Judge a faith by its founder, not by its followers

unknownuser

I owe neither you nor your silly dismissal one iota of respect.

You broke our mutual truce with your cowardly indirect insults after attempting to hijack this entire thread of discussion with page after page of irrelevant postings, many of which border on hate speech they are so incredibly ridiculous in their intentional misrepresentations of Christians and Christianity.

If such ignorant verbal thuggery is tolerated here, then perhaps I've chosen the wrong place to seek respectful discourse with Muslims after all.

Hehe, now Profiler confirmed who you are Liar

PS everyone, this guy is a liar and he is from another web site called Liberty Unites, he is an admin there who hates muslims bad that earned him my tough rebutals to his lies and non sense against our great religion, he is so itchy because being an admin there while can't do nothing to me lol , so he is following me here as he admitted this on the other web site

please muslim brothers and sisters be aware, this shifty enemy of Islam is only here to cause discord

He also tried to hack into my mail servers within my companies however it won't work with an MCSE in charge as I told him lol

oneway

I'm sorry to hear that you've created enemies elsewhere on the web, but I am not the person to which you refer below. This thread is my first visit to this site and I am not an administrator on any other public site on any topic, so save your character assasination for the other guy who thinks you worthy of following around the Internet.

I owe neither you nor your silly dismissal one iota of respect.

You broke our mutual truce with your cowardly indirect insults after attempting to hijack this entire thread of discussion with page after page of irrelevant postings, many of which border on hate speech they are so incredibly ridiculous in their intentional misrepresentations of Christians and Christianity.

If such ignorant verbal thuggery is tolerated here, then perhaps I've chosen the wrong place to seek respectful discourse with Muslims after all.

Hehe, now Profiler confirmed who you are Liar

PS everyone, this guy is a liar and he is from another web site called Liberty Unites, he is an admin there who hates muslims bad that earned him my tough rebutals to his lies and non sense against our great religion, he is so itchy because being an admin there while can't do nothing to me lol , so he is following me here as he admitted this on the other web site

please muslim brothers and sisters be aware, this shifty enemy of Islam is only here to cause discord

He also tried to hack into my mail servers within my companies however it won't work with an MCSE in charge as I told him lol

unknownuser

Oneway
i read the rest of your comment and I'm sorry to inform you that you have been dismissed, now don't direct comment to me and i will do the same, you can post what you want to the public and I will do the same

L U

I mean

C U

I gladly accept your dismissal. Good luck to you.

Then

I owe neither you nor your silly dismissal one iota of respect.

lol lol lol lol

Thanks for the laugh

CavemanDoctor

Peace oneway.

CavemanDoctor,

Thanks for an excellent reply.

I appreciate your arguments, but I don't agree with your assessment that only the Quran is intended for all mankind and the message of Jesus was not.

That is your assumption based on your belief in the divine origin of the Quran, which is the very thing we are debating. You are refuting my claims based logic that depends on me being wrong a priori, so what's the point of the discussion? (This is what I was describing in my opening message when I said I didn't want to engage in debates that start with the assumption that the Quran is correct, as I do not believe that it is. As soon as you begin your rebuttal with "According to the Quran..." your argument falls flat.)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I am not saying that the Qur'an is correct because the Qur'an says so. I completely agree that that is circular. It was my impression (maybe I am wrong) that you said the Qur'an is contradictory, meaning as a self-contained system. It is that argument that I was directing my rebuttal to.

I agree that arguing which is more correct, the Qur'an or the Bible, is another argument altogether. It is not what I was discussing and it is not what I thought you were discussing.

In fact, my rebuttal stemmed as a response to this

Plainly put, I think the Quranic view on Jesus is illogical and requires a belief that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful. Let me explain.

The Quran teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God and goes to some lengths to clarify that Jesus was only a prophet, not the Son of God.

Ok, lets assume this is correct. If Jesus was a prophet of God, he must have brought a message for mankind. That's what prophets do. Where and by whom was the message of Jesus documented?

Do you see why now I was speaking in terms of Qur'anic self-consistency? You are saying that

the Qur'an teaches Jesus was a prophet
He must have brought a message for all of mankind
Where is the message?
Therefore, the Qur'anic view on Jesus is illogical

One of those does not fit. Premise 2 is your own assumption, not an assumption that the Qur'an makes. You can't use your own assumption to arrive at a conclusion that the Qur'anic view on Jesus is illogical. The Qur'anic view on Jesus does not subscribe to your assumptions. I hope I am being crystal clear. I am not saying the Qur'an is true simply because it says so. I am merely saying the Qur'anic view on Jesus is not "illogical," as you say, simply because it does not agree with your preconceived assumptions. This is an elementary law of logic. It really has nothing to do with subjectivity or Bible vs. Quran or anything else.

I would be committing a similar error if I made the following argument

The Bible calls Jesus the son of God
If he was the son of God, surely he would not have allowed himself to be crucified
He allowed himself to be crucified
Therefore, the biblical view of Jesus is illogical

This argument is just as silly and fallacious as the one you are making for the simple reason that I am injecting my own assumption (i.e. that a son of God would not have allowed himself to be crucified) that is not supported by the Bible, then using that very assumption to show that the Bible is illogical. A Christian would respond that my argument was baseless because the Bible never says that sons of God cannot be crucified, and that therefore there is nothing internally illogical about the Bible calling him the son of God and the Bible talking about him being crucified. I would agree with the Christian. I just hope the Christian would see that I could say the same thing about the Qur'an. The Qur'an never says that Jesus was "sent for all of mankind" so to argue that the Qur'anic view on Jesus is illogical based on that assumption is just as fallacious as my hypothetical argument.

That the Quran is constructed to yield to Mohammed the final revelation of God is convenient for Mohammed, but that does not make it true. To Christians it makes it all the more suspect and it reads very much like a device contrived by a man seeking power by claiming to be God's pipeline to mankind. And power is exactly what Mohammed sought with the sword and the Quran.

Jesus said he came for all of humanity according to the Biblical reports. You claim that these Biblical reports are somehow falsified because the Quran, which came later, claims that is the case. Ok, what evidence besides the Quran, which is the subject of our debate, supports that? It is unsupportable without the assumption that the Quran is divine.

You're right; the Qur'an saying it is true does not necessarily make it so. Again, that was never what I was discussing. I was merely discussing the Qu'ran vis a vis itself, not vis a vis the Bible. If we can agree that the Qur'an itself is not self-contradictory, then I have no problem. )

In a nutshell, all of Islam seems to boil down to "The Quran says so, therefore that is the truth." You say that the only means by which the Quran may be invalidated is by finding internal contradictions in the Quran. Ignoring for the moment that there are internal contradictions in the Quran, can't you see that this is arguing from faith, not from reason?

You are beginning the argument with the belief that the Quran is true, not seeking to prove whether or not it is true by objective means. That is the fundamental flaw in your rebuttal.

I did not say that the Qur'an can only be invalidated by finding internal contradictions. I thought you were talking about internal contradictions so I discussed those. Of course, if the Qur'an contradicts science, for example, it can also be invalidated in that way.

I am not arguing from faith nor am I beginning my argument with the belief the Qur'an is true. Just to sum up again, I thought you were talking about Qur'anic contradictions. If that was not the case, I apologize.

Further, as I know you are a polite person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, please don't think that all of us who argue here do so from faith, rather than reason. To be clear, we all have faith (belief in God requires faith, to some extent) but that does not mean our faith is not arrived at through rational means.

I don't believe the Qur'an is true simply because it says so. I believe it is true for various reasons, which can be broken down into objective and experiential. Objectively, I believe the Qur'an because of its amazing accuracy in speaking about scientific matters which simply could not have been known by a man 1400 years ago. Additionally, I believe the Qur'an has within it an interlocking intricate mathematical code, the likes of which I have never seen. Experientially, the precepts in the Qur'an appeal to my logic and way of thinking. I can easily arrive at the belief in one Creator simply through reflection alone and without the use of the Qur'an. I can also arrive at the belief in doing good works through reflection alone. To give a contrasting example, I cannot arrive at believing in a crucified savior god-man through reflection alone. That belief needs an external source. To be clear, I am not saying that it is wrong just because it needs an external source; I am simply giving an experiential reason for why the Qur'an's logic appeals to me.

But, as far as what you're asking, in terms of objective evidence for the divinity of the Qur'an, I think the two best things to look into are 1) its scientific accuracy; not merely accuracy but scientific predictions and 2) its mathematical code.

Further, you ignore well established history in your desire to cling to the assumption that the Quran is true. You say that historically the prophets listed in the Quran came only for "their people", not all of mankind, and that many of their messages have been lost.

Again, that the Quran says that does not make it true - that is what we're debating here. Consider Moses and the Ten Commandments. Was that not intended for all of mankind? Has that message from God not persisted through the ages?

Take away your assumption, your faith, that the Quran is true and give me any logical reasoning that suggests it is true.

The same test can be applied to the Bible and you'll have objective history plus predictive prophecies that predate the New Testament that provide strong evidence of the validity of the scriptures therein. Such are not present in the Quran so there is no external means by which to test its validity.

/oneway

Agreed. I must have mistaken your argument cause, again, I was under the impression you were arguing that the Qur'an was contradictory and it was that that I was responding to. That is why I was using Qur'anic assumptions in my argument; I was arguing about the Qur'an as a self-contained system; to find internal contradictions, one must proceed in the context of the Qur'an's own assumptions.

I want to be clear here so that you don't think I am saying I believe in the Qur'an just because it says it's from God. I was merely talking about the Qur'an in terms of self-contradiction. Can we agree that you have not shown the Qur'an to be self-contradictory? Leaving Bible vs. Qur'an debates aside for a moment, do you at least concede that the Qur'an does not contradict itself?

CavemanDoctor

double post.

unknownuser

Peace oneway and all. Folks im feeling a lot of defensiveness,negativity and harshness here. Lets chill out.
Oneway I will try to explain my position brother/sister. I would say i am muslim by virtue of my heritage and upbringing.(though it doesnt necessarily define me,and i wouldnt absolutely insist on being called one.). I dont mean a traditional muslim.(eg believing all the doctrines that have come from the past.) I treat the quran as an inspired book(just as i do the bible,torah,bhagvad gita,bahai book,einsteins work etc..) ,however it need not be taken all literally.(it states this in the text,see chapter 3 verse 7,quran.) I also state that it is not the ultimate or last word on everything.I also state that there is the possibility that there are some inconsistencies and contradictions in it.However there are also some universal truths and wise words in it as well. The verses that seem to promote violence,sexual deviancy etc..i either interpret metaphorically or differently.(according to allowances from the arabic language and/or or from mystic interpretations.) In my opinion even if the quran is wrong,it does not matter to me because how to live and be moral is available by studying yourself and the world around you.Life is one big scripture. My conscience and intellect come before any deviant or illogical interpretations. I only believe in the parts of the quran which i can verify or deem as reasonable/logical theories.(otherwise i would be guilty of blind or irrational faith.) In my opinion the quran is a human attempt to explain the divine,and as such it is good but fallible.(like all attempts to explain the divine.) The arabic word muslim means 'a person who is peaceful',i class it as a verb. To me being peaceful means loving/respecting all people regardless of ideology,religion,race etc.. My method of doing this involves seeking true knowledge of reality(of the 'divine') from any source i have available,and in no way do i restrict myself to a text from the past.There are universal spiritual truths and relative/contextual spiritual truths,i try to keep these in mind when studying so as not to impose 'relative spiritual truths on people which may not be acceptable to all. I would call myself a mystic philanthropist,with a muslim heritage.Its not necessary for a person to be called a muslim or to believe in the quran to be a good or even great person.The truth is out there in many,many forms and religions. I think the uniting factor in all is the search for the divine(or how to 'do the right thing'.),and my journey leads me to think(at this moment.) that we and everything that exists are a part of the divine and somewhat interdependent. What truely binds us all is mutual love/respect. Its just that in our illusions and dogmas we think we are unrelated,independent egos. Yes jesus is a part of god,and so is everthing that exists. God is the 'all'. Why do we want to oppress and hurt each other when we are all part of the 'all'?(a great infinite family .) Peace to all on the journey to realising your own and everybody elses divinity. ps;a prophet/messenger is anybody that delivers or teaches wisdom,and they all make mistakes. (including muhammed,jesus,helen keller,einstein,mary,buddha,niestchze,mike tyson,muhammed ali,nelson mandela,ghandhi,martin luther king,rumi,etc,etc.. .)Follow the truth,not the mistakes or just the literal message. LOL.

oneway

Thanks for the laugh

I have reported your use of character defamation to the moderators, including your false accusations regarding my identity, your claim that I tried to hack your system, and your spamming of this discussion with hate speech.

Hopefully the moderators will address the problem responsibly to maintain the mutual respect that has been shown by everyone else in this forum.

oneway

CavemanDoctor,

Another well thought out reply - thanks. smile

I did set out to prove what I called a "contradiction" in the Quran, and perhaps that was a poor choice of words given the subtleties of my argument.

You are correct that I did not make a case in my argument for a strictly self-contradicting statement in the Quran. Instead, I tried to make a case for what I see as an error in logic, a logical contradiction if you will, in the Quran's treatment of Jesus.

My argument was, roughly, that the Quran's position that Jesus is only a prophet of God does not square with the Biblical accounts of who Jesus Himself claimed to be. From there I made my case as to why I think the Biblical accounts of Jesus cannot be easily rejected without challenging the omnipotence and the omniscience of God.

So through my argument I showed that the logical problem of Jesus Quranic treatment leads to a conclusion contradicting a fundamental tenet of the Quran, namely that God is omnipotent and omniscient

Your well phrased rebuttal I think appreciated these nuances in the argument, but you began your rebuttal by rejecting the assumption in my argument that the message of Jesus was intended for all of humanity.

Your basis for rejecting that assumption was that the Quran says that assumption is incorrect, so my reply was that you cannot use a statement from the Quran to attack that assumption because the validity of the Quran is the very thing we are debating.

In other words, relying on the truth of a claim in the Quran to attack an argument challenging the validity of the Quran is circular reasoning.

Does that help clarify my understanding of our exchanges so far?

On the issue of where the assumption originates that Jesus' message was intended for all of mankind, that is not my assumption but an assertion from the Bible, which fits with my assertion that the Bible cannot be easily rejected without challenging God's omnipotence and omniscience as laid out in my broader argument.

I would have to do more reading and homework on the more general topic of whether there are any direct self-contradictions in the Quran.

I do appreciate the other reasons you posted for believing in the Quran, the math, science, etc. I would appreciate any pointers you care to share with me to learn more about those topics.

Thanks smile

/oneway

Peace oneway.

CavemanDoctor,

Thanks for an excellent reply.

I appreciate your arguments, but I don't agree with your assessment that only the Quran is intended for all mankind and the message of Jesus was not.

That is your assumption based on your belief in the divine origin of the Quran, which is the very thing we are debating. You are refuting my claims based logic that depends on me being wrong a priori, so what's the point of the discussion? (This is what I was describing in my opening message when I said I didn't want to engage in debates that start with the assumption that the Quran is correct, as I do not believe that it is. As soon as you begin your rebuttal with "According to the Quran..." your argument falls flat.)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I am not saying that the Qur'an is correct because the Qur'an says so. I completely agree that that is circular. It was my impression (maybe I am wrong) that you said the Qur'an is contradictory, meaning as a self-contained system. It is that argument that I was directing my rebuttal to.

I agree that arguing which is more correct, the Qur'an or the Bible, is another argument altogether. It is not what I was discussing and it is not what I thought you were discussing.

In fact, my rebuttal stemmed as a response to this

Plainly put, I think the Quranic view on Jesus is illogical and requires a belief that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful. Let me explain.

The Quran teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God and goes to some lengths to clarify that Jesus was only a prophet, not the Son of God.

Ok, lets assume this is correct. If Jesus was a prophet of God, he must have brought a message for mankind. That's what prophets do. Where and by whom was the message of Jesus documented?

Do you see why now I was speaking in terms of Qur'anic self-consistency? You are saying that

the Qur'an teaches Jesus was a prophet
He must have brought a message for mankind
Where is the message?
Qur'anic view on Jesus is illogical

One of those does not fit. Premise 2 is your own assumption, not an assumption that the Qur'an makes. You can't use your own assumption to arrive at a conclusion that the Qur'anic view on Jesus is illogical. The Qur'anic view on Jesus does not subscribe to your assumptions. I hope I am being crystal clear. I am not saying the Qur'an is true simply because it says so. I am merely saying the Qur'anic view on Jesus is "illogical," as you say, simply because it does not agree with your preconceived assumptions. This is an elementary law of logic. It really has nothing to do with subjectivity or Bible vs. Quran or anything else.

That the Quran is constructed to yield to Mohammed the final revelation of God is convenient for Mohammed, but that does not make it true. To Christians it makes it all the more suspect and it reads very much like a device contrived by a man seeking power by claiming to be God's pipeline to mankind. And power is exactly what Mohammed sought with the sword and the Quran.

Jesus said he came for all of humanity according to the Biblical reports. You claim that these Biblical reports are somehow falsified because the Quran, which came later, claims that is the case. Ok, what evidence besides the Quran, which is the subject of our debate, supports that? It is unsupportable without the assumption that the Quran is divine.

You're right; the Qur'an saying it is true does not necessarily make it so. Again, that was never what I was discussing. I was merely discussing the Qu'ran vis a vis itself, not vis a vis the Bible. If we can agree that the Qur'an itself is not self-contradictory, then I have no problem.

In a nutshell, all of Islam seems to boil down to "The Quran says so, therefore that is the truth." You say that the only means by which the Quran may be invalidated is by finding internal contradictions in the Quran. Ignoring for the moment that there are internal contradictions in the Quran, can't you see that this is arguing from faith, not from reason?

You are beginning the argument with the belief that the Quran is true, not seeking to prove whether or not it is true by objective means. That is the fundamental flaw in your rebuttal.

I did not say that the Qur'an can only be invalidated by finding internal contradictions. I thought you were talking about internal contradictions so I discussed those. Of course, if the Qur'an contradicts science, for example, it can be invalidated in that way.

I am not arguing from faith nor am I beginning my argument with the belief the Qur'an is true. Just to sum up again, I thought you were talking about Qur'anic contradictions. If that was not the case, I apologize.

Further, as I know you are an intelligent person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, please don't think that all of us who argue here do so from faith, rather than reason. To be clear, we all have faith (belief in God requires faith, to some extent) but that does not mean our faith is not arrived at without rational means.

I don't believe the Qur'an is true simply because it says so. I believe it is true for various reasons, which can be broken down into objective and experiential. Objectively, I believe the Qur'an because of its amazing accuracy in speaking about scientific matters which simply could not have been known by a man 1400 years ago. Additionally, I believe the Qur'an has within it an interlocking intricate mathematical code, the likes of which I have never seen. Experientially, the precepts in the Qur'an appeal to my logic and way of thinking. I can easily arrive at the belief in one Creator simply through reflection alone and without the use of the Qur'an. I can also arrive at the belief in doing good works through reflection alone. To give a contrasting example, I cannot arrive at believing in a crucified savior god-man through reflection alone. That belief needs an external source. To be clear, I am not saying that it is wrong just because it needs an external source; I am simply giving an experiential reason for why the Qur'an's logic appeals to me.

But, as far as what you're asking, in terms of objective evidence for the divinity of the Qur'an, I think the two best things to look into are 1) its scientific accuracy; not merely accuracy but scientific predictions and 2) its mathematical code.

Further, you ignore well established history in your desire to cling to the assumption that the Quran is true. You say that historically the prophets listed in the Quran came only for "their people", not all of mankind, and that many of their messages have been lost.

Again, that the Quran says that does not make it true - that is what we're debating here. Consider Moses and the Ten Commandments. Was that not intended for all of mankind? Has that message from God not persisted through the ages?

Take away your assumption, your faith, that the Quran is true and give me any logical reasoning that suggests it is true.

The same test can be applied to the Bible and you'll have objective history plus predictive prophecies that predate the New Testament that provide strong evidence of the validity of the scriptures therein. Such are not present in the Quran so there is no external means by which to test its validity.

/oneway

Agreed. I must have mistaken your argument cause, again, I was under the impression you were arguing that the Qur'an was contradictory and it was that that I was responding to. That is why I was using Qur'anic assumptions in my argument; I was arguing about the Qur'an as a self-contained system; to find internal contradictions, one must proceed in the context of the Qur'an's own assumptions.

I want to be clear here so that you don't think I am saying I believe in the Qur'an just because it says it's from God. I was merely talking about the Qur'an in terms of self-contradiction. Can we agree that you have not shown the Qur'an to be self-contradictory? Leaving Bible vs. Qur'an debates aside for a moment, do you at least concede that the Qur'an does not contradict itself?

Someone

Peace upon you oneway and all,

Let's consider these 2 hypothesis for a moment

"Jesus's message was intended for all of mankind"
"Mohammad's message was intended for all of mankind"

We know for a fact that both Jesus and Mohammed died before their messages could reach all of mankind. Indeed, all mankind includes all the people from the 5 (or is it 6?) continents, knowing that there was no communication devices at the time to widely diffuse the message.

So basically, based on these hypothesis, we can safely affirm that both Jesus and Mohammed failed in their task, which is verified logically and historically, because many people never heard of Jesus or Mohammed even in these times with all the progress made. And technically, they should have learned to speak the multitude of languages spoken at those times.

Thus, there's 2 possibilities

1- Both Jesus and Mohammad have failed in their role.

2- The hypothesis in the begining is/are false.

Thus, I would like to reword the hypothesis as

"Jesus's and Mohammad's message are suitable for all of mankind"

No one of then had to deliver the message to all the people on earth (which I consider to be humanly impossible). They had to deliver it to their own people, as do/did/are doing the other messengers.

--

oneway

Welcome to the discussion Someone,

I think your distinction between "intended for all" and "suitable for all" makes an assumption about timing of the message delivery. That a message is intended for all does not necessarily imply that it is intended for all within a particular limited time span that we deem appropriate; rather, the message is intended for all on the timeline of God's choosing.

In fact, "intended for all" as I meant it in my arguments above specifically implies "intended for all people for all time", so that the message is even intended for people who were not yet alive at the time the message was delivered, hence the duties placed on believers to spread the word. This is the common Christian view of the intended audience for Christ's message.

Thanks.

/oneway

"
Peace upon you oneway and all,

Let's consider these 2 hypothesis for a moment

"Jesus's message was intended for all of mankind"
"Mohammad's message was intended for all of mankind"

We know for a fact that both Jesus and Mohammed died before their messages could reach all of mankind. Indeed, all mankind includes all the people from the 5 (or is it 6?) continents, knowing that there was no communication devices at the time to widely diffuse the message.

So basically, based on these hypothesis, we can safely affirm that both Jesus and Mohammed failed in their task, which is verified logically and historically, because many people never heard of Jesus or Mohammed even in these times with all the progress made. And technically, they should have learned to speak the multitude of languages spoken at those times.

Thus, there's 2 possibilities

1- Both Jesus and Mohammad have failed in their role.

2- The hypothesis in the begining is/are false.

Thus, I would like to reword the hypothesis as

"Jesus's and Mohammad's message are suitable for all of mankind"

No one of then had to deliver the message to all the people on earth (which I consider to be humanly impossible). They had to deliver it to their own people, as do/did/are doing the other messengers.

--

bmbmm

Peace,

The faith you talked about is not a scientific quest that can be found. Hence there is no "founder", it was revealed; its a revalation from God.

Cheers

oneway

Peace,

The faith you talked about is not a scientific quest that can be found. Hence there is no "founder", it was revealed; its a revalation from God.

Cheers

Fair enough. Replace "founder" with "messenger" in my original subject if you like. It doesn't change the underlying point regarding Mohammed and Islam if you accept the hadiths, and if you don't accept the hadiths, see other discussion above. (Of course, changing to "messenger" would make a difference to Christians since Christ is much more than a messenger to us, which has been part of the discussion here.)

Thanks.

/oneway

unknownuser

Thanks for the laugh

I have reported your use of character defamation to the moderators, including your false accusations regarding my identity, your claim that I tried to hack your system, and your spamming of this discussion with hate speech.

Hopefully the moderators will address the problem responsibly to maintain the mutual respect that has been shown by everyone else in this forum.

lol lol lol

Thanks for the laugh again, your sick plan won't work V Agent I got your IP address that you use on LU you liar

now I ask you to respect your dismissal wink

unknownuser

Peace ahmedbhaghat. Please take it easy my brother. )
Peace oneway Brother/sister,when you have time can you post some feedback to my long post,please, dated 10.15am.(from 21st march.) Thanks in advance.

unknownuser

Peace ahmedbhaghat. Please take it easy my brother. )

Mate, i don't want this guy to mislead many here, he is a clear cut liar, he is also 30 years old not 37, I collected hard core evidence bro

cheers

unknownuser

Peace ahmedbhaghat. Please take it easy my brother. )

Hey bro

here is another laugh

this liar posted a thread defaming Mohammad, then bloody crying like a girl after I exposed him by claiming I defamed him

now that was the mother of all laughs man

lol lol lol

oneway

Thanks for the laugh

I have reported your use of character defamation to the moderators, including your false accusations regarding my identity, your claim that I tried to hack your system, and your spamming of this discussion with hate speech.

Hopefully the moderators will address the problem responsibly to maintain the mutual respect that has been shown by everyone else in this forum.

lol lol lol

Thanks for the laugh again, your sick plan won't work V Agent I got your IP address that you use on LU you liar

now I ask you to respect your dismissal wink

I'm sorry that you are confused by your weak network forensic skills into believing that you have my IP address when clearly you are addressing someone else, but your continued taunts only serve to bolster my case to the moderators of this forum.

unknownuser

Yeh leave it to the moderators Q Boy, i trust them and I don't trust you, clear and simple, now stop crying please and respect your dismissal

oneway

Peace ahmedbhaghat. Please take it easy my brother.
Peace oneway Brother/sister,when you have time can you post some feedback to my long post,please, from 10.15am today . Thanks in advance.

Yes - apologies for not getting back to you directly. I appreciate your position regarding universal truths and the things that bind us all together. I certainly believe that there are God originated inherent truths that we all come to recognize whether we all admit they originate from God or not, e.g. our sense of justice which comes from God.

As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, my desire to believe that unity of humanity was paramount lead me to explore the Baha'i faith for a time, but ultimately, as with Islam, the Baha'i rejection of some core teachings of Christ was something I could not accept.

So I don't believe that recognizing these universal truths or practicing mutual love and respect for others, or any collection of good deeds for that matter, are sufficient for salvation. Of course, you know I'm Christian, and this is the basic Christian doctrine that we are saved by grace and not by deeds, so being obedient to those universal truths is necessary, but not sufficient.

/oneway

oneway

Peace ahmedbhaghat. Please take it easy my brother.

Hey bro

here is another laugh

this liar posted a thread defaming Mohammad, then bloody crying like a girl after I exposed him by claiming I defamed him

now that was the mother of all laughs man

lol lol lol

Once again you misrepresent what I have posted here.

This forum would benefit greatly from an "ignore" button.