INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY DIALOG
Since my fellow Vancean-Fan foes... Paul, John, and William... had the nerve to kick me out of their ironically named "Brave Free Men" group for daring to challenge their worldview on items such as race and religion, I will here respond to all the dangling questions that I wasn't able to get to during the heat of the battle. The battle to be henceforth known as "The FRAY," in which I defended myself with speed, agility, logic, reason, and wit, against three dastardly, unrepentant, hellbound hoodlums of a most disreputable sort.
It is my hope in providing this more than generous redemptive opportunity that they will at some point crawl, limp and lurch out of their cowardly hole and respond in kind in the comments section below (the semi-literate knave Paul Rhoads is familiar with this technique) so that the battle may continue on to its logical conclusion. Until then, I will simply consider the contents of this thread the warfare equivalent of delivering the merciful killing stroke to the moaning & twitching wounded. Most of the comments I'm responding to below come from this original thread: THE FRAY: Crossed Blades Underneath a Twinkling Gaean Reach Canopy. The responses were also linked there as well so it will be easier to track the flow of the entire conversation for those interested in reading the full dialog. The comments from Paul I lead off with below came from the original Winston Churchill thread that started it all.
M. Rasheed, Cartoonist-Publisher
Graphic Novel Serialist
Tales of Sinanju: The Destroyer & Monsters 101
Second Sight Graphix
Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “...taking head? ...a muslim miracle?? maybe Islam a true relgion after all and not some barbaric copy'cat pastiche hulking out of the dark ages it helped create to give us a pain in the neck????”
If Islam is a "copy cat pastiche" of Christianity, then Christianity is certainly the same for Judaism. The argument lacks sense on even the basic level. Each prophet confirmed and fulfilled the message that came before it. Muhammad and the Qur'an were no different.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “Muhammed was a fraud, a pedophile, a jew hater and a murderer. (Compare Jesus).”
On what possible basis do you consider Muhammad (peace be upon him) a “fraud?” Both the Christian and the children of Israel converted to Islam by the droves over the centuries. Your disbelief is empty and without substance, instead only anchored to blind faith stubbornness alone.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “??? empty sophomoric talk. If you believe this you are a know-nothing.”
Oh? This is the way all of the prophet-messengers of God functioned; each one brought the message reminding the people of the righteous path that their forefathers followed as believers. Muhammad reminded the Arabs of their stories of Abraham and Ishmael, and he reminded the People of the Book of their line of prophets from Abraham and Isaac on through the Christ Jesus, son of Mary. The Qur’an message told them to follow the way of the prophets… believe in the One God alone, do good, avoid evil, and beware of the inevitability of the Last Day when all of mankind will be resurrected and judged by Him who made us. Muhammad only spoke Truth, in the tradition of the anointed messengers.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “Mohammed, l say, was a fraud: he claims to have talked to angels. l claim he lied about that. ok?”
The omniscient One God, Supreme Creator of reality, confirmed that the prophet received the divine revelation from the angel Gabriel, yet here a Mr. Paul Rhoads says this is not true. Does it even make sense that I would believe you -- you who has not yet been right about anything at all -- over the Master of the Day of Judgment? Be reasonable, please.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “He ‘married’ a 9 year old. What is this if not pedophilia??”
Studying the numerous contradictory ages given in the body of hadith for Aisha, the scholars have determined from the material that she was closer to the age of nineteen based on the detailed information known about her sister Asma. Yet here we find a dedicated anti-Islam slanderer who, even though he doesn’t believe anything of substance within Islam’s texts, insists on believing with his whole heart all of the inaccurate, false gossip items in the literature. Surely this is a phenomenal test of a person’s character, and unfortunately for you, Paul, you appear to lack any. I suggest you repent.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “He killed people ([singy voice] defeding himself from mean attacks), does any one deny it?”
Of course he did. He lived in a time of active warfare with the enemy, one that was determined to wipe out the small band of Muslims to the last man. Such disgusting behavior is usually only stopped at the cutting edge of a sword.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “Jesus turned the other cheek: whatever you think about that it at least is a stark contrast.”
As I recall, Jesus had his companions fetch swords and keep watch while he prayed them all up in ritual devotion in the garden, only for the guards to fall asleep on duty. Jesus was less than pleased. When Judas led the enemy troops into the garden’s sanctuary… the chink, chink, chink of armor and thump, thump, thump of Roman soldier footsteps jerked the companions awake far too late to defend anything, and the Christ had no choice at that point BUT to “turn the other cheek,” innit?
I find your powers of scriptural analysis to be abysmal, sir. How do you plead?
Paul Rhoads wrote: “These behaviors of the prophet color his religion to this day. Objections? l've said somrsomething illegitimate?”
Considering there have been numerous times throughout the last approximate 1,500 years where centuries would pass with the three Abrahamic Religions living side-by-side in peace, need I remind you that the splendor & tranquility of Muslim-ruled Spain – a cultural ‘Mecca’ of learning and technological genius appreciated by all – was shattered by the Christian monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, who unleashed the savage Inquisition institution upon the world? Truly the “illegitimacy” of your remarks is profound on a nigh-cosmic level.
Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I think we should discuss the various traits of a Vancian villain: sneaky, manipulative, violent to a precise fault. The kind of guy who has a balance of sociopathic tendenices and egomaniacal ones... and who wants to bend all others to his will. Even little girls whom he finds attractive and wants to take home. He might even start his own religion... didn't Vance write about that a few times? Any real-world megalomaniacal scumbags from our own human history would surely be coincidental.”
During his lifetime, Muhammad had such a reputation that he was nicknamed “the trustworthy,” which was directly responsible for many of the earliest converts who happened to know the prophet best on a personal level. The Qur’an… the divine and holy source text of the religion Muhammad propagated… was itself full of commands to allow people to repent if they have a change of heart over their wrong, and enjoined the believer to be generous and merciful, which contradicts your own opinions of both Muhammad and his faith, Will. I find no truth in you, and the nature of your continuous hostility is suspect to an amazing degree.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “Or maybe a fundamental exploration of Theology. The underlying theme of the old law from the Tora.”
I’m pretty sure the “old Law” and the “Torah” are one and the same. What are you babbling on about?
John Justin Green wrote: “And the underlying principles of Christ and Mohamed.”
Their “underlying principles” were also one and the same. The basic message of the Gospel of Christ Jesus, and that of the Qur’an of Muhammad (may the peace & blessings of God be upon them both) were the same:
1.) Believe in the One God
2.) Do good deeds
3.) Avoid wrongdoing
4.) Repent when you mess up
5.) Beware the coming of the Day of Judgment! Die not except in the state of a believer!
The Qur’an expands from that basic message, providing more detail because Muhammad was accepted by his people as the messenger of God, and he ruled over them as a prophet-king as did the legendary Hebrew prophets of old. Consequently, the Qur’an provides civilizing laws/rules for how the believers must behave among each other so that they will not threaten their place in paradise with the growing bickering & hostilities that come inherent with human beings living among each other in community. The Christ’s people rejected him, and he knew not an earthly kingdom, thus the Gospel stayed narrowly personal and stagnant without the Qur'an-like growth of it's potential.
John Justin Green wrote: “Tora is the establishment of property rights and God's desires for respecting individual rights via avoidance of all encroachments by lies or physical invasion. Christ's message of forgiveness and individual efforts to forgive and love each other”
The Christ’s Gospel softened the strictures of the Law… which was made strict by the addition of punishment commands set upon the children of Israel because of their stubborn rebellion against God during their 40 year wanderings, as well as from numerous innovative restrictions they placed upon themselves that they falsely claimed had come from God. Jesus told them that if they believed in his message they would then be returned to a lighter burden, the one of the patriarch Abraham. His general, high-level message represented a mercy and forgiveness that covered generations of bad behaviors and disbelief, narrowed down to instructing them on how to deliver mercy themselves to both friends and foes alike. His people rejected his message in disgust, and like the pagan Meccans of Muhammad’s day, feared that the charismatic prophet would threaten the income-generating structure of their cold and legalistic institution.
John Justin Green wrote: “And then Mohomed's directive to follow the outlines for life he set and subjugate everyone and free will to those outlines.”
In context, the pagan leaders of Mecca had literally spent the previous 22 years trying to kill every single Muslim on earth. Later, when the 10,000 pilgrim-garbed Muslims took the holy city (without a drop of blood shed), Muhammad stipulated that the pagan was no longer allowed to be there. They had already broken the peace treaty, and proved themselves unworthy of trust, and certainly too foul of a creature to live near the Ka’aba, the House dedicated solely to worship of the One God. The People of the Book were also no longer welcome, as the followers of the Law had allowed their murderous jealousy to push them into siding with the foul pagans against their fellow believers, while the other doctrine was tainted by their worship of their prophet-messenger. All three groups had to leave forever, and thus the Holy City of Mecca is the only place on earth dedicated exclusively to the uncompromising monotheism required by the One God of Abraham, Creator of the heavens and the earth. All other Muslim World nations allow their presence to greater or lesser degree.
John Justin Green wrote: “This is not compatible with the freedoms and respect of individual property and thought which was the basis of the US.”
The Holy City is a special case. The “basis of the US” has nothing to do with the state of my soul.
John Justin Green wrote: “Freedom of religion was a concept in the early US that did not realize the existence of such an incompatible theology.”
In the Qur’an, God says you don’t have to be a Muslim to believe in Him, do good, and reject evil; you can follow other scriptures while adhering to these three simple commands, and receive your reward in the afterlife. That’s why other Muslim nations allow the People of the Book to live among them. Again the Holy City is a completely separate and special case. The equivalent to having only the specially-trained Levite allowed to go near the Ark of the Lord. A heaven-bound believer from the tribe of Asher would have had serious cause to regret should he have overstepped his bounds and touched the Ark, as it was not his place to do so; the same is true of Christians and Jews when it comes to Mecca and the great mosque. This is of a higher level of consciousness than the mere earthly laws of nations.
John Justin Green wrote: “Muhammad Rasheed might strive to correct me, but I have become aware of duplicity in Islamic scripture. The redacted scripture after Mohamed left Mecca is an issue which I would like to see him deal with to our satisfaction. But he is likely to claim we can not understand why what seems wrong is actually good without an amount of study that would practically make us Muslim. I would like have my expectations exceeded.”
lol No, the answer lies above in my comment describing the nature of the differences between the Gospel of the Christ and the Qur’an of Muhammad. The former never got a good chance to address a believing community under the prophet’s rule, while the latter provided the ground rules for such a scenario while that community was being developed (and during open warfare with the worst enemy). Before the believers fled Mecca, they were a tiny pitiful band, and a big chunk left earlier to live in Ethiopia under the protection of the legendary Prester John (speaking of the Ark). The nature of that part of the message was necessarily narrow and personal, similar to the Christ’s message. Once Muhammad was able to establish a believing community in Medina composed of now hundreds of new believers and growing, the scope of the message expanded to speak to groups in addition to individuals.
Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “Indeed! As William Michael Mott points out: solopsim of such force that it bends reality! Vancian villans who create religions: Arman (Crusade to Maxus) - all about ending slavery, very aprops. .... Loomie is not a villan but he creats realities - one of which, as l recall, is identical to a situation set up by Maziran ... in fact out dear Muhammad Rasheed makes me feel like poor Turgen to his mini dragon! ... V. Faluche also created realites... all very appropos... our Rasheed, while denying clairity to all others, proclames a personal reality which he projects and maintains, in the manner we have seen.”
I’ll need more explanation in order to address this word salad with precision. I’ll set it aside in case he decides to expound with less mystery.
Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “@Paul Rhoads… don't forget: Viole Falushe has many personality traits and behaviors which are identical to those ascribed to Mohammed in both the Koran and the hadiths.”
The “don’t forget” is deceitful, since the Qur’an doesn’t describe the prophet’s personality at all, in fact it barely mentions him, other than to assure us that his example in walking out the Qur’an’s message the way God wants to see us do it, was sublime. The hadith on the other hand, as mentioned above regarding the Aisha controversy, is full of contradictory information because the numerous people interviewed centuries after the prophet’s passing were often less than truthful regarding the purity of what was “remembered.” The Qur’an alone is divine.
William Michael Mott wrote: “Apparently Rasheed doesn't realize that what we now call political correctness was repugnant to Vance, and his writings bear this out.”
The amendments you wish to add to political correctness in order to make it more palatable for you changes it so that it has a number of double-standard items built within, that makes it a tool for enforcing racism. You’ll have to come up with a different solution. I suggest simply treating people with respect, and stop acting like a hostile goon all the time. There’s a lad.
William Michael Mott wrote: “In short: Rigid and unforgiving/unbending religious, social and political systems were the foils of Vance's protagonists. Always. Without exception. This would correlate well with Churchill's factual evaluation.”
1.) The Qur’an has much “flexible” room in it, with both your and some Muslim World rulers’ opinions actually at odds with the spirit of the text. Often what people perform as representatives of their subscribed doctrine, comes up short to that doctrine’s ideals. This should be considered common sense, yet you seem to have a problem grasping it. I am left only with the conclusion that you are functioning at a logic deficit.
2.) “Rigid and unforgiving/unbending” social and political systems… as implied by the descriptions themselves, are mankind’s practical interpretation of the religion, side-by-side with those tribal traditions carried forth through the generations that make up the soul of their ethnic group’s culture. Should they reflect rigid practices that are mirrored in how they decide to perform their religion, it’s only because that’s how they want it, not how God said to do it.
3.) Churchill found factual information, specifically regarding Islam and Muslims, to be anathema to his personal philosophy, instead preferring foolishness, nonsense, and whatever he enjoyed sniffing off of his sweaty, stubby forefinger, to truth.
William Michael Mott wrote: “A noble Muslim? Really?”
Quite. Who is more noble than one who submits his will to the superior knowledge and power of the Supreme Creator of the heavens and the earth?
William Michael Mott wrote: “This sounds somewhat sanctimonious and supremacist, doesn't it?”
Him that rejects the Lord that made him is lower than dirt and lacks value.
William Michael Mott wrote: “But of course it does, it's just par for the course, disguised as a half-jest.”
It wasn’t a jest at all actually.
William Michael Mott wrote: “Having lived in a Muslim nation as a child, I believe all American Muslims should do the same, along with their families. Then they would have access to data which enables an accurate evaluation.”
This has the undeniable stench of a logical fallacy wafting around it.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “I think Mike is referring to the material travesties that are common to fully Muslim states.”
I smell more logical fallacy. Islam is over 1,400 years old. What’s common in the current war-torn aftermath of power & greed-fueled Euro-Imperialist aggression, as these nations struggle to regain their lost socio-economic footing, all while hostile nations continue to work to keep them destabilized, does not reflect the religious doctrine itself at all. To claim that it does demonstrates a mindset that hovers somewhere between willfull ignorance and deliberate deception.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “Then I can not believe becoming a Muslim will stop your frequent bludgeoning!”
Should you repent of your foul insanity, and take on the glorious mantle of the noble Muslim, I will then see you as an equal and have no need to “bludgeon” you, as the transformation will of course restrain you from talking crazy all the time. Fear not!
John Justin Green wrote: “If I do and I do not like it, the penalty is death. So I will need to consult my lawyers, prepare methods of escape and generally take extreme care before I do so.”
This would only be true if you lived in a Muslim State that enforced the so-called ‘apostasy laws.’ If you plan to be a wishy-washy Muslim, then I cannot advise you move to such a land. Especially if you can’t keep your mouth shut regarding your personal belief systems.
Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I will posit it to you like this: You see every mention of Islam or Muslims or Mohammed as in need of your personal approval, and permission.”
Not so. But I do see every inaccurate or insultingly slanderous mention as an open invitation for debate. Freedom of Speech works in both directions, you see.
William Michael Mott wrote: “This is the attitude of a slave, even if a mental one. Is Allah not tough enough to take up for himself, without outraged, nitpicking revisionists to constantly go on the attack? Pretty pathetic.”
What’s ‘pathetic’ is your clumsy and ham-fisted effort to get me to agree to allow you to slander my faith at will without answering it. To me that is a clear attempt to trick me into signing away my Freedom of Speech. You should know that the effort colors how you present yourself in the exact way you’ve squirmed not to be seen, i.e., as a racist. Particularly of the specific racist plantation owner that took part in the sharecropping system, who duped the desperate former slave into signing the agreement that effectively returned him to the shackles. That’s the cloth your personality was cut from, and it is quite offensive and hateful to see it slither around so boldly.
William Michael Mott wrote: “A real God would take care of his detractors himself. He would not need constant harping and help, to deal with even imagined slights.”
My God is no less than the One God of Abraham. It is He who created Adam from scratch, who told Noah to build the ark, who commanded Moses to remove his sandals on holy ground, who delivered the Christ Jesus from his enemies, and anointed Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophethood! Glory be to He! In His name did all the prophets of olde draw swords in His defense as is their duty as believers. I will do no less as I am true in faith and do not care to dwell in the pits of hell with the likes of such as you.
William Michael Mott wrote: “It is ironic that you read Vance, Mohammed, as your mind is not really free.”
Freedom is my birthright, vile beast! How could it not be as I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger!
William Michael Mott wrote: “You are enslaved by a cruel political system which masquerades as a religion, and you dare not tolerate a stray thought that makes you question your programming.”
Wielding the Free Will that my Lord has gifted me, I dare whatever I so wish to dare. You speak only from a proud ignorance of what you merely THINK you understand, but in fact do not.
William Michael Mott wrote: “I have lived in a Muslim society. There were many beautiful things there, and many filthy and merciless ones. Backwards, actually. The kinds of things that had a housekeeper begging my parents to adopt her daughter and bring her back the USA, to escape the culture and religious insanity, but which they were not permitted by law to do. The kind of things that go on throughout the Muslim world today, where black people are still sold and held as slaves, women and girls are brutalized, and boys are raped. American Muslims should move to the Gulf States and experience this cultural enrichment first hand.”
I also have lived in Muslim society, but since I have knowledge and understanding of the very religion you so ignorantly vilify, I also hold the powers of discernment capable of separating the people's culture/tradition from the tenets of the faith. I challenge you to find the Qur’an verses that support what you saw as being part & parcel of Al-Islam. When you cannot – and of assuredly ye cannot – I will then expect you to demonstrate a colossal lack of integrity and reject the bold facts you discover with a reddened face.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “What does God want Rasheed?”
The One God wants His creation to acknowledge Him as the ultimate source, to bow its will to His, obey His commands, and thus prosper both in this world and in the next.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “In our mind Mike that is so. But the overlapping identities of race and belief here make for an association which Rasheed believes is also a cause effect relationship. And coincidental. He believes we are white supremacists and that we have issue with Islam from the same source as our racism. It is a self verifying loop which can not be proven wrong any more than you can prove that I do not command invisible undetectable magic dragons which I insist on. AM I right Rasheed?”
The Euro-ethnic has a tendency to vilify anything he perceives as a threat to his global dominance. The “Muslim World” is a villain because those nations have dared resist Euro-Imperialist subjugation, and you fear that they will somehow regroup and pick up the legendary expansionism of the Faith’s early history where they left off, and manage to overcome you. In addition, you fear that this nightmare scenario will provide an opportunity for the frequently pro-Islamic Black American… who has been the traditional face of the Euro-ethnic’s savage atrocities… to take a long overdue revenge for wrongs both old and new out of your oily hides. The root cause of your vilification of Islam is the fear you will lose your precious monopoly of power that you have conquered and slaughtered so many to attain. As a Black American Muslim I watch you squirm under the fear of this karmic nightmare scenario with interest, having culturally borne witness to your historical wrongs from my dual identity. So when I mix ‘race’ with ‘religion’ in these discussions from a seemingly similar place, it’s only because my vision penetrates you deep from two directions at once. ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I would hope that we could discuss Vance, without bringing race into any of it. Why do you feel the need to do so? Again, are you attempting to create racial tension where none existed previously?”
Need I remind you that your precious Churchill was a notorious racist? Both you and Paul sing his praises like he’s the coolest thing EVER, which to me reveals itself as a ringing endorsement for racism. Your open hostility from your first post did nothing to alleviate that impression.
William Michael Mott wrote: “In other words, I don't care what color you are. I care only about your character and your mind.”
Meanwhile, without any understanding of the religion itself, you’ve vilified all Muslims in the mode of the classic bigot. lol Again, there’s no truth in you, Will. Try harder to fake it at least.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “Un-testable belief should not be pushed at anyone.”
Do you somehow consider my defending my faith from ignorant slander and strawman criticisms to be “pushing” it on you? My goal is actually to reveal how stupid you sound mouthing off with pretend authority on a topic you are proudly ignorant of. It’s clear that you deleted me from your “Brave Free Men” *snort* group because you lost confidence in your ability to bluff me with fake knowledge. I would not be robbed of my battle victory so easily though. Now I just need to put this link someplace where you are sure to read it.
John Justin Green wrote: “The whole subeject of race is seriously flawed and irrational. I think I will explain this to Rasheed in a good way tomorrow.”
Actually I agree that the concept of ‘race’ is indeed flawed and irrational. I’ll admit to bias however, since the concept was invented-refined by the racist, Euro-ethnic slave holder at my expense.
John Justin Green wrote: “He thinks we have nothing new to show him but that is not true.”
Of course you don’t. William himself is in the role of my traditional foe. His heads line the wall of my study, FYI.
Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I see such self-inflicted victimhood identity as inherently ‘racist,’ and the fact that it is even brought up, repugnant.”
Well, you should know that since you’ve demonstrated that you lack insight into anything at all, and I frankly consider you a buffoon, your opinion doesn’t mean anything. As the kids say, you may now ‘take a seat.’ In fact, take several. At this point I’ll admit bafflement as to how you can manage to even type so much without biting yourself to death. “God protects children and fools.”
William Michael Mott wrote: “Vance was a Caucasian of Irish descent. So why then would Rasheed read him? After all, he wrote about white imperialism and expansionism into the cosmos. Isn't that anathema to whiny, overly-sensitive self-identified-victim PC types?”
I’m aware of the past and past attitudes that are now primitive and unfortunate. I’m also able to enjoy older works in the proper context of the time they were written, as long as there is some positive trade off that makes the effort worth my time. With Jack Vance the effort was always worth it, especially in his brilliant fantasy tales and others that pleased the superhero fantasy fan in me.
Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “But Mike we may be so culturally biased that we are unaware of said racism. So we must give it a fair hearing. First Rasheed must make crystal clear what he mean by racism.”
“Racism” is the infliction of institutionalized behaviors performed by members of the dominant conqueror class that limits the freedoms of another class of people based on identified physical characteristics that make up “race.” The victims of racism are deliberately restricted so as to artificially prop up the conqueror class as a superior people, with racist behaviors designed to humiliate and break the will of the conquered on the psychological level for generations to come.
Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “Why even bring it up in this forum?”
The conflict was heralded by you three dancing in an obscene pagan orgy around the racist effigy of Sir Winston Churchill. Our battle is thus multifaceted despite your slipshod denial efforts.
William Michael Mott wrote: “It is designed, again, simply to create a false narrative of victimhood and oppression.”
In the philosophical debate, I've taken the side of defense. My efforts in preventing my own verbal victimhood and oppression have been successful to date, hence the banning from your “Brave Free Men” *snicker* group.
William Michael Mott wrote: “No one is being oppressed or racially profiled here--unless it is everyone other than Rasheed, and he is doing it to us. Without basis, grounds or bearing.”
lol Truly, you should wear a thicker skin if you are going to continue to be so obnoxiously hostile to Muslims you encounter on the Internet. At the very least, learn how to evaluate the opponent’s capabilities before you attack.
Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “... l think that our rascally friend in fact really wants to talk about racism : it's the only thing that really interests him…”
Both race and religion are topics I enjoy discussing. I can go either way. The religious ones are meaty though, and why it took me so long to get back to you.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “…beacuse his version of lslam is just a faccade for a sort of supercharged judaisized Christianity…”
What in the WORLD are you talking about? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are known as the three “Abrahamic Religions,” Paul. Do you understand that? What Islam do you think I’m supposed to believe in that isn’t directly linked to the messages of the prophets from the previous scriptures? The more you type the less you know it seems…
Paul Rhoads wrote: “…and his politics are just leftist boilerplate...”
Allow me to nip that gross stereotype in the bud, too: I hate both communism and marxism, and in my research found Senator McCarthy to be correct in his findings.
Hell, he was MORE than correct.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “…so l'm going to start another thread.”
Sweet. Pour out some malt liquor on the ground for me.
Paul Rhoads wrote: “Bravo John: you have done what l couldn't do: get our friend to partisipate in some positive and vaugely polite exchages! You're a better man than l...”
I told you if you are decent and respectful I would mimic the behavior in kind. Let John’s brief example be a lesson for all, and aid in guiding Right Conduct here on out!
The invitation to join me in my lair is open to all. Your expressed apprehension regarding getting in trouble at work for having your hostile douche-bag behavior available for the world to see can easily be squashed by simply not being hostile douche-bags. This valuable advice is free and without charge. You’re welcome.
*** [found John's original "Brave Free Men" Group invite post] ***
John Justin Green -Please excuse the implications imagined or real. This is where we can all fight in peace! Everyone is welcome. No reason why we can not have a back room to rumble and keep the common room well kept.
Muhammad Rasheed - Here you are, John:
Muhammad Rasheed - Those are the comments from our last discussion that I didn't get to answer before. The invitation is open to join a true "Brave Free Men" arena if you are up to the challenge. I promise I'll duel you three with my left hand. ;)
John Justin Green - You answer questions on your blod where we are not even there. That is a fake conversation. If you were honest you would have answreed them here where we could debate. And if you somehow missed it I will repeat. You are unwelcome because of this blog where you are editing and adding to create a fake conversation. This is horribly uncivil and If I had you in frint of me I would very likely end you. Yiu are a disgusting creature. Go watch the man who I linked. I TRUST HIM NOT YOH FOR TRUTH ON ISLAM. Explain away all his findings and explain away everything we have learned. But you chise to not so so here. Most of your answers are nit arguments hut just contradiction evrn on your own blog which goes along with you have nothing real to work with.
John Justin Green - Sorry i did noy realize this was within the by no means group. But im leaving my comment above. Anyone here can jiin and see the duplicity comparing the two sites. The liar has been exposed so tske a look now before more editing.
Muhammad Rasheed - From your anger I take it you read my responses to your questions/comments then?
You are so sensitive. lol Come on over and post your responses in my comments section, please. You know you want to. Come on. You know better than to actually believe it would serve me to change anything you numbskulls post. ;)
We can't convo here or it will break the rules. I'm not trying to temp Steven's death ray of doom.
John Justin Green - Yes I do want to do that. There are a few ansers you made which are actual argument like the age if the wife where we could be corrected. The the rest of the geanstanding and hughly stylized contradiction is tiring when debate is the interest. I will try. You need to resolve this behind the scene editing to regain some confidence in your character. That is worse than Katie Courick and Dan Rather.
John Justin Green - It was not our posts you changed. You add in your responses which where not in our exchange sfter the fact. So ut misrepresents the discussion. That is a nice term for lying.
Muhammad Rasheed - Well, I've had some experiences in the past that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I need to save my discussions, so you may as well stop talking about that. Just control your tongue so you don't reveal your true nature ("very likely end" me???) incriminate yourself in some way. We can all be gentlemen and stick to the topics. I'm not going to censor you at all; if you don't want to be shown in a bad light, then don't perform badly. That's all.
Or don't. I can battle either way. Come on.
John Justin Green - I understand that. I have had prople delete my ideas on a facebook page they controlled. Just comments they did not like. It is madening. I would never do that to anyone and never have. The record is too valuable to me. So I had no problem with your copying. But the responsibikity to keep it unaltered remains and by coping selective or adding you wind up doing the same injury and disrespect.
Muhammad Rasheed - I added new responses to questions that I didn't get to before you banned me, questions I told you I was getting to later. I needed closure, even if my plan to draw you back in didn't work.
Muhammad Rasheed - Call me a "purist."
John Justin Green - I axkrd more than once for you to say what God wants. You did not and also did not in your adding later. Or did I miss it? So if you only answer the questions you want then it is in no way our conversation you are portraying.
Muhammad Rasheed - No, the comments from you three you see in "THE FRAY III" are whole in the previous "FRAY" series. Just click the links to them at the bottom of this one. The whole discussions are int he other links, if that's what you were fussing about. Trust me I WANT you to see the whole arguments, and have the ability to copy/paste fromt hem to make your points.
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, it was near the top of this one.
John Justin Green - You need to make a note to id the ansers you added after the exchange. Itslicize or something and note that it indicated your answers afterward.
John Justin Green - Then we are good.
Muhammad Rasheed - I answered all the religious ones I didn't get to before in this thread.
Muhammad Rasheed - I also copied the part from you three I was directly answering, so it shouldn't be hard to see what i'm talking about, correlated to the point your were originally trying to make.
Muhammad Rasheed - We should be able to pick up where we left off in this one.
John Justin Green - No one reading your edited version would know to check. Come on. You need to leave no doubt that you intend the exact record is presented. That would not relect well in this respect. Just do the extra work of a change in font or some other indication with a note that those are added afterwards.
Muhammad Rasheed - okay, fine. sheesh...
Muhammad Rasheed - Can't I just explain all of that in the introduction?
Muhammad Rasheed - Like a link back to the first Fray?
John Justin Green - Progress! You get a promotion for that! Im revising my earlier unfavorable regard.
Muhammad Rasheed - Wait, I DID explain that in the intro! I explained that these were questions/comments that I didn't get to answer in the other threads when they were live. I can just put a link back to the full discussion in question, right? Then people would get it better.
John Justin Green - Ask yourself if a reader goes to your page and reads, are you sure they will understand how that was developed? It presents as coversation though it is not. So a reader will assume it occred the way it is presented. If you put some fine print at the bottom it is still a misrepresentation. Very like advertising tricks. So do what needs to make the truth obvious.
Muhammad Rasheed - I guess I can just copy my answers back into the main thread...
Muhammad Rasheed - (i knew there was going to be some shit with you.)
John Justin Green - It is a chalange to truely communicate
Muhammad Rasheed - For what it's worth, i appreciate you making the effort. The discussion was fun.
Muhammad Rasheed - You and Paul do a good job at mimicking that Vancean-type dialogue when you get a roll going.
Donovan S. Brain - Call it what you like. Bold Lions or the Life, Peace, and Freedom Party might be better names.
John Justin Green - Likewise. And it was a figure of speech about ending you. It had no literal meaning and was used to express how angry I was. But it likely could be read differently by you so I edited it hoping it was not seen.
John Justin Green - Paul is a huge player in that arena and elswhere he is a substantial and lively fellow. It is a resl loss to not have hin here. You are of a similar build and also good for this place. And argument is a good thing. Without that it gets pretty dead here.
Muhammad Rasheed - Trust me, I know. I thought we were about to change the game.
Muhammad Rasheed - It would've been SOOO fun.
But you can come over to my territory and we can perfect that style among us. William probably won't since he was definitely the weak link.
M. Rasheed - The part of our conversation from yesterday that stands out to me, John, is when you said you would never delete comments from someone "never have and never will." Yet you banned me from the group because I wrote stuff you didn't like.
This is hypocritical and unacceptable behavior. There's no excuse for it. The rules for battle are thus:
1.) Refute my comments with facts, logic, reason, and wit (if you're able).
2.) Admit defeat with honor and back down.
3.) Proclaim that you need time to regroup, go research, and return to repeat #1 above.
This is how true "Brave Free Men" battle. Banning people, deleting comments, etc., are blatant dishonorable surrendering behaviors. Period. Please make a note, and bring your ready and sharpened sword.
John Justin Green - Well now I have been tossed from the By No Means Facebook group into the sea after your last provocative effort got me angry with you. You are ruining your own playground there but maybe that is what you want. It is being run like a public library. The admin is a book store employee. You are a subtle and effective troll Sir. Congratulations on that.
M. Rasheed - I TOLD you to bring your argument over HERE where you could spew your venom as you liked! The Mod already gave his Smade's Tavern warning to us all, and even pitched that other reckless fool into the sea for his pains! I refuse to accept responsibility for your lack of control. Here... sip some warm mead and get your head together.
Pick one of these threads and simply respond to the arguments here in the comments, or start a whole new argument as it pleases you. And stay out of trouble!
Son of the Fray: Shedding the Big Two
THE FRAY III: Battlefield Cleanup
WARNING! This Discussion Forum is Guarded by the Thought Police! NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED!
The Spirit of Trullion: A Religious Dialogue within the Alastor Cluster
Churchill's Anti-Islam Drivel Revisited
A Tribute to Jack Vance (August 28, 1916 – May 26, 2013)
THE FRAY III: Battlefield Cleanup
WARNING! This Discussion Forum is Guarded by the Thought Police! NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED!
The Spirit of Trullion: A Religious Dialogue within the Alastor Cluster
Churchill's Anti-Islam Drivel Revisited
A Tribute to Jack Vance (August 28, 1916 – May 26, 2013)