Muslim Mindset: 'The hatred is in Muhammad himself'

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

Expecting me to justify your own statement is one way to avoid the truth and the questions I asked you.

How am I expecting you to justify what statement? I just asked you a simple question: What do you say is the truth? I have already answered all your questions.

Deceit. An elaborate poetic image in the form of your own personal religion.

As a rule of thumb, we don't spin deciet. Spinner spin the truth, rendering it incomprehensible, ambiguous, contradictory...or otherwise "dead".

So, what "truth" do you say I am spinning?

You can start to recognize that reality , or construct more deceit as you would normally do , for instance, by pretending yet again you or your ideas are not subject to the same reality as everyone is.

I've said that reality is a Being. You and I are subject to that Being as much as anyone else. Time/mass is a decietful construction which would deny the real Being.

Your words not mine, and your religious posts demonstrate all three, as they do indeed, manifest themselves in the Bible.

What is a "religious post"?

The bible spins the truth. I simply point out what the truth was...before it was spun. You seem to be saying there was no truth to begin with. That's like saying that because there is a controversy (spin) about the fall of the twin towers, none of the Trade Center towers ever fell.

You might start with reality.

Reality = Christ. Most bible thumpers won't admit this. They use the bible to spin Christ into some sort of man.

I have been saying all along, it is the supposed truth according to millions of Christians . You are the one who is spinning a story about how the Bible is spinning a story.

It spins the testimony of an authentic teacher (Jesus) of truth. You seem to be saying that there was no such teacher. Which is more believable, your story or mine?

I am pointing out nothing more than Christ of the Bible is not all peace and light .

That's because Christ has been spun by those who walked in darkness.

Christ says some very nasty violent and threatening things in the Bible.

I don't believe Christ has been honestly represented by biblical scribes/collectors/thumpers.

It's there that your usual over exuberance into flowery speak took off. Spinning reality out into non-reality.

The bible spins Christ (reality) into non-reality (a man).

Spinning the Bible into being not anything Christ said, which is akin to suggesting Adventures in Sherwood Forest is about nothing Robin Hood said.

No it was you who said he (Christ, through Jesus) said everything in the book, or nothing in the book. I've said he said perhaps 5%-20%. You are proposing a fiction. I am proposing spin. Which is more believable?

Spinning, just like Christ apologists do, reasons why your personal religious absurdity is more true than theirs. You even tried spinning me into league with Christians!

To the extent that you believe in the reality of time/mass and the unreality of the true Go(o)d, you are in league with them to discredit the true Go(o)d and turn Reality (the real Being) upside down.

 

[stu]

Iam,
We can ping pong this back and forth forever. It is after all what your rhetoric relies upon. No straight answers to straight questions. Just more and more of the same contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance in your responses - as you say, and which I agree, are also in the Bible.

Just deal with one or two things at a time and I'll continue, otherwise your journey with Christ will make me travel sick.

You first mentioned truth not I. We agreed what truth is not didn't we?
It is not arrived at through contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance as displayed in the Bible and which I say you also display in your own personal religious missives here.

Your latest response is one comparatively small example of contradiction, ambiguity and an appeal to ignorance. Full of contradictory and equivocal word play.

It matters not one jot at this stage what I consider is the truth. That is a whole other discussion. I have explained what isn't the truth and what we both agree isn't the truth , manifested in three specific words. It is on that line truth is in context with our discussion.

Do you now see how you are expecting me to justify your own statement of truth?
You asked a simple question alright , which completely diverts away from questions about your own ambiguity. Just how much more ambiguous can you get ?
errr.... Just don't show me!

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:
Iam,
We can ping pong this back and forth forever. It is after all what your rhetoric relies upon.

Slow students generally need a lot of repetition if that's what you mean.

No straight answers to straight questions.

Your not asking straight questions. Here is an example of your kind of questioning:

Just how much more ambiguous can you get ?

That's not a question. It's a statement. I've asked you questions, several, all of which you have side-stepped in favor of repetitive statements that you are unwilling to look at closer to examine their reasonableness and/or lack thereof.

Just more and more of the same contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance in your responses - as you say, and which I agree, are also in the Bible.

I've already challenged to to bring examples. You seem to prefer making repetetive statements which you expect us to believe. Your becoming quite religious about what you believe.

Everything I'm saying is consistent. It contradicts just about everything you are saying. That's as contradictory as it gets. What i'm saying isn't ambiguous. It's very straight-forward. What you think is real isn't. Reality is a Being, whose reality is denied by a world of time/mass. To the extent that you and religions minds support a world of time/mass, you are in league with predjudiced believers against the true Go(o)d.

Just deal with one or two things at a time and I'll continue, otherwise your journey with Christ will make me travel sick.

Christ = Reality = Self. Why would that make you sick?

You first mentioned truth not I.

You stated there is truth. I asked you what you say it is. Who cares who mentioned it first? When are you going to say what the truth is according to you?

We agreed what truth is not didn't we?

We haven't agreed as to what it is, so it's not likely we have agree to what it isn't.

It is not arrived at through contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance as displayed in the Bible and which I say you also display in your own personal religious missives here.

You say things and you believe what you say. When your thought process is examined closer, you revert back to saying and believing. I would challenge you to break out of this habit by bringing forth examples of contradiction, ambiguity and/or of ignorance so we can look at your thought process.

Your latest response is one comparatively small example of contradiction, ambiguity and an appeal to ignorance.

Saying and believing again. Meanwhile, what are you talking about?

Full of contradictory and equivocal word play.

Reality is generally contradictory to everything that is unreal. I use words to reverse unreal thinking.

It matters not one jot at this stage what I consider is the truth.

You often use the word "reality". Is your reality the truth?

That is a whole other discussion. I have explained what isn't the truth and what we both agree isn't the truth , manifested in three specific words. It is on that line truth is in context with our discussion.

Truth/Reality is consistent with itSelf. Words that describe Truth/Reality will reflect consistency, yes. What opposes Truth/Reaity is going to be inconsistent with itself, even contradictory to the point it becomes ambiguous. There isn't anything contradictory with what I'm saying, nor is it ambiguous. A world of time/mass is not real...not true. A world of eternal spirit (formlessness) is real and true.

Do you now see how you are expecting me to justify your own statement of truth?

I simply asked you to state your truth. Do you not have anything to say positively?

You asked a simple question alright , which completely diverts away from questions about your own ambiguity.

Once again, bring forth an example of ambiguity. Meanwhile, I'll note once again how you say that all the words in the NT that they say are Jesus' are Jesus' words...or none at all. What is more ambiguous than that?

Just how much more ambiguous can you get ?

You could say that all the words in the NT are the words of Jesus...or none at all (like you've been saying).

 

[my7tvette]

I'm too lazy to read this entire thread, but I am curious how much the pool is up to for Ali Sina's execution date.

 

[stu]

Iam,
....dude, you've started parsing almost every sentence in nearly every post I make. It's taking what I say out of context. In doing so you're not dealing with any substance, just like when you slip into hippy speak.

Your words are thereby no less couched in a context of contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance as you say the NT Bible's are.

Iam:
You stated there is truth. I asked you what you say it is. Who cares who mentioned it first? When are you going to say what the truth is according to you?

....already done....

stu:
There is truth, though what you are spinning has been seen many times before. Truth is, it's just the same old religious based lie, fraud and deceit .
With all your contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance , are you really expecting to make that lie sound like truth?

Well are you.? Are you expecting either by dissecting everything I say out of context, or reverting back to hippy talk, you can - couched in a context of contradiction, ambiguity and ignorance - spin all that, expecting to make the outcome sound like the truth?

I think you are expecting that to happen. It's what I've have been suggesting all along. That you don't really give a care what the truth might be, you're content to spin anything into your own personal religious gobbledygook irrespective of what truth is . I say you no more care than those who would re-interpret the hate expressed by Christ in the Bible to mean love.

Deal with that in a substantive way. All that flamboyant misdirection of yours is looking ugly.