Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

[Eodnhoj7]

Projection.
I'm not the one seeing a terrorist behind every mosque.

I am not either, but I dont go around seeing every as "no different from any other prospective terrorist."

Calling you a prospective terrorist is not paranoia. I've no fear of terrorism.
I've more change of dying from a bizarre washing machine accident.
You are just paranioacally responding to the media hysteria.

Or maybe you should learn how to word things.

[Immanuel Can]

He knows nothing you ignoramous. He's been dead for years.

When he knew nothing was when he was alive. I'm certain he's wiser now.

But it's interesting how dogmatically you can say you know what's after this life, when your own creed denies that's even possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Christophe ... 0718091493

As far as is known Hitchens remained an [a]theist till his death.

He did. And the book is quite fair about that. But it's very interesting to see how his friendship with the author changed his attitude, as well. Hitchens was not a man with a fixed view: he was a man in transition. He had started by being very hard-hearted, but at the end was asking serious questions of himself. He was better than the angry, closed-minded person he seemed to be in public.

The above one person's subjective view cannot be fact. It is only fact if Hitchens had publicly declared he was no more an [a]theist before he died. Hitchens was a member of the 'Four Horsemen of Atheism'. If Hitchens had declared himself to be a theist or deist, the rest of the members would have said something about that. But there are no such statements from the three remaining horsemen.

Even if Hitchens had converted to theism or deism, I would not be surprised.
The once world's most notable atheist, Anthony Flew converted to deism in the later part of his life. The reason is due to natural neural atrophy in the later part of one's life. In Flew's case, the "dam" that held back the forces of theism broke, and he was compelled to be a deist [ believe in a purely reasoned-based-God] not an empirical-based God.

• https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
  But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.

In any case, when Flew converted to deism, it does not prove God is possible to be real. It is only due to psychology and neuroscience.

The above principle is applicable to Christians who killed, i.e. we cannot blame Christianity per se for the crimes of murder by Christians.

According to Jesus Christ Himself, anybody who murdered "in His name" actually did it in their own name. And that's the point. Someone who does not do what Christ told them to do is not acting as one of His. And real Christians who did as Christ told them cannot be blamed for the actions of people who, for merely strategic purposes, identified themselves as "Christian," but because they were not sincere, did not invest any obedience in being that.

The kind of faith that saves is committed to action. The faith that does not save is not active, and is no more than a moving of the lips rather than of the heart and life.

A Christian is one who had entered into a personal contract and a personal relationship with God when s/he accept God/Jesus' offer as in John 3:16 and conditioned by John 14:6 and 100+ other verses of the same,
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus ... e_only_way

How can a Christian do what Christ require him/her to do, if s/he had not have entered into agreement, i.e. a personal contract or personal covenant with Jesus/God to obey what Christ require him to do in exchange for a promise of everlasting life.

Another point is anyone [from potential crooks to saints] can be a Christian very easily, i.e. just accept John 3:16

Pretty much that's where you need to stop that sentence. Christians do not believe that baptism or church initiation is crucial. They are good things to do, but optional, and not salvific in themselves.

Most Christians denominations [up to 90%+] practice baptism as an initiation process and ritual to signify the acceptance of Jesus/God's offer to be their savior.

If one do not perform any baptism, the contract is agreed by implication, otherwise there no case where a person promise to obey Jesus/God's words in exchange for the offer by God/Jesus as in John 3:16 and John 14:6 where Jesus is the only path to the Father.

The real contract is not the baptism but the genuine intention of the Christian which indicate the real consummation of the contract with God/Jesus.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Projection.
I'm not the one seeing a terrorist behind every mosque.

I am not either, but I dont go around seeing every as "no different from any other prospective terrorist."

Calling you a prospective terrorist is not paranoia. I've no fear of terrorism.
I've more change of dying from a bizarre washing machine accident.
You are just paranioacally responding to the media hysteria.

You may have no fear of terrorism due to various reasons but it would be very selfish of you if you do not have concern for terrorism as a whole and its negative impact and threat to humanity, in this case, Islamic-based-terrorism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Christians are what Christianity has done.
I would never allow myself to be associated with that inhuman death cult.

You have not established the definition of "what is Christianity" and 'who is a Christian' in accordance to the Gospels, how can your statements above be valid and true?

I've no need to establish a definition.
Just as no one here as done that for Islam.
I'm a historian, the evidence of "christians" is manifold as so are the self-definitions too.

If we do not establish a definition with consensus, then we could be talking pass one another, i.e. a sign of intellectual incompetence.

In the case with Islam, the most definite definition of Islam would be what Allah - the ultimate authority of Islam, define as 'Islam' as indicated in Quran 5:3 below.

• 5:3 ... This day have I [Allah] Perfected your religion for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion AL-ISLAM. ...

Islam as perfected for Muslims is contained within the 6236 verses of 77,449 words of Allah delivered directly to Muhammad via angel Gabriel.

I have defined Islam -many times - as the ideology that is represented within the 6236 verses of 77,449 words of Allah in the Quran.
How else can the definition be?

The above example is applicable to 'What is Christianity' and 'Who is a Christian'.
Christianity is thus represented solely by the words of Jesus/God in the Gospel as reported by the 4 apostles.
A Christian is a person who had entered into a personal contract/agreement/covenant with the acceptance of Jesus/God's offer as in John 3:16 and limited by John 14:6 [Jesus the only way].

[Immanuel Can]

As far as is known Hitchens remained an [a]theist till his death.

He did. And the book is quite fair about that. But it's very interesting to see how his friendship with the author changed his attitude, as well. Hitchens was not a man with a fixed view: he was a man in transition. He had started by being very hard-hearted, but at the end was asking serious questions of himself. He was better than the angry, closed-minded person he seemed to be in public.

The above one person's subjective view cannot be fact

Read it. You'll find it gives you some facts you never knew about Mr. Hitchens.

The once world's most notable atheist, Anthony Flew converted to deism in the later part of his life. The reason is due to natural neural atrophy in the later part of one's life.

This, I'm afraid, is nothing more than a scurrilous lie, which has been abundantly refuted. He wrote his last book to refute this craven and unjust claim. It explains his change of heart, in a cogent and logical argument. Again, if you don't read it, you'll imagine untruths. What really happened is that a thinking man realized his Atheism had been ill-considered. And you can see it for yourself in his book https://www.harpercollins.com/978006133 ... -is-a-god/ I have read it, and have a copy now. Have you, to see if the accusations against Flew were warranted or not?

Now, I can understand why Atheists would want to believe that their leading light had defected to the other side, but it's really below contemptible that they turned on him and said that senility was the cause. It most decidedly was not. Like Thomas Nagel, who got in similar trouble for contradicting Atheist orthodoxy on the mind-brain problem, Flew soon discovered that Atheists apparently have no loyalties but to the ideology of Atheism. Both men discovered that their former "friends" and "admirers" would turn like a pack of jackals on anybody who breaks ranks.

A Christian is one who had entered into a personal contract and a personal relationship with God when s/he accept God/Jesus' offer as in John 3:16 and conditioned by John 14:6 and 100+ other verses of the same,
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus ... e_only_way

Did you actually read these verses? You should. There is no quid pro quo there. It's not an "agreement," far less a "contract." It's a placing of faith in the complete work of God, and in the salvation He has unilaterally provided, without regard for one's works (Eph. 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5), not a promise to do something for God in exchange for salvation.

Most Christians denominations [up to 90%+] practice baptism as an initiation process and ritual to signify the acceptance of Jesus/God's offer to be their savior.

You misunderstand, though. Baptism is done, but not as an "initiation process," nor to "signify the acceptance," and certainly not in order to produce salvation. It is a personal confession that salvation has already been granted, a voluntary ceremony showing one's appreciation for the salvation already obtained, and one's commitment to live a new life -- not in exchange, but in straightforward gratitude. Baptism is not an agency of salvation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

He did. And the book is quite fair about that. But it's very interesting to see how his friendship with the author changed his attitude, as well. Hitchens was not a man with a fixed view: he was a man in transition. He had started by being very hard-hearted, but at the end was asking serious questions of himself. He was better than the angry, closed-minded person he seemed to be in public.

The above one person's subjective view cannot be fact

Read it. You'll find it gives you some facts you never knew about Mr. Hitchens.

The once world's most notable atheist, Anthony Flew converted to deism in the later part of his life. The reason is due to natural neural atrophy in the later part of one's life.

This, I'm afraid, is nothing more than a scurrilous lie, which has been abundantly refuted. He wrote his last book to refute this craven and unjust claim. It explains his change of heart, in a cogent and logical argument. Again, if you don't read it, you'll imagine untruths. What really happened is that a thinking man realized his Atheism had been ill-considered. And you can see it for yourself in his book https://www.harpercollins.com/978006133 ... -is-a-god/ I have read it, and have a copy now. Have you, to see if the accusations against Flew were warranted or not?

Both books are merely one-man's view which obviously very bias - confirmation bias. Flew was a deist, i.e. a reasoned-God not a real empirical God of the theists who listens to and answers prayers.

I have given a link [as a clue] that older people has a greater tendency towards a belief in God.
You'll need more research to get a better understanding of the brain response to God as one ages.

I had argued, non-theists are the ones who are able to resist [with neural inhibitors] the neural impulses of the existential crisis in one way or another.
When these neural inhibitors weakened for various reasons [old age being one], then the person is driven toward clinging to a god for security and psychological comfort.

Now, I can understand why Atheists would want to believe that their leading light had defected to the other side, but it's really below contemptible that they turned on him and said that senility was the cause. It most decidedly was not. Like Thomas Nagel, who got in similar trouble for contradicting Atheist orthodoxy on the mind-brain problem, Flew soon discovered that Atheists apparently have no loyalties but to the ideology of Atheism. Both men discovered that their former "friends" and "admirers" would turn like a pack of jackals on anybody who breaks ranks.

I did not mention the term "senility."
The older person can still be very intelligent and wise, but the algorithm that drives theist to a God is very distinct and operating from the subconscious mind.

Kant was aware of this effect but did not nail to the atrophy of neurons and related reasons;

• They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
  Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
  -CPR B397

A Christian is one who had entered into a personal contract and a personal relationship with God when s/he accept God/Jesus' offer as in John 3:16 and conditioned by John 14:6 and 100+ other verses of the same,
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus ... e_only_way

Did you actually read these verses? You should. There is no quid pro quo there. It's not an "agreement," far less a "contract." It's a placing of faith in the complete work of God, and in the salvation He has unilaterally provided, without regard for one's works (Eph. 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5), not a promise to do something for God in exchange for salvation.

Do you understand relationship?
For Christians, they establish a personal relationship with Jesus/God.
In any personal relationship there is an implied agreement, thus a contract or divine covenant in the case of Christianity.

Note how the courts adduced an implied contract of marriage in couples living together even when there is no official marriage certificate.
Do you understand the Principle of Contract, direct or implied?

• In the Anglo-American common law, formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound.
  - wiki

An implied contract as in the case of a Christian within Christianity;

• What Is an Implied Contract?
  An implied contract is a legally-binding obligation that derives from the actions, conduct, or circumstances of one or more parties in an agreement. It is assumed to exist, and no written or verbal confirmation is necessary.
  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/im ... ntract.asp

John 3:16 is definitely an offer by God,

• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

'that whoever believes in him ...' is a statement of offer.

When a Christian believe in Jesus/God, that is an acceptance, i.e. which is based on faith.

Whatever salvation stated in the offer is conditional upon obeying Jesus/God commands in the Gospel fully.
Note the 'eye of a needle ..' verse re Matthew 19:24, i.e. there are compliance to the contractual terms to be made by the Christian till Judgment Day.

So there is fundamentally an implied contract [agreement, covenant] between a Christian and Jesus/God.

Most Christians denominations [up to 90%+] practice baptism as an initiation process and ritual to signify the acceptance of Jesus/God's offer to be their savior.

You misunderstand, though. Baptism is done, but not as an "initiation process," nor to "signify the acceptance," and certainly not in order to produce salvation. It is a personal confession that salvation has already been granted, a voluntary ceremony showing one's appreciation for the salvation already obtained, and one's commitment to live a new life -- not in exchange, but in straightforward gratitude. Baptism is not an agency of salvation.

It cannot be that salvation is guaranteed upon declaring oneself to be a Christian. What if the said Christian prayed to Satan a his co-savior the next day?
Salvation is only promised on condition the Christian fulfilled the contractual terms till Judgment Day.

I stated Baptism is a ritual which is to signify the acceptance re John 3:16.
If the Christian did not invoke the terms of John 3:16 and the likes that trigger acceptance of the offer, then the person is not a Christian per-se in God's eyes as stated in the Gospel.

Whatever you think and whatever is done by the person, it is the omniscient and omnipotent God that knows whether the covenant is contracted or not as in reference to John 3:16 and John 14:6 plus other similar verses in the Gospel - the authorized words of Jesus/God to humans.

[Sculptor]

I am not either, but I dont go around seeing every as "no different from any other prospective terrorist."

Calling you a prospective terrorist is not paranoia. I've no fear of terrorism.
I've more change of dying from a bizarre washing machine accident.
You are just paranoiacally responding to the media hysteria.

Or maybe you should learn how to word things.

Change = chance.

Maybe you should learn to accept that people make typos and respond to what they said?

[Sculptor]

He knows nothing you ignoramous. He's been dead for years.

When he knew nothing was when he was alive. I'm certain he's wiser now.

You are not fit to walk on the ground he has shit on.

[Sculptor]

I am not either, but I dont go around seeing every as "no different from any other prospective terrorist."

Calling you a prospective terrorist is not paranoia. I've no fear of terrorism.
I've more change of dying from a bizarre washing machine accident.
You are just paranioacally responding to the media hysteria.

You may have no fear of terrorism due to various reasons but it would be very selfish of you if you do not have concern for terrorism as a whole and its negative impact and threat to humanity, in this case, Islamic-based-terrorism.

US imperial aggression has a far more significant negative impact on the world. There is no doubt in my mind that the source of most terrorism is the bellicose interfering influences of the super powers.

[Sculptor]

You have not established the definition of "what is Christianity" and 'who is a Christian' in accordance to the Gospels, how can your statements above be valid and true?

I've no need to establish a definition.
Just as no one here as done that for Islam.
I'm a historian, the evidence of "christians" is manifold as so are the self-definitions too.

If we do not establish a definition with consensus, then we could be talking pass one another, i.e. a sign of intellectual incompetence.

Yes, I agree you are incompetent.
But you are also paranoid.
Paranoia can spawn irrationality.

[Immanuel Can]

You are not fit to walk on the ground he has shit on.

Here's what we know for sure. If you're right, neither of us will ever know.

If I'm right, both of us will know.

[Immanuel Can]

When these neural inhibitors weakened for various reasons [old age being one], then the person is driven toward clinging to a god for security and psychological comfort.

You know why that's such a weak argument? Because it works equally well for any ideology you can insert in the blank. One could argue that as neural inhibitors are weakened, people lose their ability to reason and become Atheists. Since it has no evidentiary basis, this line is both irrefutable and devoid of proof.

What would be better is to look at what Flew actually wrote, and to decide whether his arguments are the ramblings of a decaying brain, or the lucid pronouncements of a man made wise by time.

I think you'll find that it's the latter. But you'll never know unless you read what Flew actually thought.

I did not mention the term "senility."

It's what you meant, though. You can call it "atrophy of neurons," if you prefer.

For Christians, they establish a personal relationship with Jesus/God.

No. God establishes His relationship with them. The initiative is actually on the other side, not the human side.

In any personal relationship there is an implied agreement, thus a contract or divine covenant in the case of Christianity.

There are many types of "agreement." One can "agree" on a fact, "agree" to an arrangement, "agree" to a contract, "agree" to a proposition, "agree" to meet...what kind of "agreement" are you supposing here?

John 3:16 is definitely an offer by God,

• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

'that whoever believes in him ...' is a statement of offer.

When a Christian believe in Jesus/God, that is an acceptance, i.e. which is based on faith.

So far, so good.

Whatever salvation stated in the offer is conditional

Not so good.

It's actually an unconditional offer. It's an offer of personal transformation by the hand of God, not a bilateral contract in which human capability is supposed to play its part. After all, the point is that human capability proves inadequate to establish the necessary relationship. Mankind fails, falls short, and left to himself and apart from the Author of Life, dies.

Salvation is not a bargain to help the capable; it's a resurrection from the dead. (Romans 6:3-5)

It cannot be that salvation is guaranteed upon declaring oneself to be a Christian.

And yet, it is.

However, bear in mind that there is no lying on this point. God is not fooled by human beings, if they suppose that anything less than a full repentance and commitment of faith is involved. He knows their hearts (1 Sam. 16:7).

Salvation is only promised on condition the Christian fulfilled the contractual terms till Judgment Day.

No, not so.

John 5:24 -- “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." Interestingly, that second "has" is actually the Greek verb tense "is," as in present, now, an accomplished fact. So such a person HAS eternal life, and IS passed out of death into life already.

Belief -- genuine belief, not mere assent, and certainly no bilateral contract -- is the sole condition of salvation...just as John 3:16 also says, "whoever believes in Him."

[Sculptor]

You are not fit to walk on the ground he has shit on.

Here's what we know for sure. If you're right, neither of us will ever know.

If I'm right, both of us will know.

I'm pretty sure even you know that makes no sense whatever.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm pretty sure even you know that makes no sense whatever.

Oh, it makes perfect sense.

If you're right, there will be nothing to see. Death ends all.

If I'm right, we'll both be standing in front of God...each with his own answer. Jesus said, "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

Each of us goes to an accounting, with whatever answer we have prepared. And if that's so, then we will both most certainly know it.