A Few Questions for S.O.L. Adherents
-
Wut? Where did you get that from?
I do not understand your question(s).
If you mean those incoherent claims that ownership is not ownership, a sale is not a sale, government is not government, taxation is not taxation -- all those are from SOL's website.
Did you see the one about how renting out residential real estate or acquiring property to enter the residential property landlord occupation so violates his nebulous notion of "Natural Law" that SOL says it warrants forfeiture of land title (which SOL also says should be indefeasible by any means, while SOL also says that there is to be no private ownership of anything), unless the landlord acquires the rental property by inheritance and needs rental income, in which case the intolerable landlord occupation is acceptable?
That one is on the same page where SOL condemns copyrights and copyright rights as violative of "Natural Law" -- and what was that "Natural Law" supposed to be about -- not encroaching and not interfering with others having the "fruits" or benefits of their efforts, right -- so when you think that this stuff could not get any more incoherent, wait, it gets even more so. There is SOL's copyright indication on the website pages.
-
I do not understand your question(s).
If you mean those incoherent claims that ownership is not ownership, a sale is not a sale, government is not government, taxation is not taxation -- all those are from SOL's website.
Did you see the one about how renting out residential real estate or acquiring property to enter the residential property landlord occupation so violates his nebulous notion of "Natural Law" that SOL says it warrants forfeiture of land title (which SOL also says should be indefeasible by any means, while SOL also says that there is to be no private ownership of anything), unless the landlord acquires the rental property by inheritance and needs rental income, in which case the intolerable landlord occupation is acceptable?
That one is on the same page where SOL condemns copyrights and copyright rights as violative of "Natural Law" -- and what was that "Natural Law" supposed to be about -- not encroaching and not interfering with others having the "fruits" or benefits of their efforts, right -- so when you think that this stuff could not get any more incoherent, wait, it gets even more so. There is SOL's copyright indication on the website pages.
Where do you see that Abdun Nur implies you need to pay taxes ( and you even said compulsory lol ) in his ideal community?
-
Ah yes, the comfort being part of a majority brings. Though, you do bring some interesting and debatable points, which I'd like to discuss if possible.
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate! -
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate!There's no such thing as right in religious matters.
If you want to be right, stop being religious.
In front of Allah all religions are worthless -
There's no such thing as right in religious matters.
If you want to be right, stop being religious.
In front of Allah all religions are worthlessI disagree. I believe Allah values me and others actively turning towards Him, surrendering to Him and obeying Him.
All sufficiently false religions are worthless (or worse!), but I still think that the deen described in the Quran could well be translated as "the religion" or perhaps "Religion" with the capital R to distinguish it from all other religions, which are necessarily false as per 385 as well as common sense - if there is only one Truth there must be only one correct Religion - i.e. the correct way to relate to and act upon this Truth as a human being. -
Where do you see that Abdun Nur implies you need to pay taxes ( and you even said compulsory lol ) in his ideal community?
I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.
Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
I got that from more than one place on the SOL website. It alternately describes the compulsory contributions to fund governmental functions as voluntary and largely voluntary. It sets out a rationale that (what SOL indicates is the freely entered choice of) participating or even living in human society, in a place with others -- in short, being at any geographic place that has a cluster of human settlement -- is a voluntary deal to have that society's and local government's benefits and the obligation to pay for them; and further, that anyone not agreeing to that deal must depart from the community and their (always but only sometimes) indefeasibly owned place in the community, presumably to be cast out to live as a hermit in some unclaimed wilderness where no other humans would live and where no sovereign would claim dominion. It does not square at all with SOL's also arguing the opposite(s) against any social contract notions.
Did you see the one where SOL rants of persons being forced -- yes, forced -- to pay automobile insurance premiums?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Can't tell if trolling or retarded
-
I disagree. I believe Allah values me and others actively turning towards Him, surrendering to Him and obeying Him.
All sufficiently false religions are worthless (or worse!), but I still think that the deen described in the Quran could well be translated as "the religion" or perhaps "Religion" with the capital R to distinguish it from all other religions, which are necessarily false as per 385 as well as common sense - if there is only one Truth there must be only one correct Religion - i.e. the correct way to relate to and act upon this Truth as a human being.All religions are false.
Islam is a deen not a religion. No where in the Quran is it said for Islam to be a religion. Nor does Islam has any religion practices. Religion is totally worthless. Islam is a perfect deen for the mankind.There is only one truth, but it doesn't mean it's a religion.
-
All religions are false.
Islam is a deen not a religion. No where in the Quran is it said for Islam to be a religion. Nor does Islam has any religion practices. Religion is totally worthless. Islam is a perfect deen for the mankind.There is only one truth, but it doesn't mean it's a religion.
Fine, call it what you will. Are we in agreement that the Quran contains instructions for how we are to think and behave, and that these instructions should be followed?
-
Fine, call it what you will. Are we in agreement that the Quran contains instructions for how we are to think and behave, and that these instructions should be followed?
Yes of course.
Quran is a guide for everything needed to be righteous and for a good world. Political, Economical, Social etc...
-
I am grateful for this thread.
I have tried and failed to read stuff SOL has written more than once, as I seem to lack the patience or mental fortitude necessary to parse out what he is actually trying to convey. Having read this thread thus far I feel more secure in my initial decision to dismiss his writings as rambling nonsense.
Me too!
AGREE ) -
What does Paul and Luke and the Gospel has to do with paganism? And if I asked you what is paganism would you know?
What surprises the most about some people in this forum that as Koranist you would think that they would be the last people on Earth to throw that accusation at anyone given in the Koran paganism and polytheism is the unforgiveable sin. And to see that thrown on characters like Paul and Luke is truly amazing.
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.
Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)
If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?
He told you to study Wicca so you could convert to it. You love that kind of bullshit after all
-
Peace Mr. Q. As much as I dislike Paul, here goes
Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God
Show me where he said that? He referred to him as the son of God, but he reserved "theos" with the definite article "ho" for God, and not Jesus.
with all the fullness of Deity residing in him.
He did not say that the fullness of Deity (as in the PERSONHOOD of God) resided in him. He said that the fullness of divinity resided in him, i.e. the moral and ethical goodness of God. He used the greek word "theioites" or "godliness".
He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God
You have to understand the Jewish view of salvation. It was as much political and existential as it was anything else. Recognizing that the salvation of the Jewish nation in accepting Jesus' death as the means of returning the Jewish people to their original identity is what he was talking about. This is a complicated concept that requires an understanding of the entire salvation history of the Jewish people. Moses interceded for the Jewish people (I believe there is a parallel in both Torah and Quran for this) and no one would deny that Moses was fully human.
and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life.
Paul did not refer to Jesus as Lord in any deified sense. The first creed of Christianity is found in Romans. It is "Iesous kurios", or "Jesus is Lord." It is the counter to the political creed of Rome "Kaesar kurios" or "Caesar is Lord". Jesus was the political figurehead of the church, which was a spiritual/political institution directly in opposition to Rome.
His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.
Again, while I do not like Paul, I think he was dishonest about certain things, I do not believe that he taught polytheism or paganism.
-
Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;
Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.It is unfortunate to see ''muslims'' who, to come to the conclusion that Islam needs nothing more than the Qu'ran, studied, cogitated and had to go to the core, judge a philosophy by what users wrote on Wikipedia. Why did you not do the same for Islam? Hypocrisy and sloppiness are certainly traits ''muslims'' should try to sweep. Again, if you think 'studying' something is reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia, then...
I care little for belonging to the majority or any comfort that brings, but I care deeply about being/doing right in religious matters.
Pray tell what points you would like to debate!From politics (allodial right of use, taxation) to islam being monotheistic (instead of mono-panentheistic) and islam being a 'religion', I am curious what kind of arguments you have to support your present beliefs. Unfortunately, this thread is a joke, perhaps we can open a new one or converse through the message system.
-
From politics (allodial right of use, taxation) to islam being monotheistic (instead of mono-panentheistic) and islam being a 'religion', I am curious what kind of arguments you have to support your present beliefs. Unfortunately, this thread is a joke, perhaps we can open a new one or converse through the message system.
I have revisited some SOL writings, and find that I may have been rash in my previous judgment (not the first time this happens, unfortunately). While I'm not sure about the validity of all of SOL's teachings quite yet, the "God and Allah" article at least isn't far from my own beliefs. It's all an argument of semantics, really. I've been using capitalization to distinguish between God, who is not a god, and Religion, which isn't a religion. SOL seems to do the same with Allah (who is not God) and deen, which isn't religion. The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
-
I have revisited some SOL writings, and find that I may have been rash in my previous judgment (not the first time this happens, unfortunately). While I'm not sure about the validity of all of SOL's teachings quite yet, the "God and Allah" article at least isn't far from my own beliefs. It's all an argument of semantics, really. I've been using capitalization to distinguish between God, who is not a god, and Religion, which isn't a religion. SOL seems to do the same with Allah (who is not God) and deen, which isn't religion. The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name. - Tao Te ChingThis is why I suggest to the religious, such as Mr.Q, to study Taoism.
Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship. While Allah, or decomposed, allathee la illah (instead of the traditionalist comprehension and decomposition of the word - al ilah) literally who is not God, is an ever-living creative force who seeks nor asks worship, but servitude - not to it, as it is self-sustaining - but from one (human) being to the other (human, animal or/and nature).
Gods and religions grant an everlasting forest-like paradise to who ever worships them, and/or repents verbally (if one sinned) . While the creator requires truthful action and continuous fight against the base desires.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
Please see your inbox.
-
Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship.
Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.
The words we use for things matter less than the associations we actually have with those words, I believe.
I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.
So what about allodial use and taxation?
Shit... it went classified
Peace All
-
nope
Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.
I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.
Shit... it went classified
Peace All
Yeah but shouldn't you look at the original meaning of god?
Also god for worship was first used by the Queen of Babylon.
God is an idol and will stay an idol.
Allah literally means who is not god ( deity for worship and adoration ) -
Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.
I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in
Shit... it went classified
Peace All
Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * hu-t?-m was based on the root * hau(ə-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".
The literal definition of a God is an idol that is worshiped, invoked and called upon. Furthermore, the definition of the Arabic word 'ilah' is "an object of worship". It is your choice to say that your creator is an 'ilah' while it calls itself 'Allah' (allathee LA ILAH - who is NOT God), but perhaps you know better than it. You can persist in trying to support your views falsely, I could care less, we will all face the creator one day. Let us not waste any more time and space on the server of free-minds by repeating the same things over and over again.
Shit... it went classified
The reason is that there are a lot of cheerleaders, who, without thinking, reject a view because it is alien to them, and they are too attached to their culture, religion and ego to put it to the test for a second. These same babblers annoy and say nothing intelligent, and so I prefer to discuss calmly with one.