- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:04 pm to Boom33
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:04 pm to Boom33
quote:Yes, the entire discussion about rights and laws are about what we believe is morally good and obligated to uphold, promote, or restrain. I base the ultimate good on God's Word in the Bible, since God is perfect and His law is pure, and we can apply the moral law in principle to all areas of life, including our civil life.
So anything you can spin as being for the good of people, which is why they have the expression the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And many of those laws you name wouldn't be promoted by Jesus.
If you want to debate specific laws, that's fine, but my only point was that your definition was way too narrow.
quote:All I can say is what Paul said: imitate me as I imitate Christ. If I'm not acting Christ-like, then certainly call me out for it and I'll examine myself. But, I try my best to live consistently with my faith. I would urge you to act as all people are called to act by the Scriptures.
I have no desire to be like you though. And would you not tell me doing that would make me like you? And if I am not like you, then I must have not truly belonged to him?
quote:There Pharisees were condemned for being hypocrites in their religion by not loving God and living consistently with God's Word, and for elevating man's traditions above God's. If I've done any of that, then call me a Pharisee if you wish, but I reject the Pharisees for the same reason Jesus did.
To me you're just a pharisee, and I have no desire to be part of that.
I seek to be consistent with my profession of faith, and live according to the truth of God's Word. Where my application of the Scriptures is wrong, I'm open to correction, as I don't believe that I am the final arbiter of truth, but God's Word is.
quote:Sin. The noetic effects of sin, in particular. There is one truth, but many perversions of it. The problem is with man, not God. It's why Christians are supposed to study the Word intently and pray for understanding. Even with all the differences, there are only a few critical pieces of information that we must all get right. The rest may be important, but not critical to our salvation.
Tell me, how do you truly belong to him and yet you and others who claim the same thing differ so much on what things mean? Is that a sign of divine presence? Are all you who claim to have done so just getting different versions? God telling you different things? Some of you are lying? What's the deal there?
quote:Me, too! I want to be more like Jesus every day. I'd also love to be without sin, and I can't wait until the day that I will be, when I'm in glory with Him.
I mean I read Jesus and I'm like yeah, I like what that dude is saying. And then I read you and others, and I don't even remotely see the connection between you and him. Like 0.
I think I'd rather be like him than you.
With that said, if you don't see any connection between what I'm saying and what Christ taught, then either I'm being very unclear or you have a vast misunderstanding of what Christ taught. He taught love, and He taught condemnation of sin. He spoke of Hell more than Heaven, and He called others to forsake their own desires and go after Him by faith and repentance.
If you have any particular differences you see that you'd like for me to explain, I'd love to do that, but to say there is no overlap between what the Bible teaches and what I say is ignorant. I'm not perfect, but I'm sincere.
1
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:05 pm to Boom33
quote:
I did not expect I'd be having to defend the 1st amendment against republicans as well, but here I am.
You can’t defend the 1st Amendment by ushering in its destroyer.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:16 pm to Boom33
quote:All I can say is that that's just not true and I don't believe that at all.
Only because you want their numbers. If Muslims did not exist, they would be your target. Just as Christians targeted other Christians when they had no bigger boogiemen.
I believe all people need to abandon their false religions and trust in Jesus Christ alone by faith for their own forgiveness of sins and salvation, but there is a big difference between Mormons and Muslims in terms of political ideology.
quote:I think you don't understand the terms and concepts at play in this discussion, leading to your confusion about what is being argued.
You want to change text which says no laws should be made establishing a religion into text that directly declares a single religion as it.
Acknowledging Christ as Lord is a confessional act, that grounds legitimacy of government and rights. That is different from establishing a state religion/church, which establishes institutional and even financial arrangements between civil and ecclesiastical spheres. You don't have to have a state church or religion that is overseen by the civil government even if that government recognizes the factual legitimacy of Jesus Christ as King.
Note that I actually do believe that there are two distinct spheres of authority in the church and the state, and that their authorities should remain separate. The difference is that I believe they should work together and acknowledge one another for the authority that they have in their respective spheres. I'm looking for acknowledgement of Christ by the state, not a state-run church.
quote:I'm attempting to clarify my position and be logically consistent. You keep throwing out unsupported claims and then say I'm being dishonest. I haven't said anything dishonest at all to the point. I've only sought to clarify my own position over and against yours.
I see no reason to continue having a discussion with you. You're one of the most dishonest people I've ever met.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:23 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
You can’t defend the 1st Amendment by ushering in its destroyer.
muz use it as a trojan horse.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:30 pm to Boom33
quote:
But how is adding a new rule going to change things if the problem is the existing rules aren't being enforced?
It’s a pivot because this wasn’t an issue when the document was written
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Yes, the entire discussion about rights and laws are about what we believe is morally good and obligated to uphold, promote, or restrain. I base the ultimate good on God's Word in the Bible, since God is perfect and His law is pure, and we can apply the moral law in principle to all areas of life, including our civil life.
If you want to debate specific laws, that's fine, but my only point was that your definition was way too narrow.
No, you pick and choose which parts you want to apply based on how well it meets your current social biases while using the bible as something you can hide behind to justify it.
How many slaves do you think I should be allowed to own? Should I use flock cameras to monitor my neighbors planting habits, and is it ok if I use AI to kill him if he doesn't do it properly?
If I can no longer afford one of my concubines, do you believe I should be allowed to sell her into slavery, or must she be set free?
quote:
All I can say is what Paul said: imitate me as I imitate Christ. If I'm not acting Christ-like, then certainly call me out for it and I'll examine myself. But, I try my best to live consistently with my faith. I would urge you to act as all people are called to act by the Scriptures.
In what way are you acting like him? This just sounds like a way for you to excuse yourself. Meanwhile you want laws to punish others even when there is no harm done to others. Jesus was like let him without sin throw the first stone, you're like let me go first and then you just saw "well I try to be like Jesus but I'm not good enough".
quote:
There Pharisees were condemned for being hypocrites in their religion by not loving God and living consistently with God's Word, and for elevating man's traditions above God's. If I've done any of that, then call me a Pharisee if you wish, but I reject the Pharisees for the same reason Jesus did.
I seek to be consistent with my profession of faith, and live according to the truth of God's Word. Where my application of the Scriptures is wrong, I'm open to correction, as I don't believe that I am the final arbiter of truth, but God's Word is.
Yes, those are all the reasons why I equate you to being like a Pharisee. And that is also what they claimed to be seeking while acting in the same manner as you.
quote:
Sin. The noetic effects of sin, in particular. There is one truth, but many perversions of it. The problem is with man, not God. It's why Christians are supposed to study the Word intently and pray for understanding. Even with all the differences, there are only a few critical pieces of information that we must all get right. The rest may be important, but not critical to our salvation.
Sounds like you worship a collection of books.
Did God say - brb, going to the store to grab some cigarettes?
quote:
Me, too! I want to be more like Jesus every day. I'd also love to be without sin, and I can't wait until the day that I will be, when I'm in glory with Him.
With that said, if you don't see any connection between what I'm saying and what Christ taught, then either I'm being very unclear or you have a vast misunderstanding of what Christ taught. He taught love, and He taught condemnation of sin. He spoke of Hell more than Heaven, and He called others to forsake their own desires and go after Him by faith and repentance.
If you have any particular differences you see that you'd like for me to explain, I'd love to do that, but to say there is no overlap between what the Bible teaches and what I say is ignorant. I'm not perfect, but I'm sincere.
In this thread alone you wanted to change the entire basis of our countries founded to declare "Christ is King".
Yet Jesus himself wanted nothing to do with such things and would be completely against such things.
You want to make laws to punish people for social crimes, Jesus never did such things.
What did Jesus force on people, or preach and tell people should be forced? That's what the pharisees did, constantly condemning people - even Jesus for not doing as they saw fit due to the scriptures etc.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:36 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
It’s a pivot because this wasn’t an issue when the document was written
People trying to use government to force their religion on others has been an issue for thousands of years.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 4:42 pm to Boom33
quote:
I'm in a debate with people who think the 1st amendment is the problem
Islam is a problem wherever it grows. How does the 1st amendment help or hurt Islam?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 5:26 pm to Boom33
quote:
People trying to use government to force their religion on others has been an issue for thousands of years.
So, in the name of religious freedom, you’re willing to just ignore even when we see what’s happening in Europe
And the “Death to America” messages within our borders
Nah
Posted on 8/15/26 at 5:51 pm to Boom33
quote:
I already named the 3rd option.
What you did was indulge in denial. The test is the statement at the end of that quote:
quote:
Again, feel free to prove me wrong by naming any country which gained in personal freedoms after becoming Muslim-majority or the government acknowledging Islam as the state religion.
The only two countries I can find where Muslim population went down without legislation targeting them, conquest, expulsion, etc. are Tanzania (due to fertility rates dropping) and Oman (due to mass immigration of non-Muslims). That said, Oman is still vastly Muslim-majority whereas Tanzania is only ~30%-35% Muslim. But even that much has created room for Khadi (Islamic) courts in Zanzibar (which is a semi-autonomous part of Tanzania).
So your "3rd option" does not exist outside of rhetoric. I'm not discussing the "maybe" of theory, I'm discussing the reality of what has and is happening.
quote:
Should we allow people who belong to a religion that supports slavery and gives rules on how to treat slaves into the country?
I mean if we are going to judge based only on their book and not their individual character and merit, it seems important to know who might support slavery in the future.
You mean like how the Quran repeatedly refers to “those whom your right hands possess” (ma malakat aymanukum) as a distinct category of people under ownership/slavery (ex: 4:3, 4:24, 23:5–6, 33:50, 70:29–30)?
Or are you referring to areas where the majority is of one religion and those areas allow (or at least turn a blind eye to) slavery today? In Muslim-majority places like Mauritania and Libya, chattel slavery is still being actively engaged in with it being "illegal" just being nothing more than lip-servicing.
To simplify the question: are you attempting to make a non-point about slavery as a long-ago abandoned chapter in a given religion (or religions) or have you become so desperate that your question a flimsy attempt at a "gotcha" over something like kafala?
quote:
Why do you keep saying a hard reality to accept?
Because you seem to be having a hard time accepting the reality of it.
quote:
Is it because it's not actually close to reality at all?
Thanks for proving my point.
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to name any country where the increase in Muslim population has caused (or even just coincided with) an increase in personal freedoms. That you refuse to just proves my point all the more.
quote:
It's odd to me you can't remotely see how you are setting into motion the basis for all religions, including Christianity, to be banned.
That's the difference between us, I am willing to see and admit the hard truths. One of my cornerstone philosophies of life is "in order to avoid a slippery slope situation, just avoid the slippery slope." So yes, I see there's a risk there but it's insanely miniscule compared to the certainty of what has already happened wherever Islam grows above 10% of the population (increasing demands -and eventual capitulations- for halal standards, prayer accommodations, blasphemy sensitivities, etc).
To shorten that a bit: you seem to be concerned about unproven things which may happen and basing that on nothing more than rhetoric, I'm concerned with what will happen and I am basing that on actual historical events which are still ongoing today.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 5:53 pm to Boom33
quote:
So because the constitution doesn't come with a dictionary, we get to pretend they mean whatever we as a way of bypassing the constitution to take away the rights of people?
That’s essentially what the Democrats do.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 6:09 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
That’s essentially what the Democrats do.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 8/15/26 at 6:12 pm to The Boat
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
Watch this video. It starts with a loud call to prayer, it gets broadcasted 5 times a day in Dearborn. This is by far the most important documentary I've ever made.
A man tells me he wants Hezbollah to be allied with the United States. This is just a Wednesday in Dearborn. I went around for 6 hours and found less than 10 people who said they spoke English. Are you watching closely? Do you see how we will lose our nation like this?
Have conversations about this footage with people you've avoided politics with in the future because you'll lose your freedom to do so sooner than you think.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 6:16 pm to Ailsa
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
TikTok is owned by ByteDance a Chinese technology company headquartered in Beijing. , which holds 19.9% of the TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC that runs TikTok’s U.S. operations. Other investors in that joint venture include Oracle (15%), MGX Fund Management Limited (15%), and Silver Lake (15%), with the rest shared among other investors and affiliates of ByteDance.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 6:30 pm to The Boat
quote:
This is the way around the 1st amendment
Yikes.
Guess you'd be all good with Dems finding a "way around the 2nd amendment " then too?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 6:32 pm to The Boat
I hear ya. But, they can't even come together and pass the save act.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 6:44 pm to Boom33
quote:
Boom33
Welcome back SFP.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:01 pm to Bard
quote:
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to name any country where the increase in Muslim population has caused (or even just coincided with) an increase in personal freedoms. That you refuse to just proves my point all the more.
Because I never once have advocated for more Muslim immigration. The problem is clearly one of a failure to assimilate. You keep saying things like this as if I'm in favor of all the immigration and it's like your not even debating me.
I told you directly we should stop allowing immigrants into the country and deport the ones who aren't here to assimilate. In what way does your question at all apply to anything?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:02 pm to TheMagicMan
quote:
The Constitution never anticipated an invasion by Muslims or the Third World.
That is a dangerous line of thinking. Do you think the drafters of the Constitution anticipated a suppressed select-fire AR platform chambered in .458 SOCOM?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:03 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
So, in the name of religious freedom, you’re willing to just ignore even when we see what’s happening in Europe
And the “Death to America” messages within our borders
Nah
No, in the name of religious freedom I'm willing to defend the 1st amendment against all enemies.
As for Islam, maybe you should take it up with the politicians who keep allowing them to come here.
You guys think you can ban water in your boat without plugging the holes, without realizing you don't need to ban water if you plug the holes and bucket the existing water out.
Meanwhile, everyone else is left with nothing to fricking drink because you just banned water instead of actually addressing the issues.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 7:04 pm
Page 11 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News