Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So how long will Ben last this time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And the credentials of Bill Warner (author)...

    About Dr. Bill Warner, Author

    Dr. Bill Warner

    Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and math, NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist.

    He was a Member of the Technical Staff in solid-state physics at the Sarnoff Princeton Laboratories in the area of integrated circuit structures. During the energy crisis of the 80’s he founded and ran a company that specialized in energy efficient homes. For eight years he was a professor at Tennessee State University in the Engineering School.

    Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades. Even before the destruction of the World Trade Center he had predicted the war between Islam and America. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person.

    Dr. Warner’s training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. The first step was realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend. A program, the Trilogy Project (see below), was created to strip away the confusion in the texts. It became clear that Islam is not constructed on the same civilizational principles as the rest of the world. Simple statistical methods revealed that dualism and submission were the foundational principles of Islamic doctrine.

    Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that:
    •Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.
    •There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).
    •Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
    • Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
    •The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
    •The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.

    Dr. Warner coined the term, Foundational School of Islamic studies, which holds that Islam is found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. All evaluation of Islamic history and current activity is caused by the doctrine found in this Trilogy. Therefore, it is impossible to understand any Muslim or Islamic action without knowing the doctrine that is its cause.

    Dr. Warner postulates that there are three independent views of Islam that are not reconcilable. The three views are believer-centric, apologist-centric and Kafir-centric. The believer-centric view is the view of a Muslim. Apologist-centric is based upon the apologetic view of non-Muslims. Kafir-centric is the view of the non-Muslim. A comprehensive knowledge of Islam must include all three. These views cannot be resolved, but each must stand-alone.

    Dr. Warner founded the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and is its director. He has produced a dozen books, including a Koran, a biography of Mohammed and a summary of the political traditions of Mohammed. He also developed the first self-study course on Political Islam. He has given talks nationally and internationally about Islamic political doctrine.

    Bill Warner is the nom de guerre of Bill French.
    http://www.politicalislam.com/author/

    Balls in your court COckney
    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ricketyclik View Post
      You are at a disadvantage, because you're a fvking eejit.

      Sorry, what I mean to say is, Kid, you need to take confirmation bias into account, and realise it applies to you as much as (far more than average) any one.
      That's got nothing to do with COckney posting irrelevant nonsense, so you evidently have the problem with bias.
      I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
      - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

      Comment


      • arner holds a PhD in physics and math

        Why is it that usually people who have studied sciences always make the most rerdiculous analyses about politics/history, especially when they are of the conservative side? (but also on the left side, it's sometimes funny)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
          The Bible doesn't say anything about attacking Muslims or anyone else. Where do you think the Crusaders got the idea of Holy War? Hint: It wasn't the Bible.
          Actually you're wrong there.

          The favorite and most frequently cited text during the crusades was the following synoptic piece, around which the holy war was understood to revolve:

          "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mt 16:24/Mk 8:34/Lk 9:23)
          "Taking up the cross" amounted to having a cloth in the shape of a cross sewn into one's clothes. As one then donned the sword, the following became relevant:

          "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword." (Mt 10:34-36; cf. Lk 12:51-53)
          Finally, Jesus could be seen as alleviating fears about leaving behind one's family, taking on fiscal hardships, and facing likely death:

          "Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life." (Mt 19:29/Mk 10:29-30/Lk 18:29-30)
          By the time of the Second Crusade, Bernard of Clairveaux was focusing on this deutero-Pauline passage:

          "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against the flesh and blood... Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace...taking the shield of faith...and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God." (Eph 6:11-17)
          The amazing success of the First Crusade popularized "bloody prophecy":

          "The winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles." (Rev 14:20)

          Chroniclers often cited this when describing the slaughter in Jerusalem. For instance:
          http://lorenrosson.blogspot.fr/2006/...scripture.html

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
            ...

            The Bible doesn't say anything about attacking Muslims or anyone else. Where do you think the Crusaders got the idea of Holy War? Hint: It wasn't the Bible.

            ...
            The bible (Old Testament) is full of stories of the Israelites attacking infidels on the order of god (and slaughtering aöll of them, including their cattle).

            And at the time of the crusades the pope was seen as the representative of god by almost all of european christianity (except for a few tiny sects that usually were persecuted by the catholic church (like the Cathars, which would themselves become target of a crusade) and the orthodox church).

            So the bible clearly gives the church the ability to start religious wars because, which true medieval christian wouldn´t see the word of the pope to be as authoritative as if it would have been spoken by god himself (and therefore the crusades be equivalent to the wars of the israelites against the tribes of the holy land)
            Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
            Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
              What you didn't do it more important than what you did do. What you didn't do is challenge his claim. All you did was point out a few errors. So if you want to prove him wrong you need to do some leg work.
              rubbish; i've ridiculed your source.

              you've made some claims and need to back them up. that's how it works. if you won't then it's because you can't and i'll take it that you concede the points.

              Is there a point? You seem to think I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't know what you are on about.
              i think ricketyclik put it very well. but also, the point is that your definition seems to be that every time muslims attack non-muslims, it's jihad, a religiously motivated conquest, yet when non-muslims attack muslims, it's not religiously motivated. that seems very inconsistent.

              I found the text that goes along with that video
              that's what the guy says during the video so anyone who watched the video will have heard it. did you even watch the video you're failing so hard to defend?
              "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

              "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                No. I am not wrong.
                I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                Comment


                • Yes you are wrong.
                  And you have to accept it because the truth will set you free. (it's not work who does that, it's the truth)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Proteus_MST View Post
                    The bible (Old Testament) is full of stories of the Israelites attacking infidels on the order of god (and slaughtering aöll of them, including their cattle).

                    And at the time of the crusades the pope was seen as the representative of god by almost all of european christianity (except for a few tiny sects that usually were persecuted by the catholic church (like the Cathars, which would themselves become target of a crusade) and the orthodox church).

                    So the bible clearly gives the church the ability to start religious wars because, which true medieval christian wouldn´t see the word of the pope to be as authoritative as if it would have been spoken by god himself (and therefore the crusades be equivalent to the wars of the israelites against the tribes of the holy land)
                    No. The Bible does not clearly give the Pope that authority. Show me that in the Bible.
                    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
                      No. The Bible does not clearly give the Pope that authority. Show me that in the Bible.
                      But what about Papal infallibility...
                      Keep on Civin'
                      RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                        rubbish; i've ridiculed your source.

                        you've made some claims and need to back them up. that's how it works. if you won't then it's because you can't and i'll take it that you concede the points.
                        I did back them up. You haven't done anything to dispute my claims. Evidently you have no idea how many battles there were and you are too stupid to learn.
                        i think ricketyclik put it very well. but also, the point is that your definition seems to be that every time muslims attack non-muslims, it's jihad, a religiously motivated conquest, yet when non-muslims attack muslims, it's not religiously motivated. that seems very inconsistent.
                        That's because jihad is Muslims attacking non-Muslims you ****! I'm sorry if the definition of words is 'inconsisent' with your retarded leftist narrative.

                        that's what the guy says during the video so anyone who watched the video will have heard it. did you even watch the video you're failing so hard to defend?
                        That's right. It did. It explains that that's not even all of the battles. The ball is clearly in your court. If you chose not to return I will consider this issue closed.
                        I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                        - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ming View Post
                          But what about Papal infallibility...
                          Not in the Bible
                          I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                          - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
                            Not in the Bible
                            But it's the accepted doctrine of the church that launched the Crusades... so they were sanctioned and ordered by God.
                            Keep on Civin'
                            RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
                              No. I am not wrong.
                              You seem to be a little confused about how life works. You said the bible wasn't an inspiration for the crusades, I've linked you to some evidence that various passages were indeed used to justify the crusades. You then just saying "No. I am not wrong." isn't really that compelling an argument. Neither would another version of One True Scotsman be either FYI.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                                You seem to be a little confused about how life works. You said the bible wasn't an inspiration for the crusades, I've linked you to some evidence that various passages were indeed used to justify the crusades. You then just saying "No. I am not wrong." isn't really that compelling an argument. Neither would another version of One True Scotsman be either FYI.
                                You're ignoring two facts...

                                1) Those verses were severely twisted. They don't, in anyway, mean that.
                                2) The Christians had been attacked for 400 years before that and were taking a serious ass beating.
                                I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                                - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X