banned once again then it's probably babyshark abusing her powers trying to make it a "one week ban" even though that's clearly not the rules.
-
You are the one abusing power blid. The Moderated Section you wanted nothing to do with and whose rules you do not see value in was doing just fine until you abused power to intervene to prevent your communist, Christophobic, racist buddy from facing the one week ban that all other users faced for the same infraction of rules.
Your purpose is to destroy the section by making the rules that protect discussion from abuse like slander, personal attacks, direct insults, and cursing null and void, thereby making the section meaningless and exactly the same as the rest of the forum, which all normal people recognize as a toxic cesspool of filth and arrogant ignorance that they want to stay away from.
You want to shut down all rational discussion because you are against freedom of speech, which means people are free to say their viewpoints and opinions freely and publicly as long as they are not actively slandering or insulting others or otherwise breaking the rules.
You are against freedom of speech because you do not have the ability to engage rationally with an opposing view. You've proved this by being unable to look at the evidence of what I've been talking about and actually witness with your eyes and ears that the things I'm saying are real and true. You choose instead to close your eyes and ears, ignore evidence, and sit arrogantly and ignorantly in a shroud of darkness, oblivious to the real world, and attacking with empty fictitious labels those who are looking at and discussing reality.
It's because you can't handle reality and facts that you need to silence anyone who talks about facts and reality that don't fit what the media and publicly funded indoctrination school system have brainwashed you with.
You don't want to directly ban me because that would be too obvious or maybe because you find some entertainment value in a more active forum, so you are attempting to create an atmosphere so hateful and hostile that anyone with a different view will be chased away by the vitriolic hate, so you can keep on hating the best country in the world, hating freedom and liberty, hating humankind, and feeling like you're somehow above it all.
If you don't like America, no one is forcing you to stay. Why don't you list some other countries you'd rather live in, then make your plans to live there if you really believe it's better? Unlike communist nations, America allows its citizens to freely leave for travel or leave for good. Unless you're in prison I guess.
I know you and mousey are able to destroy the moderated forum section. And this is obviously what your goal is. I think mousey wants to preserve it but doesn't quite realize you're trying to destroy it, so anyone who isn't an evolutionist or a communist or a liberal can be shot down with empty labels and disgusting hate and sexist filth, with no logic necessary.
Lauren Southern is a white supremacist!! This is a complete and utter lie. It's nonsense. Marx has had a LOT of time compiling research to prove his slanderous claim, and has come up empty handed after so much time.
I'm still waiting to see a shred of evidence from him on that.
Spouting an empty label doesn't put you in the right. It puts you in the position of being unable to defend your views with logic and lying and falsely accusing others.
ISLAMOPHOBE
RACIST
WHITE SUPREMACIST
NAZI
HOMOPHOBE
These empty, meaningless, misleading labels are spouted loudly and proudly by the gullible uninformed as though they are the worst crimes against mankind, yet when they are explored logically, they all fall to dust.
They're nonsense.
Explain this blid. Why do you feel the need to intervene in the moderated section when
1. You wanted nothing to do with it early on, and talked of closing it down
2. You dont agree with people having the freedom to have a space free of abuse
3. Oh right, you wanted to shut it down
4. Because you don't want people to have a space free of abuse
5. Because "evil" right side logic can't be beaten with logic...only harassed, flamed, hated, mislabelled, belittled, cursed
The section rules take all leftism weapons away. No cursing, slandering, insulting...oh boo hoo, now we are empty handed!
Can't have that!
Shut them up! Silence them! Harass them! Hate them! Kill! Destroy!
Nooo surprise at all.
Only thing that does surprise me is that I haven't been banned from entire forum for my views yet.
I know Tora, Lightbringer, marx, Cum, and probably others would like to see me IRL dead, tortured, stoned, euthanized.
All for having and expressing a view different from theirs.
Yet I'm the hateful "phobe".
The hypocrisy is at red levels.
-
I'm not even talking about politics or the limits of debate or anything related to that right now so I think we can set aside most of your post above.
In brief, the rules for the new Moderated forum were clearly outlined and first transgressions and minor offenses are meant to have a quick release. Therefore it is by design that I released the people who got banned for using the word "shit" in relatively short order. They should now be free to post in the Moderated Forum unless they commit additional offenses. That's it.
Links to where this is clearly spelled out:
by me, in the sticky thread of this subforum http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3708.msg60826.html#msg60826 (http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3708.msg60826.html#msg60826)
by Mousetopher, announcing the new Moderated format http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3691.msg60613.html#msg60613 (http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3691.msg60613.html#msg60613)
-
I actually clicked BS's last post.
You are mental if you really think anyone on an internet forum cares about you enough to want you "killed, stoned, tortured, euthanized, or whatever.
The fact every one of your posts are usually 5 paragraphs or more shows how much you care about winning arguments with strangers on the internet.
-
it doesn't seem she is fit for mod. abuses powers, spams racist videos, and acts the victim. the persecution complex is typical of the reactionary.
-
yeah she clearly has a persecution complex. theres a segment of white christians that have been trained to think that theyre the real aggrieved party in this country which is pretty laughable esp with trump as president. now shes even the moderator of a forum with a ruleset mostly created by her and she still apparently thinks there's a plot against her because of 1) how we formulated the rehabilitation system, which she now seeks to undermine, and 2) because i made a cool and funny joke a couple one time, months ago, about shutting down the moderated forum conveniently right when i unbanned her after her community service project.
-
The OP should be stoned to death.
Why would someone make a facebook post that would threaten his job and possibly his life if it weren't a true statement?
You should be euthanized imo.
-
@~ToRa~
I actually clicked BS's last post.
You are mental if you really think anyone on an internet forum cares about you enough to want you "killed, stoned, tortured, euthanized, or whatever.
The fact every one of your posts are usually 5 paragraphs or more shows how much you care about winning arguments with strangers on the internet.
The fact that your average post is less than one paragraph shows how little you have in your brain to win arguments with.
-
As for Tora and Lightbringer. They call themselves Muslims. The following are directly from the teachings of Islamic ideology directly from Islamic text sources.
Tora, if you don't care enough about obeying Allah in pushing for the death of Christians are Allah commands, do not call yourself a Muslim. You are a hypocrite and a pretender if you do not care about the teachings of Allah.
Muslims who believe and follow the teachings of Muhammad do want to kill Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims. Muslims who do not want to kill Christians, Jews, and other infidels and idoloters (who do not want to worship "Allah") are simply not Muslims, even though they may happen to live among true Muslim believers and have many of their values and customs and dress and speech. You have to differentiate the religion from the human being. If you can convert into it or apostatize out of it, it's not a race. People can leave Islam. People can join Islam. It's not a race. It's a belief system that happens to be terrible, violent, and oppressive to girls and women. Not all people who call themselves Muslims are Muslims and not all people who call themselves Christians are Christians. Actually being the label means believing the teachings of the founder of the religion, Jesus or Muhammad.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as those who "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.
Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - but not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."
Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability."
Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]
Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.
Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the "cause of Allah" (or "way of Allah").
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and - in this case - on Christian soil, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today's devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of "hypocrites" (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist's defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can't Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam's perpetual internal conflicts).
-
Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).]
Quran (21:44) - "...See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it." - The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse - although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The "it" at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the 'unbelievers.' Obviously, this changed with the hijra. 'Jihad' after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.
Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter." This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators - those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today's terrorists do.
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context)
Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..
Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "rows" or "battle array," meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the "cause": "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of'Adn- Eternity ['Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.
-
telling people they want to murder you, whether they think they do or not, because theyre muslim, is both anti-islamic bigotry AND a victim complex. i recall ze_saint finding a bible passage about murdering unbelievers too, that stuff pops up in these old books sometimes, doesnt mean all the believers are compelled to murder
-
It's really strange how quoting the Quran qualifies as "anti-Islamic" or "bigotry".
Think real hard about that one.
-
*puffs on bubble pipe*
-
Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Sahih Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125)
Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Sahih Bukhari (52:44) - A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed."
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet said, Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet...
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Sahih Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Sahih Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."
Sahih Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."
Sahih Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."
Sahih Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."
Sahih Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Sahih Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Sahih Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Sahih Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three hadith verses in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."
Sahih Muslim (31:5917) - "Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger'." The pretext for attacking the peaceful farming community of Khaybar was not obvious to the Muslims. Muhammad's son-in-law Ali asked the prophet of Islam to clarify the reason for their mission to kill, loot and enslave. Muhammad's reply was straightforward. The people should be fought because they are not Muslim.
Sahih Muslim (31:5918) - "I will fight them until they are like us." Ali's reply to Muhammad, after receiving clarification that the pretext for attacking Khaybar was to convert the people (see above verse).
Sahih Bukhari 2:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)."
Sunan an-Nasa'i (Sahih) "Whoever dies without having fought or thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy"
Sunan Ibn Majah 24:2794 (Sahih) - "I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.'" Unlike the oft-quoted "Greater/Lesser" verse pertaining to Jihad, this is judged to be authentic, and clearly establishes that the 'best' Jihad involves physical violence.
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: Cutting off someone's head while shouting 'Allahu Akbar' is not a 'perversion of Islam', but a tradition of Islam that began with Muhammad. In this passage, a companion recounts an episode in which he staged a surprise ambush on a settlement: "I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting 'Allah akbar' and my two companions did likewise".
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Ibn Kathir (Commentary on verses 2:190-193 - Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. One of Islam's most respected scholars clearly believed that Jihad means physical warfare.
-
Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.
Notes
Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.
The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change.
Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for "textual context" across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preference. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret verses without their "assistance."
The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.
Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.
Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.
The popular apologist argument that many verses of violence apply to war is undermined by the fact that war was started by Muslims, both in Muhammad's time and since. For the most part, Islamic armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death.
The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to "attack in self-defense", this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.
Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:
"It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected... In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms."
Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage").
One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."
The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."
Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. (source)
Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.
The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a religion of peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.
This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them literally, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims prefer not to interpret their personal viewpoint of Islam in this way.
Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. Believers in the West are often led to think that their religion is like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis say otherwise.
Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.
The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo's al-Azhar. While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah. When asked why, the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: " Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity."
For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that it is both different and dangerous.
There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.
(all taken from https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx (https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx))
-
ruleset mostly created by her
This is also a lie.
The ruleset was copied from another popular forum's rule set (which are often pretty standard rules in civilized society) and were taken and made official to the moderated section by mousetopher, who seems to think that people should have the freedom to have a space where rampant hate and abuse and insults aren't common practice against people who share different viewpoints.
-
yeah she clearly has a persecution complex. theres a segment of white christians that have been trained to think that theyre the real aggrieved party in this country which is pretty laughable esp with trump as president. now shes even the moderator of a forum with a ruleset mostly created by her and she still apparently thinks there's a plot against her because of 1) how we formulated the rehabilitation system, which she now seeks to undermine, and 2) because i made a cool and funny joke a couple one time, months ago, about shutting down the moderated forum conveniently right when i unbanned her after her community service project.
Christians are being persecuted in North America, and your utter lie that all Christians are "white" is nonsense. Christians come in all varieties and appearances and ages, including ex-Muslim Arabs who have recognized the moral poverty of their former god, the demonic Allah from the teachings of the evil Muhammad.
Christians are losing jobs, being barred from jobs, being restricted in public discourse, hated, slammed, trashed, insulted with empty labels nonstop, while being accused of "hate" because they point out dangers and problems with certain behaviors and belief systems that cause suffering to humans. In Canada, the Muslims are pushing to pass laws to make it a CRIME and ILLEGAL to SPEAK against the teachings of Islam. They want to destroy and silence Christians. It's obvious.
Christian baker attacked for not being able to go against conscience and participate in a homosexual "wedding".
http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/justice-dept-masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-gay-wedding.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/justice-dept-masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-gay-wedding.html)
Peaceful Christians thrown out of coffee shop in Toronto by homosexual owner.
Homosexual Kicks Peaceful Christians Out Of His Coffee Shop - Bryan Fischer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM1F8bEpU-o#)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/if-you-think-christians-arent-being-persecuted-in-the-u.s.-its-because-your (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/if-you-think-christians-arent-being-persecuted-in-the-u.s.-its-because-your)
Here is the text of that article, which includes Jack Phillips, the persecuted baker attacked by homosexuals:
Nov. 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - When I wrote in my column last week that many Christians voted for the Trump-Pence ticket because they felt that their communities were being threatened by the steady erosion of religious liberty under the Obama Administration, my assertion triggered a wave of emails, Facebook messages, and tweets accusing me of lying. Christians are not being targeted, my critics informed me, and it is ridiculous to say so.
Obviously, to a lot of these critics that the family businesses of Christians are being shut down does not merit the description of a “threat,” because they think that this is no big deal. Those Christians are hateful homophobes, after all, and “religious liberty” is just a fancy label for “bigotry.” Others seem to think I was overstating my case, and that such things rarely, if ever happen. Still others apparently believe that while we are obliged to listen to any number of identity groups when they claim to feel threatened or targeted, Christian claims are somehow invalid, or don’t count. Some even tried to racialize the issue, suggesting that the case I made about Christian beliefs was white privilege, or whatever – even though there is no such thing as “white Christian” beliefs.
In response, I have compiled a very short and very incomplete sampling of the sorts of things currently happening in the United States of America. These things are happening to Christians. And whether you think these things are deserved consequences or irrelevant to whatever Oppression Scale you happen to use, they highlight why many Christians do feel as if their communities are being targeted. Disregard them if you like, but realize that just because you haven’t experienced something, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Jack C. Phillips, a baker in Denver, Colorado, was asked to create a wedding cake by a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012. Phillips refused, citing his Christian beliefs, but offered to serve them any other baked goods. Mullins and Craig opted to sue him instead, claiming that he had treated them in a “dehumanizing” way, and two courts ruled that Phillips should be coerced to make the wedding cake for the couple. Instead, in order to remain loyal to his conscience and his faith, Phillips stopped baking wedding cakes entirely. According to him, this has cost him 40% of his business revenue.
Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were forced by a court in New Mexico to pay more than $6,600 in fines in 2012 after they declined to use their business, Elane Photography, to photograph a lesbian “commitment ceremony.”
The University of Toledo fired one of their staff members when she disagreed with the idea that gay marriage was a civil rights issue:
The university fired Crystal Dixon in 2008 from her interim post as associate vice president for human resources because she wrote an op-ed piece in the Toledo Free Press arguing that the gay rights movement should not be compared to the civil rights movement because she, as a black woman, did not get to choose her minority status but, she claimed, homosexuals do.
In 2013, the state of Oregon went after the little family bakery of Aaron and Melissa Klein, when they declined to provide a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding, again citing their Christian beliefs. The state of Oregon fined them, going so far as to garnish their bank accounts and assets and taking a total of $144,000 for their refusal to violate the tenets of their faith. The bakery, which the couple worked to create for years, was shut down. Aaron Klein is currently on disability after injuring himself working as a trash collector to provide for the couple’s five children. Their family was also the target of a vicious campaign by gay activists intent on destroying their business, regardless of the cost.
In 2013, Crisis Magazine reported that the anti-Christian campaigns had spread to Vermont:
A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement.
High fines to punish Christians for remaining true to their conscience are becoming increasingly normal. As LifeSiteNews reported in 2014:
The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that the Roman Catholic owners of an Albany-area farm violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony in 2012. Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, were ordered by DHR Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin for “mental pain and suffering.” Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws.
In 2014, an Indianapolis bakery owned by Randy and Trish McGath found itself the target of an online campaign launched by gay activists after they cited their Christian beliefs as the reason they would not provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. They were smeared as homophobes and hateful people, although they were willing to serve the gay community—just not participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding.
Baronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington State, was ordered to pay over $1,000 in fines in 2015 after declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. She had previously sold the couple in question flowers many times, but stated simply that providing floral arrangements for a wedding would violate her Christian beliefs.
In 2015, Mennonite couple Richard and Betty Odgaard were forced to close their business in Des Moines, Iowa, after being targeted by gay activists for their refusal to host a gay ‘wedding’ in their wedding chapel. A boycott campaign replete with vicious, profane messages and a civil rights complaint resulted in the Odgaards’ having to pay out a $5,000 settlement—ultimately, they lost their livelihood.
The level of hatred fueling many of these campaigns is somewhat ironic for the #LoveWins crowd. As LifeSiteNews reported in 2015:
A small-town Indiana pizzeria owned by a Christian family has closed its doors after being terrorized by pro-homosexual bullies opposed to the family’s religious values. Memories Pizza in Walkerton has received death and firebombing threats and had its website hacked…The attacks came after ABC-57 out of South Bend aired a piece March 31 highlighting the pizzeria owners’ support for Indiana’s hot-button Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The station claimed Memories Pizza, owned by Kevin O’Connor, was the “first business to publicly deny same-sex service.”
The owners specifically stated that anyone was welcome in the restaurant, but the story was set off by the fact that they said they would not cater a homosexual “wedding” because it would conflict with their Christian beliefs.
As I stated earlier, this is a very incomplete sampling. If I attempted to compile every instance of Christians being fired from jobs for stating their beliefs, or denied positions because they oppose same-sex marriage, or had their business targeted, or fined, or shut down, this column would be dozens of pages long. This is happening, and it is happening now. Even liberal commentators like Bill Maher and others are beginning to recognize that Christian pushing back was at least a part of what cost Hillary Clinton the election. Christians are tired of being targeted for simply believing what Christians have believed for 2,000 years—that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that Christians must act in accordance with their consciences. You can ignore their experiences if you’d like. But they are being heard at the ballot box.
-
ruleset mostly created by her
This is also a lie.
The ruleset was copied from another popular forum's rule set (which are often pretty standard rules in civilized society) and were taken and made official to the moderated section by mousetopher, who seems to think that people should have the freedom to have a space where rampant hate and abuse and insults aren't common practice against people who share different viewpoints.
and whats the problem. those are the rules you wanted and they even forbid profanity which is hilariously absurd, and youre even a moderator so you can enforce them. so what are you whining about. we gave you everything you want and youre still acting liek youre being trampled on. be real
It's really strange how quoting the Quran qualifies as "anti-Islamic" or "bigotry".
Think real hard about that one.
it's incredibly arrogant for you to think you, a christian who has probably never met a muslim and whose knowledge is primarily made up of copied and pasted verses from religionofpeace.com, knows more about how practicing muslims should behave than actual muslims
-
yeah she clearly has a persecution complex. theres a segment of white christians that have been trained to think that theyre the real aggrieved party in this country which is pretty laughable esp with trump as president. now shes even the moderator of a forum with a ruleset mostly created by her and she still apparently thinks there's a plot against her because of 1) how we formulated the rehabilitation system, which she now seeks to undermine, and 2) because i made a cool and funny joke a couple one time, months ago, about shutting down the moderated forum conveniently right when i unbanned her after her community service project.
Christians are being persecuted in North America.
They are losing jobs, being barred from jobs, being restricted in public discourse, hated, slammed, trashed, insulted with empty labels nonstop, while being accused of "hate" because they point out dangers and problems with certain behaviors and belief systems that cause suffering to humans.
Christian baker attacked for not being able to go against conscience and participate in a homosexual "wedding".
[url]http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/justice-dept-masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-gay-wedding.html[/url] ([url]http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/justice-dept-masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-gay-wedding.html[/url])
Peaceful Christians thrown out of coffee shop in Toronto by homosexual owner.
Homosexual Kicks Peaceful Christians Out Of His Coffee Shop - Bryan Fischer - YouTube ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM1F8bEpU-o#[/url])
[url]https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/if-you-think-christians-arent-being-persecuted-in-the-u.s.-its-because-your[/url] ([url]https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/if-you-think-christians-arent-being-persecuted-in-the-u.s.-its-because-your[/url])
Here is the text of that article, which includes Jack Phillips, the persecuted baker attacked by homosexuals:
Nov. 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - When I wrote in my column last week that many Christians voted for the Trump-Pence ticket because they felt that their communities were being threatened by the steady erosion of religious liberty under the Obama Administration, my assertion triggered a wave of emails, Facebook messages, and tweets accusing me of lying. Christians are not being targeted, my critics informed me, and it is ridiculous to say so.
Obviously, to a lot of these critics that the family businesses of Christians are being shut down does not merit the description of a “threat,” because they think that this is no big deal. Those Christians are hateful homophobes, after all, and “religious liberty” is just a fancy label for “bigotry.” Others seem to think I was overstating my case, and that such things rarely, if ever happen. Still others apparently believe that while we are obliged to listen to any number of identity groups when they claim to feel threatened or targeted, Christian claims are somehow invalid, or don’t count. Some even tried to racialize the issue, suggesting that the case I made about Christian beliefs was white privilege, or whatever – even though there is no such thing as “white Christian” beliefs.
In response, I have compiled a very short and very incomplete sampling of the sorts of things currently happening in the United States of America. These things are happening to Christians. And whether you think these things are deserved consequences or irrelevant to whatever Oppression Scale you happen to use, they highlight why many Christians do feel as if their communities are being targeted. Disregard them if you like, but realize that just because you haven’t experienced something, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Jack C. Phillips, a baker in Denver, Colorado, was asked to create a wedding cake by a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012. Phillips refused, citing his Christian beliefs, but offered to serve them any other baked goods. Mullins and Craig opted to sue him instead, claiming that he had treated them in a “dehumanizing” way, and two courts ruled that Phillips should be coerced to make the wedding cake for the couple. Instead, in order to remain loyal to his conscience and his faith, Phillips stopped baking wedding cakes entirely. According to him, this has cost him 40% of his business revenue.
Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were forced by a court in New Mexico to pay more than $6,600 in fines in 2012 after they declined to use their business, Elane Photography, to photograph a lesbian “commitment ceremony.”
The University of Toledo fired one of their staff members when she disagreed with the idea that gay marriage was a civil rights issue:
The university fired Crystal Dixon in 2008 from her interim post as associate vice president for human resources because she wrote an op-ed piece in the Toledo Free Press arguing that the gay rights movement should not be compared to the civil rights movement because she, as a black woman, did not get to choose her minority status but, she claimed, homosexuals do.
In 2013, the state of Oregon went after the little family bakery of Aaron and Melissa Klein, when they declined to provide a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding, again citing their Christian beliefs. The state of Oregon fined them, going so far as to garnish their bank accounts and assets and taking a total of $144,000 for their refusal to violate the tenets of their faith. The bakery, which the couple worked to create for years, was shut down. Aaron Klein is currently on disability after injuring himself working as a trash collector to provide for the couple’s five children. Their family was also the target of a vicious campaign by gay activists intent on destroying their business, regardless of the cost.
In 2013, Crisis Magazine reported that the anti-Christian campaigns had spread to Vermont:
A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement.
High fines to punish Christians for remaining true to their conscience are becoming increasingly normal. As LifeSiteNews reported in 2014:
The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that the Roman Catholic owners of an Albany-area farm violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony in 2012. Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, were ordered by DHR Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin for “mental pain and suffering.” Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws.
In 2014, an Indianapolis bakery owned by Randy and Trish McGath found itself the target of an online campaign launched by gay activists after they cited their Christian beliefs as the reason they would not provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. They were smeared as homophobes and hateful people, although they were willing to serve the gay community—just not participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding.
Baronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington State, was ordered to pay over $1,000 in fines in 2015 after declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. She had previously sold the couple in question flowers many times, but stated simply that providing floral arrangements for a wedding would violate her Christian beliefs.
In 2015, Mennonite couple Richard and Betty Odgaard were forced to close their business in Des Moines, Iowa, after being targeted by gay activists for their refusal to host a gay ‘wedding’ in their wedding chapel. A boycott campaign replete with vicious, profane messages and a civil rights complaint resulted in the Odgaards’ having to pay out a $5,000 settlement—ultimately, they lost their livelihood.
The level of hatred fueling many of these campaigns is somewhat ironic for the #LoveWins crowd. As LifeSiteNews reported in 2015:
A small-town Indiana pizzeria owned by a Christian family has closed its doors after being terrorized by pro-homosexual bullies opposed to the family’s religious values. Memories Pizza in Walkerton has received death and firebombing threats and had its website hacked…The attacks came after ABC-57 out of South Bend aired a piece March 31 highlighting the pizzeria owners’ support for Indiana’s hot-button Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The station claimed Memories Pizza, owned by Kevin O’Connor, was the “first business to publicly deny same-sex service.”
The owners specifically stated that anyone was welcome in the restaurant, but the story was set off by the fact that they said they would not cater a homosexual “wedding” because it would conflict with their Christian beliefs.
As I stated earlier, this is a very incomplete sampling. If I attempted to compile every instance of Christians being fired from jobs for stating their beliefs, or denied positions because they oppose same-sex marriage, or had their business targeted, or fined, or shut down, this column would be dozens of pages long. This is happening, and it is happening now. Even liberal commentators like Bill Maher and others are beginning to recognize that Christian pushing back was at least a part of what cost Hillary Clinton the election. Christians are tired of being targeted for simply believing what Christians have believed for 2,000 years—that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that Christians must act in accordance with their consciences. You can ignore their experiences if you’d like. But they are being heard at the ballot box.
(https://www.tresillian.org.au/media/1185/crying.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&height=400&rnd=130779220030000000)
-
it's incredibly arrogant for you to think you, a christian who has probably never met a muslim and whose knowledge is primarily made up of copied and pasted verses from religionofpeace.com, knows more about how practicing muslims should behave than actual muslims
I have met and interacted with Muslims and ex-Muslims IN REAL LIFE. Whoa. Imagine that.
For you to assume my experience without asking is arrogant.
I am speaking based on experience with real people and witnessing real events and hearing real Muslims talk and reading the real Islamic texts of real Muslims.
IF someone does NOT believe in the teachings of Muhammad, ie. if Tora and Lightbringer don't believe in the Quran or hadiths, then they are NOT MUSLIM.
It's not that complicated.
-
lol you went to christian events where they brought in ex-muslims to tell horror stories
-
it's incredibly arrogant for you to think you, a christian who has probably never met a muslim and whose knowledge is primarily made up of copied and pasted verses from religionofpeace.com, knows more about how practicing muslims should behave than actual muslims
I have met and interacted with Muslims and ex-Muslims IN REAL LIFE. Whoa. Imagine that.
For you to assume my experience without asking is arrogant.
I am speaking based on experience with real people and witnessing real events via video and hearing real people who have actually lived in Muslim-dominated nations talk both in real life and on video and based on reading the real Islamic texts of real Muslims.
IF someone does NOT believe in the teachings of Muhammad, ie. if Tora and Lightbringer don't believe in the Quran or hadiths, then they are NOT MUSLIM.
It's not that complicated.
-
The ruleset was copied from another popular forum's rule set
oh you copied the rules from stormfront and brought them here?
-
lol. jon you should implement the obnoxious pedantic old-school atheism arguments where dorks pull out all the silly or bad bible passages and confront babyshark with them, not because that's a smart critique (it's very stupid), but because it's what she's doing with the quran
-
it's incredibly arrogant for you to think you, a christian who has probably never met a muslim and whose knowledge is primarily made up of copied and pasted verses from religionofpeace.com, knows more about how practicing muslims should behave than actual muslims
I have met and interacted with Muslims and ex-Muslims IN REAL LIFE. Whoa. Imagine that.
For you to assume my experience without asking is arrogant.
I am speaking based on experience with real people and witnessing real events via video and hearing real people who have actually lived in Muslim-dominated nations talk both in real life and on video and based on reading the real Islamic texts of real Muslims.
IF someone does NOT believe in the teachings of Muhammad, ie. if Tora and Lightbringer don't believe in the Quran or hadiths, then they are NOT MUSLIM.
It's not that complicated.
"youre not a real muslim unless you want to murder me"
-
Essentially, the CLAIM is that "Muslims" are being persecuted based on "race" by people who SAY something against Muhammad's teachings like female genital mutilation, stoning women, beating wives, and forced marriage, including "marrying" little girls by force and forcibly penetrating them without their consent, ripping open the stitched up already mutilated area, further damaging and traumatizing her.
Obviously true Muslims do believe and accept these things because they are found in the teachings of Allah from Muhammad.
IF A PERSON DOES NOT BELIEVE THE TEACHINGS OF THE QURAN AND HADITHS THEY ARE NOT MUSLIM. It's so simple.
If a person does not approve of violence against infidels and the mutilation and oppression of girls and women, they are NOT MUSLIM, since Muhammad/Allah commands them!
They are the Muslim hypocrites that are also called to be killed by Allah and his true followers:
Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter." This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators - those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today's terrorists do.
A person SAYING this bad stuff shouldn't be happening is considered sooo hateful and damaging oh my poor dears can't hear the truth.
Quran 5:51-54
51. O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).
52. And you see those in whose hearts there is a disease (of hypocrisy), they hurry to their friendship, saying: "We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us." Perhaps Allah may bring a victory or a decision according to His Will. Then they will become regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves.
53. And those who believe will say: "Are these the men (hypocrites) who swore their strongest oaths by Allah that they were with you (Muslims)?" All that they did has been in vain (because of their hypocrisy), and they have become the losers.
54. O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion (Islam), Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allah, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower.
The people LOSING JOBS and being actual targets of HATE are crybabies?
Hearing the spoken truth being too painful versus losing a job that impacts the livelihood of a person and their entire family being able to live and eat..which ONE IS MORE OF A BIG DEAL?
You should be able to figure out that losing a job of being hit with a hundreds of thousands of dollars fine when you're a small business is much more of a damaging impact to a person's life than someone SAYING AN OPINION or TELLING FACTS.
-
The people LOSING JOBS and being actual targets of HATE are crybabies?
yeah theyre big weepy babies who are wetting their diapers because theyre not allowed to be anti-gay bigots anymore
(https://newparentsneed-netcanyon.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/crying-baby.jpg?x48774)
-
there's a billion Muslims and they can be quite dramatically different from one another, just like a christian from st petersburg will be quite different from a christian from baltimore. do you understand how blanket statements over a massive group of people can be quite ridiculous? does every christian interpret the bible the same? obviously not, so why would you think every muslim interprets the koran the same?
-
The people LOSING JOBS and being actual targets of HATE are crybabies?
yeah theyre big weepy babies who are wetting their diapers because theyre not allowed to be anti-gay bigots anymore
So which is it?
You want to promote a religion that calls for the killing of homosexuals...and you want to be pro-gay.
You have to make up your mind here.
Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done." (This is a sahih hadith)
Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death."
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."
Gay men being rounded up for "processing" in the Islamic world,
where homosexuals are demonized, banned, beaten, probed,
forced into marriage, flogged, incarcerated, lashed, hanged,
brutalized, stoned, thrown from roofs, tortured and shot.
Homosexuals are beheaded, hanged and stoned in modern Saudi Arabia and Iran, where Muhammad's laws are applied most strictly. Five other Muslim countries also have the death penalty on their books for homosexual behavior. In the past, gays were burned.
As one cleric recently put it, the only point of theological debate is not whether the homosexual should be killed, but how it should be done. (See also Fatwa Islamiyah, which advocates burning and stoning).
In 2016, an educated imam in Tunisia explained that while it may seem harsh, there is no ambiguity in Islam:
God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it's the Quran
There are several places in the Quran where the story of Sodom is repeated, with emphasis placed on the destruction of the town for homosexual lewdness. Also, according to Serge Trifkovic:
Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned. (source)
Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said, in April of 2012, that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals do not engage in such acts (presumably). In November of that year, a cleric on British television stated, "What should be done to those who practice homosexuality? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture."
A 2014 fatwa from the mainstream OnIslam.net proclaimed that homosexuality is "abnormal" and abhorrent" and confirmed that gays should be killed: "The punishment for men or women who are unwilling to give up homosexuality and therefore are rejecting the guidance of Allah Most High is in fact death according to Islam." An imam invited to speak at a Florida mosque in 2016 said that killing gays was an "act of compassion". In 2017, the leader of Chechnya openly proclaimed that he would defend the right of families to honor kill their gay members.
Since the resurrection of the caliphate in 2014 (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) dozens of homosexuals have been thrown from rooftops. Other have been stoned to death. Muslim identity groups, such as CAIR, did not offer a single denunciation of these serial murders prior to the 2016 Islamist massacre at a gay night club in Orlando.
Although some Muslim political leaders in the West join with social liberals in alliances that sometimes include peripheral support for gay rights and civil unions, this appears to be more a matter of expediency than genuine concern. There has never been any noticeable effort on the part of Muslim leaders in the West to relieve the plight of homosexuals in Islamic countries overseas - where their influence would surely carry more weight than that of their secular allies.
(taken from https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx (https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx))
WHICH IS IT? GAY RIGHTS OR ISLAM?
Can't be both.
-
it's both
-
there's a billion Muslims and they can be quite dramatically different from one another, just like a christian from st petersburg will be quite different from a christian from baltimore. do you understand how blanket statements over a massive group of people can be quite ridiculous? does every christian interpret the bible the same? obviously not, so why would you think every muslim interprets the koran the same?
It's called reading it. If a different meaning is intended than what is literally written, there needs to be evidence for this. Otherwise, a text needs to be understood as it reads.
The true Muslim believers believe the teachings of the Quran, and those who do not, they call hypocrites.
You can see this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljqinq4abEA# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljqinq4abEA#)
Hilarious, this video has recently been tagged as "inapproprate" requiring sign-in to proceed. BECAUSE IT HAS MUSLIMS SAYING WHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE and some people don't want anyone to know!
-
it's both
It can't be both.
Use your brain.
You can't be pro-gay and pro-kill-gay at the same time.
-
i'm not
-
It's called reading it. If a different meaning is intended than what is literally written, there needs to be evidence for this. Otherwise, a text needs to be understood as it reads.
The true Muslim believers believe the teachings of the Quran, and those who do not, they call hypocrites.
You can see this here:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljqinq4abEA#[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljqinq4abEA#[/url])
Hilarious, this video has recently been tagged as "inapproprate" requiring sign-in to proceed. BECAUSE IT HAS MUSLIMS SAYING WHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE and some people don't want anyone to know!
uh yea, they're called hypocrites by some Muslims sure. just like Christians who are pro-choice would be called hypocrites by Christians like you.
now you've posted a video of the fucking Taliban, a small minority of backwards-thinking people and act like this is the dominant opinion of Islam. you see why you're being ridiculous now.
-
@~ToRa~
I actually clicked BS's last post.
You are mental if you really think anyone on an internet forum cares about you enough to want you "killed, stoned, tortured, euthanized, or whatever.
Its clear your main objective is to "win the argument."
Which is very childish.
The fact every one of your posts are usually 5 paragraphs or more shows how much you care about winning arguments with strangers on the internet.
The fact that your average post is less than one paragraph shows how little you have in your brain to win arguments with.
Ever stop to think I just don't care that much. Your nobody.
-
It's clear your main objective is to "win the argument." Which is very childish.
-
BS breaks her own rules and uses her moderator position to attack people she disagrees with and falsely attribute monstrous beliefs to them: http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3740.msg61475.html#msg61475 (http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3740.msg61475.html#msg61475)
She is a hypocrite and should not be a moderator if the aim of the moderated forum is to promote productive, open, and fair discussions within a set of rules. Instead it has become a private playground and safe space to bolster a fundamentalist reactionary's persecution complex and to provide her a small degree of power and control which is generally lacking in her life. I do not believe this is good for the forum or BabyShark herself.
-
Also in general it is a failed moderation policy whern people are banned for light profanity that would be acceptable in a PG rated film but yet another person is alliwed to lie about their opponent's beliefs, spew unfettered hatred against religious and sexual minorities, and ruin potentially productive discussions through video spam. I don't even know what to call it when the latter person is made a moderator.
-
I grew up in Melbourne. Everyone followed an AFL team. You just had to. I was (and am) technically a Richmond supported. My brother is a Collingwood supporter.
Despite enjoying occasionally kicking a ball in the backyard or the park, unlike most of my peers I developed a real dislike for football.
It wasn't the game, it was the supporters.
.... so remind me again: how do wars start?
:critter:
-
Hmm i guess wars are started because of people like babyshark who view other people as these demonized enemies, built up into inhuman monsters, usually by some sort of lurching power apparatus that prioritizes sustainment of its own interests over lives it is either indifferent and blind to, or sees as expendable
-
Hmm i guess wars are started because of people like babyshark who view other people as these demonized enemies, built up into inhuman monsters, usually by some sort of lurching power apparatus that prioritizes sustainment of its own interests over lives it is either indifferent and blind to, or sees as expendable
Nonsense.
I do not see, nor have I made out other humans to be my enemies. I've been very specific and repetitive about this. Humans are not the enemy.
Bad ideas are. Bad teachings are. Ie. the practice of forcibly cutting out the sexual organs of little girls as they scream with no anesthetic, and then are subject to a life of never feeling sexual pleasure. This is evil.
This teaching of "circumcising" girls (cutting out clitoris is minimal, but often the entire genitals are removed and the gaping wound is sewn shut, leaving a tiny hole for urine and menstrual blood to pass, and this practice is routinely performed without anesthetic on an unconsenting victim who flails, struggles, and screams from the pain) is prescribed for all good Muslims by Muhammad and is followed my the majority of Muslims in Muslim dominated countries. The practice is also being imported into civilized countries like UK and USA and Canada and Australia by people who adhere to Muhammad's teachings.
I already said that Muslims, including Muslim men, are victims of an oppressive system and oppressive and evil ideology.
I'm saying the OPPOSITE of these girls being expendable. I'm saying these girls are VALUABLE and deserve protection, the same level of protection as American or Canadian girls.
I care about these people and the lives without love that they have to endure.
My goal is not to demonize any people, but to release them from shackles of oppressive thinking that results in women being treated like property and subjected to beatings, mutilatings, and stonings. It's wrong. These women not expendable and their lives matter.
Someone needs to speak up for them.
Even Tora and Lightbringer, who have been very hateful and insulting and critical of me as a person, I pray for them. I don't hate them at all. I care about them and want them to know the real love of Jesus who has died for the sins of each and every one of us.
We are all fallen sinners who need to repent of our sins and turn to Jesus who has given us life eternal through the blood He shed in our place on Calvary.
So many Muslims have been freed from the shackles of Islam, and have experienced the wonderful love of the living God!
Nabeel Qureshi
Nabeel Qureshi: A Short Testimony - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKSuGHXUY_0#)
Rifqa Bary
Why Rifqa Bary Fled Islam to Follow Jesus - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcJjc2MQUlo#)
There are lots more. These beautiful young people have learned LOVE. They have learned forgiveness. They are filled with JOY!
My hope and prayer is that all of the readers of the forum will come to know the love of Jesus!
That's why I'm still here, in spite of all the hate!
-
im more of a Christian than you, i say with all possible humility
-
Yeah IDK. Lots of reasons I guess. The one constant tends to be each side pointing at the other side and saying "it's their fault beacuse...."
This discussion seems to be made up exclusively of people trying to destroy the other's argument. What can we agree on?
Let's start with something easy: chopping up girl's bits. Absolutely abhorrent. Anybody disagree? No, of course not.
How about burning women alive "at the stake". Anybody like that? No? Ok, we are doing well.
How about racism? Anybody here (apart from Claw, obviously) think that people should be treated differently based solely on their genetic makeup/skin color? No takers? Cool.
Let's try freedom of religion. Does anybody here think that people should be persecuted based on the God they choose to worship? hmmm... well... ... no, I guess - as long as they don't do the bad stuff like chopping/burning/hating etc.
Please feel free to reply with your thoughts on these questions.
Please do not reply with what you think any other person/group's attitude towards these questions is .... that path leads to the dark side!
-
babyshark doesn't respond when she gets called out on her lies or admit she's wrong when she gets destroyed in an argument. she'll ignore and continue spamming videos.
for instance, she lashed out at feminists because she believed they were being silent on the issue of FGM, i easily found links showing that there plenty of feminists that have protested and are very vocal on the topic of FGM. all it would take to find that out is a simple google search. this shows she has no interest in the truth, she lies and is disingenuous.. now why do we want a liar and a disingenuous person, who has abused her powers multiple times already, as a mod?
-
babyshark doesn't respond when she gets called out on her lies or admit she's wrong when she gets destroyed in an argument. she'll ignore and continue spamming videos.
for instance, she lashed out at feminists because she believed they were being silent on the issue of FGM, i easily found links showing that there plenty of feminists that have protested and are very vocal on the topic of FGM. all it would take to find that out is a simple google search. this shows she has no interest in the truth, she lies and is disingenuous.. now why do we want a liar and a disingenuous person, who has abused her powers multiple times already, as a mod?
In this one instance, you did provide evidence that there are some feminists who stand against female genital mutilation. Unlike you, when I am presented with evidence, I am able to change my mind and learn things. I now no longer believe there are NO feminists who stand against FGM. They do not represent the majority of feminists, who are unaware of the issue, and have been indoctrinated to be unquestioning towards and completely accepting of Islam based on fear of being labelled Islamophobe, and not on the merits of the belief system.
What I stated was not "lies" as you claim, but my understanding and views of the situation at the time based on what I've seen, heard, and experienced in my life. I haven't experienced everything, nor have I spoken to every person or been everywhere in the world to see everything that has ever happened. For me to have a view because of something I haven't seen does not indicate that I'm "lying", but that what I've experienced has not included that specific thing.
I was even unaware of the entire issue of female genital mutilation being prescribed for all girls in Islamic writings. That was news to me. I had heard of FGM before in my life, but it's rarely talked about anywhere by anyone, so it largely escaped my notice.
The fact remains that the MAJORITY of feminists are silent on Islam and the abuse women in Islamic dominated countries face.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-feminism-awol-islam-12395.htm (https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-feminism-awol-islam-12395.htm)
Your assertion that there is any intentional dishonesty happening is completely absurd and hateful, and not based on evidence. I honestly don't believe you believe it yourself. :)
Here, a number of women at a women's march are asked whether they would rather women's right or Islam. They are mainly all stunned into silence. One finds a problem with the question, saying it's politically incorrect. Some think you can have both. Most of them have simply been lied to about Islam, and don't realize that Muhammad's prescribed treatment of women is some half billion rungs below the treatment they get from America's men, whom they are protesting and hate. Eventually they all start chanting against men.
Asking Feminists: Women's Rights or Islam? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZHuFah0uds#)
What you haven't provided any evidence for is your claim that Lauren Southern is a white supremacist.
I only discovered her a few days before I first posted a video from her on here, but from a handful of her videos I've seen, she comes across to me as a very intelligent, beautiful, brave, thinking woman with a delightful sense of humor.
And it is fact that the vast majority of North American feminists are silent on Islam. But apparently, as you showed, not all. Which is good. Although I'm not sure running around naked is sending the best kind of message.
Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJkFQohIKNI#)
-
You know I wonder why all BS is talking about is islam.
She probably thinks about islam more than most muslims do.
-
im more of a Christian than you, i say with all possible humility
If being a Christian means following the teachings of Jesus Christ as BabyShark was suggesting earlier, then as a Muslim, I have every right to say that I too am more Christian than BabyShark. And here's my proof:
1) Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God (in the Garden of Gethsemane - Matthew 26:39). I fall on my face five times a day and pray. Christians don't.
2) Jesus never ate the pig/pork/ham or whatever you wanna call it. I don't eat pigs and neither do muslims at large. Most Christians are pig eaters.
3) Jesus was circumcised and so am I. The majority of Christians are not.
4) Jesus is portrayed with a beard in most illustrations. I keep a beard. Most Christians don't. Incidentally, almost all illustrations of Jesus's mother (Mary) portray her wearing a head scarf. Guess who wears a head scarf today - the Muslim woman or the Christian woman?
5) Jesus used to offer the greetings of peace (Luke 10:5, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:21, John 20:26). I and all muslims do that today. Christians don't.
6) Jesus prayed to the father in heaven (God Almighty). Jesus taught about the unity of God (Mark 12:29). He submitted his will to God (Luke 22:42). Jesus was a Muslim by definition. I submit my will to God. Christians believe Jesus died for their sins (which is Paul's teachings, not that of Jesus).
@BabyShark
I usually don't post YouTube videos but since you seem to have plenty of time on your hands writing long posts, this video might be of interest to you:
Do Muslims follow Jesus Christ more than Christians? Dr. Laurence Brown on The Deen Show - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3210&v=gdL_GH5RGn0#)
-
Yeah IDK. Lots of reasons I guess. The one constant tends to be each side pointing at the other side and saying "it's their fault beacuse...."
This discussion seems to be made up exclusively of people trying to destroy the other's argument. What can we agree on?
Let's start with something easy: chopping up girl's bits. Absolutely abhorrent. Anybody disagree? No, of course not.
How about burning women alive "at the stake". Anybody like that? No? Ok, we are doing well.
How about racism? Anybody here (apart from Claw, obviously) think that people should be treated differently based solely on their genetic makeup/skin color? No takers? Cool.
Let's try freedom of religion. Does anybody here think that people should be persecuted based on the God they choose to worship? hmmm... well... ... no, I guess - as long as they don't do the bad stuff like chopping/burning/hating etc.
Please feel free to reply with your thoughts on these questions.
Please do not reply with what you think any other person/group's attitude towards these questions is .... that path leads to the dark side!
The problem isn't that people can't disagree civilly, the problem is that BS argues in bad faith and is intellectually dishonest. Instead of engaging people's positions she lies about them, passive aggressively insults them, spams discussions with walls of Quran quotes and racist YouTube videos, and worst of all, uses her position as a moderator to bully people. It is a travesty and a joke that she is a mod, frankly.
-
babyshark doesn't respond when she gets called out on her lies or admit she's wrong when she gets destroyed in an argument. she'll ignore and continue spamming videos.
for instance, she lashed out at feminists because she believed they were being silent on the issue of FGM, i easily found links showing that there plenty of feminists that have protested and are very vocal on the topic of FGM. all it would take to find that out is a simple google search. this shows she has no interest in the truth, she lies and is disingenuous.. now why do we want a liar and a disingenuous person, who has abused her powers multiple times already, as a mod?
This.
-
it's blindingly obvious that tons of feminists are aware of and against female genital mutilation, whereas babyshark does not care whatsoever to fight for women generally, and is only focused on the single issue of female genital mutilation specifically, because she can use it to attack muslims.
babyshark throws around words like "love" and "joy" but only to decree that muslim people dont have any and wont have any unless they worship christ. she breaks with hundreds of millions of people claiming the islam religion worldwide who dont wish harm on women to tell them that theyre not real muslims, because she has an extremist interpretation of islam in common with isis.
she makes mean and dishonest interpretations of other peoples motives. she judges others, constantly. she has very little generosity in her. she spends 1% of her posts talking about christ's love and the other 99% talking about the danger of muslims. she's become a living instrument of fear, and she likes it, and feeds it by poring over anti-muslim websites and with a constant stream of hate videos.
she calls herself a christian
-
it's blindingly obvious that tons of feminists are aware of and against female genital mutilation, whereas babyshark does not care whatsoever to fight for women generally, and is only focused on the single issue of female genital mutilation specifically, because she can use it to attack muslims.
babyshark throws around words like "love" and "joy" but only to decree that muslim people dont have any and wont have any unless they worship christ. she breaks with hundreds of millions of people claiming the islam religion worldwide who dont wish harm on women to tell them that theyre not real muslims, because she has an extremist interpretation of islam in common with isis.
she makes mean and dishonest interpretations of other peoples motives. she judges others, constantly. she has very little generosity in her. she spends 1% of her posts talking about christ's love and the other 99% talking about the danger of muslims. she's become a living instrument of fear, and she likes it, and feeds it by poring over anti-muslim websites and with a constant stream of hate videos.
she calls herself a christian
Sad that this is what Christianity means for millions of Americans.
-
it's blindingly obvious that tons of feminists are aware of and against female genital mutilation,
FALSE. I'm 33 years old and had never in my life, on TV, movies, newspaper, radio, or word-of-mouth heard or seen this being addressed. The same is true for most adults in North America. The vast majority is not talking about FGM and certainly not the liberal-controlled media.
babyshark does not care whatsoever to fight for women generally
FALSE. I believe in human rights for all people of all ages of all appearances of all places.
and is only focused on the single issue of female genital mutilation specifically, because she can use it to attack muslims.
FALSE. I have addressed many issues, not only FGM. Read through the posts to see that many different topics are discussed. I am addressing any and all obstacles that people have perceived or believed in their minds that block them from seeing the love of Jesus and believing in Jesus Christ as Savior. If someone wants to teach another that the earth is round, they have to first destroy the belief that the earth can be flat. Teaching a round earth to a flat-earth believer is not done from hate or bigotry, but out of a desire to teach the truth. The truth is not hate. Facts are not hate.
I also do not and have not attacked Muslim PEOPLE. I'm attacking IDEAS and BELIEFS. There is a big difference. I love Muslim people. Including Tora, Lightbringer, and Ze_Saint. I would love to be friends with all of them. If that isn't happening, it is because they do not want it. I personally find Ze_Saint to be by far the most willing to engage in actual topics and discuss actual issues, which I greatly respect him for, even though we see things quite differently at this point. I welcome points of view and discussion, from all viewpoints and people. Personal attacks and mislabelling do nothing to promote and increase understanding. I would love to be able to focus on having an actual discussion with Ze_Saint, but being attacked from all sides non-stop by hateful people spewing insults, lies, and labels is creating a very hostile environment of hate that tends to make civil conversation obsolete.
babyshark throws around words like "love" and "joy" but only to decree that muslim people dont have any and wont have any unless they worship christ.
It is true that real love comes from God, and that none of us sinful humans are capable of real, selfless love APART from Christ.
It's also true that real joy comes from God, and every earthly, temporary joy, like falling in love, watching kids playing happily, playing with a puppy, eating delicious food, enjoying the friendship and company of an amazing fun person...as blissful as earthly life can be, it's temporary. We all will die. And this earth will be destroyed. Real, lasting JOY that can never be taken away comes from Jesus Christ ONLY, since Jesus Christ IS the ONLY Savior of the world, who came here as a human, fully God and fully man, born of a virgin, and lived a perfect, sinless life that we can't do under the law, and offered Himself in our place, to bear the wrath of God on Himself so we wouldn't have to bear the wrath of God for our own sins and evil.
John 15:11-13
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Jesus Christ made that sacrifice for you and me.
The beatings He took?
Those were the beatings I deserved and you deserved.
The nails pounded through His hands?
Those were the nails you and I deserved for our evil deeds.
The death He died? The death He saved me from.
Jesus conquered the enemy that is death!! When I die, I'm not going to be separated from God into eternal torment of hell, though I earned that with my actions, words, and deeds. Jesus took the penalty for me! And for you! Believing this is what saves a person.
This is the most important thing you will ever hear in your entire life. Nothing is more important than this truth, and people hearing this truth.
Isaiah 53:4-6, 12b
Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
12b
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
The true and living God is a God of love, mercy, forgiveness, but also is holy and just and can't let sin go unpunished. All who reject the gift of salvation won for us by Jesus Christ will stand before God on their own record of thoughts, words, and deeds, which surely contain massive mountains of sins for each and every one of us. I would not want to be standing before God on my own record of actions.
she breaks with hundreds of millions of people claiming the islam religion worldwide who dont wish harm on women to tell them that theyre not real muslims, because she has an extremist interpretation of islam in common with isis.
The information I presented that I learned about Islam are found in
1. The Quran, The Hadiths, and other Islamic writings that are adhered to as the holy books that guide Islamic life, faith, and action
2. Muslim people themselves speaking and sharing their views
3. People who were Muslims but converted away from Islam to become either Christians or atheists sharing their views
4. It is not my own idea that Muslims who do not follow the teachings of the Quran are not real Muslims. It is the teaching in the Quran that "Muslims" who do not follow the Quran are not real Muslims, and this idea is held by devoted Muslims who count them hypocrites and as kill-able as any other non-Muslims.
Which of these would you like to silence and why?
Islamic teaching is not the only roadblock to a person being able to embrace salvation in Jesus Christ. Atheism and evolutionistic teaching is another. Other false gods like Buddha are others that get in the way of a person being able to know the true God of love. Jesus died for ALL people. Muslims are created by the living God and loved by God as much as any other of us sinful people are. The teachings of Islam are just one of many obstacles to faith that are keeping people from being saved. I confront any and all obstacles in order to help show people the truth, that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, that Jesus Christ is forgiving and merciful and showed the maximum form of love by sacrificing Himself for us. That's way too good of news to hide or ignore!
Kill me, silence me, insult me, hate me, ban me, do whatever you need to do, but as long as I have life in me I will proclaim the name of the living God who loves and saves!
He is great, His name is worthy of all praise, HIS NAME is salvation!
Isaiah 25:1
Lord, you are my God;
I will exalt you and praise your name,
for in perfect faithfulness
you have done wonderful things,
things planned long ago.
Psalm 150:6
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord.
God is GREAT! God's majesty stretches from one end of the universe to the other! God knows the number of hairs on our heads, the number of stars in the sky and calls each one by name, He knows the number of cells in our body, and the number of atoms in the universe, since He MADE IT ALL.
The LORD's name is WORTHY OF PRAISE!
I've been praying for each of you today: blid, marx, cum, Tora, Lightbringer, Ze_Saint, and a number of others
I understand how you feel. I understand you see me as an enemy like you've been taught to see Christians. I don't hate you. I care about you.
I want you to be saved and have eternal life through Jesus!
This love isn't even natural. My natural human inclination is the same as yours. When someone insults and hates me, I'm tempted to be mean back, cuz I feel hurt like any other human being. But I spent time with God today. God infuses me with a love too beautiful for words. God fills me with compassion and mercy and peace in the face of struggle and conflict. God picks me up when I fall and reminds me that He has a purpose for everything, even the ugly and bad things! He tells me to rejoice in being hated!
Luke 6:22-23
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.
23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
I can think of nothing better than this life ending so I can be with Jesus! I know my loving Heavenly Father is waiting for me on the other side of death! Eternal life is waiting for me!
I want you to have the same joy and comfort that I have!!
So does God!
1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Psalm 89:52
Praise be to the Lord forever!
Amen and Amen.
-
FALSE. I'm 33 years old and had never in my life, on TV, movies, newspaper, radio, or word-of-mouth heard or seen this being addressed. The same is true for most adults in North America. The vast majority is not talking about FGM and certainly not the liberal-controlled media.
The second (first complete) sentence is a non-sequitur. Assuming you are being honest (based on past experience and common sense, I don't think you are), the fact that you have not seen such things being addressed does not mean they haven't been. Simply that you are unaware of them. There is a whole universe of things you are likely unaware of yet are true nonetheless. The next statement "the same is true for most adults in North America" is a claim made without a shred of evidence behind it. The last sentence is also not substantiated by any facts, only conspiratorial raving against the "liberal-controlled media."
FALSE. I believe in human rights for all people of all ages of all appearances of all places.
This is not what he said. The fact that you changed "fight for women generally" into a generalized "human rights for all people" statements not only does not prove his statement false, it further his point - you are not able to say unequivocally that you fight for women specifically, on issues that primarily concern and affect women.
FALSE. I have addressed many issues, not only FGM. Read through the posts to see that many different topics are discussed. I am addressing any and all obstacles that people have perceived or believed in their minds that block them from seeing the love of Jesus and believing in Jesus Christ as Savior. If someone wants to teach another that the earth is round, they have to first destroy the belief that the earth can be flat. Teaching a round earth to a flat-earth believer is not done from hate or bigotry, but out of a desire to teach the truth. The truth is not hate. Facts are not hate.
You've addressed other women's issues besides FGM and issues (supposedly) relating to fundamentalist Islam? I looked through your recent posts and could not find any examples. Could you point me towards one? Until you do, I will assume you are continuing to bear false witness.
I welcome points of view and discussion, from all viewpoints and people. Personal attacks and mislabelling do nothing to promote and increase understanding. I would love to be able to focus on having an actual discussion with Ze_Saint, but being attacked from all sides non-stop by hateful people spewing insults, lies, and labels is creating a very hostile environment of hate that tends to make civil conversation obsolete.
If this is true, why did you not only lie about my beliefs, but also refused to apologize for doing so when this lying was called to your attention? Again you are disingenuous. If one were less charitable than myself, they may say your actions on this forum are consistent with the actions of a liar.
As for scripture, as William Shakespeare said, "even the devil can quote scripture for his own use." You are not only not fooling anybody, but any serious Christian of integrity and charity would be appalled by your hypocrisy. Honestly, truly sad. I can only wonder what led you to be this way and pray that you are healed.
-
im more of a Christian than you, i say with all possible humility
If being a Christian means following the teachings of Jesus Christ as BabyShark was suggesting earlier, then as a Muslim, I have every right to say that I too am more Christian than BabyShark. And here's my proof:
1) Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God (in the Garden of Gethsemane - Matthew 26:39). I fall on my face five times a day and pray. Christians don't.
2) Jesus never ate the pig/pork/ham or whatever you wanna call it. I don't eat pigs and neither do muslims at large. Most Christians are pig eaters.
3) Jesus was circumcised and so am I. The majority of Christians are not.
4) Jesus is portrayed with a beard in most illustrations. I keep a beard. Most Christians don't. Incidentally, almost all illustrations of Jesus's mother (Mary) portray her wearing a head scarf. Guess who wears a head scarf today - the Muslim woman or the Christian woman?
5) Jesus used to offer the greetings of peace (Luke 10:5, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:21, John 20:26). I and all muslims do that today. Christians don't.
6) Jesus prayed to the father in heaven (God Almighty). Jesus taught about the unity of God (Mark 12:29). He submitted his will to God (Luke 22:42). Jesus was a Muslim by definition. I submit my will to God. Christians believe Jesus died for their sins (which is Paul's teachings, not that of Jesus).
@BabyShark
I usually don't post YouTube videos but since you seem to have plenty of time on your hands writing long posts, this video might be of interest to you:
Do Muslims follow Jesus Christ more than Christians? Dr. Laurence Brown on The Deen Show - YouTube ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3210&v=gdL_GH5RGn0#[/url])
Today I will address this post lining up with your reasoning. I plan to address it another time lining up with the truth.
Your reasoning is that people who do what Jesus did and live like Jesus did and copy His behavior are Christians.
Jesus was born in a stable. Were you born in a stable?
Jesus healed many people from diseases and blindness and cast out demons. Have you done these things?
Jesus turned water into wine. Have you?
Jesus walked on water. Have you?
Jesus kept God's law perfectly and never sinned. Have you? If you've ever lusted after a girl who isn't your wife, or had an angry though against someone, you've broken God's law. None of us can keep God's law perfectly.
Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the 3rd day rose again from the dead and appeared to His disciples. Have you?
If you don't have to do EVERYTHING Jesus did to be a Christian, surely I and every single human being qualifies, for most of us have breathed, talked, walked, slept, eaten, drank water, and dressed ourselves. Like Jesus did.
If you DO have to do EVERYTHING Jesus did, neither have you.
-
@BabyShark
Shall I repeat my words? I said:
If being a Christian means following the teachings of Jesus Christ as BabyShark was suggesting earlier, then as a Muslim, I have every right to say that I too am more Christian than BabyShark.
This is what I said and I meant it exactly the way I said it because I claim to follow Jesus MORE than you and the bulk of Christians do.
Your reasoning is that people who do what Jesus did and live like Jesus did and copy His behavior are Christians.
That is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth to be able to put forth other arguments you believe will play in your favor, and in doing so, you have once again cleverly avoided addressing the points I mentioned. I want you to tell me you follow Jesus's teachings more than I do and prove to me how so.
However, let me quote what YOU said:
Not all people who call themselves Muslims are Muslims and not all people who call themselves Christians are Christians. Actually being the label means believing the teachings of the founder of the religion, Jesus or Muhammad.
We are talking about the teachings of Jesus here, not what he actually did as miracles during his lifetime or the way he was born or his alleged crucifixion. We are comparing how you and I today, around 2000 years after Jesus walked this Earth, are applying his teachings and behaviors. I've proven that I follow Jesus in his teachings and behaviors MORE THAN YOU DO. That doesn't make me perfect or sinless but it certainly makes me more of a Christian than you. Simple.
If you don't have to do EVERYTHING Jesus did to be a Christian, surely I and every single human being qualifies, for most of us have breathed, talked, walked, slept, eaten, drank water, and dressed ourselves. Like Jesus did.
Agreed, but the minimum you have to do to be called a Christian is to at least follow Jesus's teachings, which I've proven here and in other posts that you don't. You predominantly follow the teachings of Paul which, if you have to label yourself, makes you a Paulian - see below.
You claim to follow the words of Jesus Christ but in reality, you are only following Paul. Let's have a look at which of Jesus's or Paul's teachings you follow:
1. Adhering to the laws and commandments
Jesus tells you to keep the laws and the commandments [Matthew 5:17-20]
Paul says that the Law will not bring any justification but a man will only be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. [Galatians 2:16]
You follow Paul.
2. How to attain salvation
Jesus links salvation to the keeping of the commandments. [Matthew 19:16-17]
According to Paul, just professing that Jesus is Lord and that he was raised from the dead will result in the person being saved [Romans 10:9]
You follow Paul.
Paul initiated the whole doctrine of atonement based on the concept of 'original sin' (ROMANS 5:12, 1 CORINTHIANS 15:21-22). Such a concept which states that every human being is born stained with the sin of Adam and Eve, is against the Justice of God. Major Yeats Brown in his book Life of a Bengal Dancer comments on this absurd concept:
"No heathen tribe has conceived so grotesque an idea, involving as it does the assumption, that man was born with a hereditary stain upon him; and that this stain (for which he is not personably responsible) was to be atoned for; and that the Creator of all things had to sacrifice his only begotten son to neutralize this mysterious curse."
3. Eating the flesh of the swine
Jesus never ate the pig as he followed the Law, which states: "The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses." [Deuteronomy 14:8].
Paul allows everything to be eaten, regardless of what the Law says. [Corinthians 10:25]
You follow Paul.
4. Circumcision
Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day. [Luke 2:21]. And Jesus says, "he is not of me who does not take up his cross and follow me" as I quoted before.
Paul says circumcision is nothing and non-circumcision is nothing. [Corinthians 7:19]
What is good for your "Lord" should be good for you, but the bulk of Christians would rather follow Paul in not circumcising.
You follow Paul.
So, I'm confused. Which words of Jesus are YOU following? Can't you see, you're following Paul all the way.
-
yeah it's interesting how mnuch influence paul (not an apostle) ended pu having on christianity. heres a thing
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/was-jesus-a-vegetarian_b_276141.html (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/was-jesus-a-vegetarian_b_276141.html)
-
jesus was a communist, he told the workers to rise up and got tortured by the romans.
-
just to clarify, there was some miscommunication when I revised the moderating policy for this section, so bs wasn't actually aware that we stopped using the tiered banning system -- the original plan was to unban everyone & let her try that out with reduced nitpicking over minor crap like cussing, then blid suggested the penitentiary + having an open dialogue with anyone who doesn't follow the section guidelines, and in my mind that was the best & fairest & simplest way that could work long term, i made posts announcing it but i didn't explicitly tell her so she didn't actually know. so all this latest conflict is essentially on me, so sorry everyone for that !
i maintain that her intentions are good and she just needs to find her stride. when this whole forum first started i was the same way, trying to enforce top down morality with ultra specific rules & absolute impartiality, because it made sense to me at the time. i now realize that it just can't work, because everyone is always justified from their own perspective, anyone who forces an external perspective on them for whatever reason will always been seen as oppressive. the only way to reconcile is to focus exclusively on positives & common ground -- when someone feels safe enough to speak their mind without constantly having to defend themselves, then maybe they'll be more willing to hear & understand what you have to say (but definitely not before). which is why i like this new moderation policy -- it doesn't criticize or judge people for acting the way they want to act, it just says "this particular group in this particular place chooses not to act in certain ways, if you want to participate here you have to agree to that, if not you're free to go elsewhere". back then i didn't know what i didn't know, and most of you were gracious enough to be patient with me while i learned.
agree completely with lamby:
Yeah IDK. Lots of reasons I guess. The one constant tends to be each side pointing at the other side and saying "it's their fault beacuse...."
This discussion seems to be made up exclusively of people trying to destroy the other's argument. What can we agree on?
Let's start with something easy: chopping up girl's bits. Absolutely abhorrent. Anybody disagree? No, of course not.
How about burning women alive "at the stake". Anybody like that? No? Ok, we are doing well.
How about racism? Anybody here (apart from Claw, obviously) think that people should be treated differently based solely on their genetic makeup/skin color? No takers? Cool.
Let's try freedom of religion. Does anybody here think that people should be persecuted based on the God they choose to worship? hmmm... well... ... no, I guess - as long as they don't do the bad stuff like chopping/burning/hating etc.
Please feel free to reply with your thoughts on these questions.
Please do not reply with what you think any other person/group's attitude towards these questions is .... that path leads to the dark side!
i can agree that bs does struggle with cognitive biases, like everyone does to some extent or other, and i don't see that as justification to hate or ridicule her or anyone. "If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed." if she doesn't agree with what anyone here is saying, maybe you're not saying it in a way that she can understand based on where she's standing right now. the same goes for what she says too. when someone addresses a person's perceived shortcomings instead of the content of their argument (or if they're misinterpreted to be doing so), the natural response is defensiveness, to push back, equal and opposite reaction. the natural reaction to that is the same. at some point people just need to have the wisdom not to stoop to that base level of name calling and finger pointing and factionalism (in their individual interactions, regardless of what the other person is doing), or nothing ever changes
i skimmed most of the back & forth but what i gather is -- bs is a christian fundamentalist, in her mind being a follower of x religion = literal interpretation & belief in its scripture, word for word, so anyone who does not literally follow the quran (including any bad/outmoded/oppressive things it may say) word for word is not actually a muslim, so it makes sense to trash "muslims" collectively because the term only applies to the ones doing harm. i do not agree with this perspective at all, but viewed in that light the things she says are far less outrageous.
-
Rolling Stones- Sympathy for the Devil Lyrics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkXIYgsvO0c#)
-
i can agree that bs does struggle with cognitive biases, like everyone does to some extent or other, and i don't see that as justification to hate or ridicule her or anyone. "If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed." if she doesn't agree with what anyone here is saying, maybe you're not saying it in a way that she can understand based on where she's standing right now. the same goes for what she says too. when someone addresses a person's perceived shortcomings instead of the content of their argument (or if they're misinterpreted to be doing so), the natural response is defensiveness, to push back, equal and opposite reaction. the natural reaction to that is the same. at some point people just need to have the wisdom not to stoop to that base level of name calling and finger pointing and factionalism (in their individual interactions, regardless of what the other person is doing), or nothing ever changes
This is all well and good, but how do you justify a post like this?
http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3740.msg61475.html#msg61475 (http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3740.msg61475.html#msg61475)
This is clearly not the result of just some kind of disagreement, or a reasonable defensive reaction to an attack. She goes out of her way here to lie about my beliefs and falsely attribute many false, absurd, and morally abhorrent views to me, including:
- Support for Nazism
- Support for sectarian eliminationist Wahabbi Islam
- That I think anyone who is not a Muslim or criticizes Islam is a racist
- I believe white people are the master race
- That I support purges and genocide to control population
- Support for killing LGBT people (particularly offensive to me)
- That I think all Christians are bigots who should be killed
- That I support stoning, FGM, and other forms of misogynist violence
And that's just from a brief skim. Not only have I not expressed any of these views on this forum, I have expressed concerted opposition to many of them. Despite all these malicious attacks, I assumed basic good faith and corrected her and asked for her to apologize for the false attribution and debate my actual views. Instead, she doubled down on the false accusations and did not admit fault: http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3740.msg61559.html#msg61559 (http://forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,3740.msg61559.html#msg61559) And in addition to not admitting fault and not acknowledging my actual beliefs, she put the onus on me to answer to a ridiculous questionnaire full of leading "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions.
And as I pointed out in my reply to the first linked post, she is breaking rule #1 of this forum in both of those posts. Why is a moderator allowed to repeatedly break the forum rules?
And this is just me, I'm sure she's done the same to people like Saint and Tora who have spent more time arguing with her. These are not the actions of someone who has a simple disagreement or misunderstanding, these are the actions of a malicious liar who participates in discussions in bad faith. It is bad enough, IMO, that in a subforum dedicated to productive discussion, such posting is allowed to occur, it's completely absurd and ridiculous that such a liar is allowed to be a moderator and use their moderation powers to bully and intimidate others. There's really no good reason to have someone so dishonest be in a moderation position.
This isn't even getting into her blatant hatred and racism, this is just on the fact that she is a proud, open, and unrepentant liar. I guess if you are dedicated to a complete allowance for views no matter how repugnant being a hateful racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphone, and Islamophobe does not necessarily disqualify someone from being a moderator, but being a repeated and unrepentant liar should.
-
@mousEtopher
Out of curiosity what was it that made you decide to make BS a mod? Was it because you thought she would make the forums more active? Was it because you thought she would do a good job?
-
@mousEtopher
Out of curiosity what was it that made you decide to make BS a mod? Was it because you thought she would make the forums more active? Was it because you thought she would do a good job?
Well, I have to admit that BabyShark has made the forum more active primarily because most of her posts are considered controversial by many and would naturally be debated upon - extensively at times since BabyShark IS a hard nut to crack! Her not posting recently is testimony to what I'm saying.
However, on her doing a good job, maybe we should start a poll on "Do you think BabyShark is doing a good job as Moderator of the "Moderated Section of W2?" where we can all see the results...
-
@mousEtopher
Out of curiosity what was it that made you decide to make BS a mod? Was it because you thought she would make the forums more active? Was it because you thought she would do a good job?
yes
also she suggested the moderated section in the first place & i like to support as much as possible people who volunteer to make contributions
-
i got banned for owning a retard with facts and logic
-
i got banned for owning a retard with facts and logic
Delusions are not synonymous with facts or logic.
-
lack of self-awareness is a sign of emotional illogical person
-
lack of self-awareness is a sign of emotional illogical person
I am glad you are beginning to realize your problem. This is the first step to recovering from delusion. It takes time, don't rush it but it's good that you are becoming self-aware.
-
i' m not a psychologist but i think your continual projection stems from the fact you likely hate yourself
-
i' m not a psychologist but i think your continual projection stems from the fact you likely hate yourself
Are you also schizophrenic?
-
you need to shut your shit trap im the only one
-
bad your not schiz your just pissed off well we are going to wathc swat kats or saved by the bell or some spooky ghost stuff ewwwwwwww ohhhhhhhh al copone gd i know u love him
in all reality you can go fuck yourself