«

Truth Seeker

http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=TruthSeeker


No one is compelled to accept the truth, but it is certainly a shame
upon the human intellect when a man is not even interested in
findingout what the truth is!


Islam teaches that our Creator has given human beings the faculty of
reason. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them to reason things out
objectively and systematically for themselves to ponder, to question
and to reflect.


Nobody should press you to make a hasty decision to accept any of the
teachings of Islam, for Islam teaches that human beings should be
given the freedom to choose. Even when a person is faced with the
truth, there is no compulsion upon him to embrace it.


But before you begin to form an opinion about Islam, ask yourself
whether your existing knowledge about it is thorough enough. Ask
yourself whether that knowledge has been obtained through third party
sources who themselves have probably been exposed to only random
glimpses of Islamic writings and have yet to reason out on Islam
objectively and systematically themselves.


Is it fair enough that one should form an opinion about the taste of
a
particular dish just by a mere hearsay from others who may themselves
have not necessarily tasted the dish yet?


Similarly you should find out for yourself about Islam from reliable
sources and not only taste it, but rather digest it very well before
you form an opinion of it. That would be an intellectual approach to
the truth.


In making your next move to the truth, Islam continually reassures
you
that your rights to freedom of choice and freedom to use that God-
given faculty of thought and reason will be respected, for everyone
has that individual will. No one else can take away that will and
force you to submit to the true way of your Creator, you have to find
out and make that decision yourself!


May your intellectual journey towards the truth be a pleasant and
fruitful one... Amen

Happy Man wrote:
> Truth Seeker

Proselytizer:
,,,
> May your intellectual journey towards the truth be a pleasant and
> fruitful one... Amen

May your proselytizing not appear in Java newsgroups.

If you have something to say relevant to the newsgroup, post it. If not, keep
your multiposted spam to yourself. You're just about as annoying as a Christian.

A-frickin-men.

-- Lew

Lew wrote:
> Happy Man wrote:
>> Truth Seeker
>
> Proselytizer:
> ,,,
>> May your intellectual journey towards the truth be a pleasant and
>> fruitful one... Amen
>
> May your proselytizing not appear in Java newsgroups.
>
> If you have something to say relevant to the newsgroup, post it. If not,
> keep your multiposted spam to yourself. You're just about as annoying as
> a Christian.
>
> A-frickin-men.
>
> -- Lew

And you are as annoying as someone who hates Christians. Being the bigot
you are I presume you think 1 instance of something is representative of
the group as a whole. That's a sad way to live your life.

Brandon McCombs wrote:
> And you are as annoying as someone who hates Christians. Being the bigot
> you are I presume you think 1 instance of something is representative of
> the group as a whole. That's a sad way to live your life.

You sure have a lot of judgments to make. I love Christians, many of them,
just so you know. You know nothing about me to make your haughty
pronouncements about my character.

"Judgment is mine, saith the Lord."

"By their works shall ye know them."

-- Lew

Lew <> wrote:
> You know nothing about me to make your haughty
> pronouncements about my character.
> "By their works shall ye know them."

Some of your work was this phrase:
"You're just about as annoying as a *whoever*."
written to a spammer. This implies that you consider
*whoever* to be (per se) more annoying than spammers.
If this isn't an insult against *whoever*, then what is?

So, you *were* known from some of your works.

I guess, you meant it such that it would be an ultimate
insult for the spammer in the spammer's mindset.
Always be aware, that comparing two entities might turn
out to be an insult thrown at both. From what I've
read from you in the past, it would really surprise me
if that was your intention.

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <> wrote:
>> You know nothing about me to make your haughty
>> pronouncements about my character.
>> "By their works shall ye know them."
>
> Some of your work was this phrase:
> "You're just about as annoying as a *whoever*."
> written to a spammer. This implies that you consider
> *whoever* to be (per se) more annoying than spammers.
> If this isn't an insult against *whoever*, then what is?
>
> So, you *were* known from some of your works.
>
> I guess, you meant it such that it would be an ultimate
> insult for the spammer in the spammer's mindset.
> Always be aware, that comparing two entities might turn
> out to be an insult thrown at both. From what I've
> read from you in the past, it would really surprise me
> if that was your intention.

I love lots of people that I find annoying, myself included.

Sure, call me to account for calling Christians "annoying" (and I really mean
only those who insist on pitching their beliefs to me - which my own mother
does to me, and it annoys me, but I love my mother). It is mindless
proselytizing and narrow intolerance that get to me, and those are human
failings that many religions give free rein, nay, nurture. So, yes, many
Christian sects encourage their flock of sheep to be proselytizers and
judgmental, as do many sects of other religions. It is that behavior that is
annoying.

Is anyone going to try to claim that there are /not/ so-called "Christians"
running around trying to push their beliefs on the rest? It is those to whom I
referred, and yes, I apologize to all the non-proselytizing, non-judgmental,
non-annoying followers of Christ who may have felt included in my contempt.
But don't try to disingenuously claim that that behavior is not extant, nor
that it is untypical of many "Christian" sects.

To leap from my statement to "you bigot" and the other judgments is not only
unsupported, it violates the very precepts Jesus taught. That is exactly the
sort of hypocrisy that so many fundamentalists of many religions evince, and
yes, it is bloody, frickin /annoying/! (A very gentle term, really, for
hypocrisy.)

But only wear that shoe if it fits, people. And "judge not lest ye be judged."

Quite frankly, Happy Man shows much more Christ-like gentleness and sincerity
than most Christians do, or the first responder to my post on this thread did.

-- Lew

Lew <> wrote:
> Sure, call me to account for calling Christians "annoying" (and I really mean
> only those who insist on pitching their beliefs to me - which my own mother
> does to me, and it annoys me, but I love my mother).

As you perhaps noticed, I made my point substituting "Christians"
with "*whoever*", so it wasn't about how christians really are, but
how un-nice it was of you to idly throw insults at a group, of which
only a (relatively) very small number of individuals might actually
deserve it.

If *all* Christians were like that, you wouldn't get to write this,
because every five seconds, one of them would ring your doorbell
(Neither would I get to comment on it for just the same reason)

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <> wrote:
>> Sure, call me to account for calling Christians "annoying" (and I really mean
>> only those who insist on pitching their beliefs to me - which my own mother
>> does to me, and it annoys me, but I love my mother).
>
> As you perhaps noticed, I made my point substituting "Christians"
> with "*whoever*", so it wasn't about how christians really are, but
> how un-nice it was of you to idly throw insults at a group, of which
> only a (relatively) very small number of individuals might actually
> deserve it.
> If *all* Christians were like that, you wouldn't get to write this,
> because every five seconds, one of them would ring your doorbell
> (Neither would I get to comment on it for just the same reason)

All right. Point taken. I should have said that the proselytizing was as
annoying as most Christians'.

Who are only reacting to an institutionalized policy of proselytization into
which they are indoctrinated as a regular part of their dogma.

And for which behavior Christian sects are infamous.

But I never made the claim that it applied to all Christians; you added that,
not me.

These observations do not apply to "whomever" but specifically to Christian
sects. I reject the substitution of "whomever" since my comment was specific
to Christianity (as an organized religion).

I reject the accusation of bigotry because the comment was based on experience
and observation, and because I do not apply it to all followers of Christ.

I accept the criticism for making my comment too general.

Maybe if my doorbell had not been rung, or my person accosted, so often by
these annoying proselytes I would have had no cause for complaint. I cannot
tell you how many times I have been asked if I have "accepted the Lord Jesus
Christ as my personal savior". Maybe it's because I have lived in urban areas
that I got more overwhelmed by this than you have been.

It is an observed fact that Christian sects encourage their membership to
proselytize, and that many of their followers do so. I cannot believe you seek
to imply otherwise. This behavior exists, and it annoys me.

I never claimed it was universal. That is a calumny perpetrated by those whose
feelings were tromped by my accusation. I claimed that Christians engage in
this behavior, not that all Christians do. I stand by that claim. Furthermore,
I claim that it is a distinguishing feature of Christianity, historically and
contemporaneously, to proselytize. It is an inherent part of the dogma (mental
oppression) perpetrated by many Christian sects. It is anything but bigotry;
it is a grounded assessment supportable by objective evidence.

So stop disingenuously pretending it isn't so.

If other Christians feel upset by this, then encourage the ones who give you a
bad name to stop their annoying behavior.

-- Lew

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> As you perhaps noticed, I made my point substituting "Christians"
> with "*whoever*", so it wasn't about how christians really are, but
> how un-nice it was of you to idly throw insults at a group, of which
> only a (relatively) very small number of individuals might actually
> deserve it.

It's nearly universal amongst those sects that proselytize. Anyone who puts
money in the collection plate for a church that sports missionaries is
culpable. That is not a relatively "very small" number but nearly everyone in
those sects.

Proselytization by proxy is still proselytization. So you pay someone else to
accost me and don't do it personally? How does that excuse you?

-- Lew

Lew <> wrote:
> I accept the criticism for making my comment too general.
ok, then let's end it here, and continue talking about Java.