Yo everyone. Took me a long time to reply, I know- but I had my fiancee (well, now wife's) mom, brother and step-mom over for a week, and got married this Saturday. It was very nice, blah blah... ok, enough of that- time to get on to the debating!
phildidge wrote:Dear Crazymonkie
Don't you "dear" me. You don't know me, I don't know you, and you're just trying to make it look all innocent. I'm not your friend, not your enemy, I'm not even your acquaintance- I'm a guy you're talking to on the internet. And you're lying like mad when you're doing it too.
I never stated i wrote the words, so how is that fake, just showing what hsitorians say, also I never stated I was a qualified teacher, I stated I was a history teacher, so how again is this fake?
First of all, plagiarism is plagiarism, and it's a VERY big deal, no matter who does it. As a history teacher, you would have known that. You would have had to at least have a little introduction to teaching- whatever the subject- and one of THE BIG DEALS, no matter the subject, no matter the grade, is to show your sources. You still plagiarized, you've made yourself look MUCH worse because of it, and I never said it was FAKE, just that it was COPIED without sourcing it. Which it was.
What I said you lied about (now, pay attention, because reading comprehension seems to be a weak point for you) was that you were a Catholic and Irish. Honestly I didn't even know it was possible to pile crap so high. How do you do it?
And also: You're not a qualified teacher, just a history teacher? Wait, what?!? A teacher is a teacher, you plagiarizer. A teacher of any subject, anywhere in the world, would know that. Plagiarism and lying are looked down upon no matter what subject you teach. Thanks for outing yourself again.
I will use other people's statements, when others here do the same, if you don't like plagiarism, then i suggest you ask others not too, but really, I am not bothered what you think ha ha !
Ummmm.... most other people (even those who aren't history teachers
) on this site give links. You didn't. I've seen it before, and it was really obvious with you because it had a few key phrases I knew I'd seen elsewhere, and your tone completely changed. If others do the same, and they have, I out them as well. Or others do. I just happened to be the one who caught the plagiarizer this time.
So you claim I am a muslim,
I don't claim- I KNOW you are. And the "dear Crazymonkie" at the top of the screen is proof enough. Westerners don't say "dear so and so" when they're talking on the Internet. Muslims do, however- it's a way to "kill them with kindness". I'm sure you're familiar with the concept (being a Muslim and probably a native Arabic speaker) though you might not have heard the phrase before. Google it if you're interested, it could teach you something, you history teacher you.
this is the typical defence of people when you show something is wrong,
Actually, no- my first inclination- as with many others here- is to look at your argument. If you don't blatantly copy/paste, and have something to say, there isn't a problem... at least with your presentation of the argument. Your support of it is another matter entirely. However, YOU decided you could get away with plagiarizing and think nobody would notice. Too bad, so sad.
I have seen this so many times, classic.
Not with me you haven't. Notice how we've got different ways of taking your sorry behind to the curb? How we use different phrases, words? How we're ALL disagreeing with you, especially with your claims to be Catholic and Irish. Or British, whatever it is this week? If you'd just been honest with what you were, we wouldn't be saying you're full of it.
You are quite right in your statement, that they are believed to be true, you know that is not grounds for historical proof though is it?
And again- that was not the issue. The issue is that Muhammad is believed to have lived, and that as an allegedly historical figure, his life's work is up for scrutiny. And that according to the sources seen as real, Muhammad did all the things Ali Sina says he did. Once we put forth those as our a priori assumptions, we can say whether or not he was a bad man. If you can say through Islamic sources that he was NOT a bad man, the challenge is won, by you. If you cannot do that, you need to find something else to talk about.
That is called faith my dear teacher as you well know and you know we use archeology and other outside sources to coroborate works, is this not also true?
No, it's called "underlying assumptions." Please point out in the challenge where it says that the Islamic sources have to be independently corroborated before it can even be taken. Source it. Surprise me.
But they are not all believed to be true are they, there is much debate even within the islamic community, some do not even believe in the hadiths, it would be like claiming that Jesus really meant to teach of a church that is inside all of us, according to the gosple of Thomas, would it not?
Honestly, I wouldn't even know. As a REAL ex-Christian, and someone who took the "religion of peace" idea for truth up until about three years ago, and didn't even know about the ahadith or what they are, you're asking the wrong guy. 'Course you'd know more as an ex-Catholic Irish/British person, right?
As others have said: Enough of the ahadith are believed by Muslims that we can already assume that they're seen as true. There are so many of them that say the same things that it's pretty much like dumping ALL the history of Muhammad if we put all of them into question. Additionally, without the ahadith, we're left with the histories, which as time goes closer to the "Prophet's" time gets more brutal and boasting of his vicious deeds in the name of his god, or the Quran, which is painfully vague and can't be made sense of without recourse to histories, ahadith, or Bible stories (no, it's not possible to make sense of it without those things- I tried first reading just the Quran because again, I didn't know about the ahadith or what they do.)
And you are a teacher, hmmm that is interesting and you are teaching students with your biased opinions,
Oh gosh, you're going to start hurting my feelings. I told you already: You stole, period. If you'd put up a link, it would have been no problem at all. If you'd not lied about being ex-Catholic and a westerner, it would have been no problem. My biases are my biases- I'm a vegan ex-Baptist who taught two classes with a lot of Baptists and pretty serious meat-eaters. Did I shout them down? Tell them their opinions or beliefs were wrong, mark down their papers because *I* don't agree with those things? Nope. Hell, some of them even made great cases for those things in their papers. Again- sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. Bias and stealing are entirely different concerns.
I am athiest you can keep saying it, but your idea and speculation is like many here delusional, as to plagirist, tough baby tough.
Sure sure. That's why you were doing so much apologetics for Muhammad on the first few pages, and why you think Catholics follow all the OT laws.
Why do people think you have to be muslim to challenge silly claims that are made by people,
I don't. But when the challenge isn't answered properly, I get my undies in a bind.
I am not going after the New testament, as there is no need,
Why not? You seem to have no problem going to Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Most Jews don't follow those laws any more either.
all I am showing is the verses where the diety yahweh can give commands to kill and has killed, the same diety who Yesuha is meant to be the same, why do you write in Caplocks, I am not hard of hearing, normally a sign of rudeness, do you teach your students this?
mmmm. Again: Take it up with the Jews. I'm writing in capslock to you because you're an idiot who needs to be yelled at a bit. Also, you didn't finish your point- Ok, so yahweh gives commands to kill, Jesus (no Christian or ex-Christian would call him "Yeshua"... dumbass) is meant to be the same....aaaaannnnddd.... what?
Paul's line of teaching is what Christians follow today.
No Christian would believe that. No ex-Catholic for sure. You might say you'd disagree with what Paul taught, but you'd NEVER say that Christians follow the teachings of Paul.
Many are against the EDL like myself and the BNP and there are many of us, we think they are racists and idiots very much in the minority, it is not defending Islam, it is stopping morans like yourself inciting hatred, it puts you on a par the same as the exremists, idiots.
I don't care, personally. I'm against the remaining people in the Moral Majority, against the Bush administration's packing of the courts with radically conservative judges, against twits like the Westboro Baptist Church.... so what? I'm not defending anyone like that, and I have no idea where you got that idea.
Again, though: Swinging wildly between two moral extremes is more a Muslim or ex-Muslim thing. You keep outing yourself as a fraud. Why?
I do not want to stop people following their faith,
And I never said you did.
[quote[I will take on the radicals and numpties that portray a faith as evil and thus incite more hatred, if this is too difficult to comprehend, then come and meet many more of us, who are not gullible to believe in bull like yourself.[/quote]
I'm pretty well farthest from gullible you can imagine. I just finished my English literature thesis- it came out to about 70 pages all told, down from around 85 about five months ago. But I guess anyone who disagrees with you is in the wrong, yes?
And I'm not inciting hatred- I'm pointing out where you are wrong, and when you are a fool or a faker. It's almost too easy, but once in a while I do get pushed toward doing it.
I'll also add, though: If the religion sucks, I think it's anyone's duty to try to get those involved with it out of it. I do the same with Scientologists- although it rarely does any good- and I don't pretend that I'm okay with Christianity. You... well, I'm pointing out how you are wrong, how you're a liar, and how you're a cheat. I know these things when I see them, and I'm looking at it when I'm reading your posts.
Christians get upset all the time, if you say anything that goes against their faith, I guess you have never debated any then.
Not "all the time". And definitely not in the same way that Muslims do. Christians, things can and often do get very heated, but you can occasionally get them to say that they were wrong, or that they'd never thought of it from your perspective before. Never seen that with Muslims. I've had lots of Christian friends, have some now, so please.... stop with the assumptions. You know what that does, right?
If he wishes to show it is wrong, then fine, to claim evil, then why does he ignore thfact they all could be claimed as such, that is double standards, I can show they are all man made, but I dont start trouble or incite trouble by saying Christianity is evil, that is just plain ignorance, if you think not, then you should not be teaching, as you clearly are talking bull, I love this another numpty to make look the bigot they are.
He doesn't ignore it- as others said already, there are lots of anti-Christian sites out there. This is one of the few anti-Islam sites out there, and as far as I know, the only one not infested with twits.
You won't start trouble if you say Christianity is evil. You could jump up in the middle of church service and yell it, and the worst you'd get is a dirty look and people trying to get you ushered out. Hell, some of the people might even try to see if you were mentally unbalanced and get you some professional help, if you'd take it. But, mob actions? Killings? Physical retaliation? I doubt it. Not even in the most extreme cases. See, Jesus, if he did exist, was a pacifist who said you should turn the other cheek. Christians do that. Even to the point (I think it's nuts) of forgiving people who have killed their loved ones- as Christians, of course, not necessarily as individuals. But you know all this, o fearless teacher of history.
[quote[So a diety which is believed to be the same is not the same,[/quote]
It truly isn't. And only Muslim apologists, ignorant people, or Muslims themselves, think they are the same. Muhammad shanghaied the gods of Judaism and Christianity. They are not the same god.
considering I cannot prove a god exsists, how can you show it is not the same diety, to me there is no diety, but they believe want they want, to claim it is not need proof of the exsistance, can you do this.
That's not at issue. What is at issue is: Do the three big monotheistic religions think it's the same god? Answer: No. You're just wrong.
Man for a teacher you see, to have to use names alot, think you will last 2 minutes in your teaching job and will get the boot for anger issue's and phobia's.
KTHX for playing, bye.
So the muslims that fight extremists should not be indulged, WTF, you numpty, what about the 600 fighting in the British armed forces, sack them, what a tool, you are mate, what should happen is we line up you people of hate and give you a room with the extremists and let you fight it out and leave all the rest of us to have peace.
Noooo, I said Muslims should not be indulged at all. Period. Who are the religious people who take to the streets at the slightest apparent 'insult'? Why couldn't the guys who run South Park show a cartoon drawing of Muhammad because Comedy Central or MTV Networks feared retaliation? Where are the Christians up in arms about that same episode, where it showed Jesus having a porn addiction (or doing coke, I forgot which)? Where are the mobs? And yet, what do we see when some preacher from Floridiot burns a mass-produced book supposedly protected from all corruption till the end of time? Followers of that book massacring people who they merely associated with this idiot preacher. I'll give you one guess as to which religion I'm talking about.
So, my point is this: Things like that- the mob rule, the retaliations, the "sensitivity", it's all childish, and should not be indulged. I don't care who thinks whom is radical or moderate or not really a part of the religion- it traces back to Islam and the problems in it. If we indulge that sort of idiocy, that's no better than spoiling a child. The child gets bigger, but doesn't grow up, doesn't get smarter or wiser. Muslims need to get smarter or wiser or, even better, drop their terrible religion entirely, and join the rest of us in the current era.
Does judaim make allowances or do Jews, your knowledge is quite rubbish, if they have changed how they perceive the laws, that is a later interpretation, they believe the first 5 books are the word of God given to Moses, has Moses come back and changed his mind? what a complete metula, ha ha
WTF is a metula?
Your question is moot. Assuming there is some god out there, and that each of the religions who claim their god talked to them at some point are right (just for the sake of argument), then it doesn't matter. Their god gave them the laws. It's up to humans to uphold or ignore them as they think is right. If there is some god out there, it's up to humans to do what their god tells them. It's always been that way. So you're way, way, off the track on this one.
Do you understand what Christianity is,
I do, but you don't. OT laws for Catholics.
what I was taught, peace to mankind, to save peoples sins, not hatred, that is why, even though I do not believe anymore, but my parents taught me to protect against hatred from twats like yourself, who I would not pee on if they were on fire.
That's also what Muslims say, most of the time. That's not a specifically Christian teaching. What I'd like to see from you is a breakdown of the Trinity, or the place of Mother Mary or the saints in what you used to believe. Your own words, please, I do have google.
All i ever here from people if you challenge them for being idiots is you must be muslim, that just shows how delusional people are here, is their only defence.
Well, no. People debate Christian idiots, Hindu idiots, atheist idiots (ooohhhh there are lots of those), New Age/Wiccan idiots (see previous), and all points elsewhere. We just keep saying you're a Muslim, and an idiot, because... well, you are. You're both. You're a Muslimidiot.
You have the vast majority of muslims that live in peace, you wish to state they are evil, as their faith is, how ignorant is that Mein Numpty.
Exactly what every single Muslim who comes on here says.
I don't care about that. And no, that doesn't make me a hate-monger or whatever. It makes me realistic. Why? Because all the time this killing and maiming and bad stuff is going on, and in the name of their religion, no less, what are the moderates or (seemingly invisible) reformers doing? Sitting on their hands, letting things happen. When do we see the huge crowds in the Arab-speaking world, or the west (no, I'm not talking about those crowds started/organized by liberal westerners) thronging the streets and protesting the awful things going on in the name of Islam? What does that mean, that they're so afraid of what will happen to them if they speak out that they're silent? I thought they outnumbered the "radicals" by a huge margin. Nobody can take on hundreds or thousands, even, no matter if they've got rifles and training.
If they're not actively resisting, or at least protesting, what's going on in the name of their religion, then I see them as worse than useless. They're in the way, or even worse, just pretending to be bothered by what's going on. So don't throw this nonsense at me; there have been protests against both the wars in the US ongoing since the first bombs dropped. Where's the infamous Muslim rage against those who would dare hijack the good name of the Religion of Peace?
It is hatred, you think different, then you are not a teacher, what do you teach, intolerance? I put you on the same par as the radical numpies, when you ae too thick to realise how stupid your stance is.
It is not hatred, it is realism and fairness. I've explained why, and if you disagree, then I am truly sad for you, because you're simply a fool for thinking otherwise.