If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

I'm loving it more and more.

In case anyone's curious about my intentions now, for now I'm just planning to drop in once in a while, read the last few pages, and maybe post something now and then if I think of anything to say that might possibly interest anyone.

I haven't given up the idea of trying to role-play the kind of community development here, that I want to promote, but that's suspended for now. I do see some things happening here that look very healthy to me, like the Slymepit Health Club, and discussing what to do about possible effects and influences of scapegoat feminism and social justice on our children.

I've been doing some research on possible online resources for oppressed white men, and here's some of what I've seen or read about so far:
- MRA, PUA and MGTOW.
- The Good Men Project.
- The Slyme Pit, and some atheist blogs and other spaces.
- Games, and gamer and gamergate forums, blogs and other spaces.
- Kiwifarms.
- Wizardchan.

I still have a lot to learn about some of those, but so far, the more I see, the better I appreciate the Slyme Pit.

Reference for my research: In the mind of men

Because I don't respond to cruelty, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt me.

comhcinc, what's your problem with me?

Lsuoma, what's your problem with me?

If anyone else has a problem with me, please talk to me about it. If anyone would prefer to PM me about it, you're welcome to do so.

comhcinc wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:comhcinc, Lsuoma, and anyone else who has a problem with me, please talk to me about it in my closet, or in PM if you would prefer.

No. Fuck you. You are a fucking asshole. There are people here who really knew John, had conversations with him, and deeply cared about him and reached out and did where they could to help him.

They don't need you showing up with your bullshit. They don't need your approval of what they are doing and they certainly don't need your empty fucking words.

It's disrespectful and you fucking disgust me.

comhcinc wrote:John was my friend. There are other people here that new him better than me but I had a lot of conversations with him last year. He helped me get with some stuff and I tried, and failed, to help him.

There's more to it than that. You've been acting this way from the very start.

... jim is some religious nut ...

I thought that might have something to do with it, but do you feel this way about every religious nut you see?
- "They don't need your approval of what they are doing and they certainly don't need your empty fucking words."
- "... weird ass grandmother comments."

I can see that I've given you plenty of reason to think I'm some kind of religious phony, but that still doesn't seem like enough to explain all the malice in your posts to me. Is there anything else?

Sorry Jim, I tried to respond to your PM, but for some reason it wouldn't send. :?

The basic gist was if both Comch and yourself ignored each other it would be the best solution for all. I don't understand why Comhc is so hostile, but you should also stop asking him why or indeed mentioning him. Then we can all go back to bitching about non-pitters reviewing movies :dance: .

Hunnybunny, thanks. I sent you another PM.

Wow. Two fails in a row. I meant to post this here in my closet.

comhcinc, it looks to me like you think I've been lying about my reasons for being here, and for everything I've been doing here. It looks to me like you think I have dishonest and treacherous motives for everything I say and do here. If so, what are your reasons for thinking that?

Maybe it's my avatar. I'll try changing my avatar.

The more I think about it, the more ludicrous it seems for anyone to think I'm here to convert people.

comhcinc, I still feel like I'm missing something. Your explanations for your hostility towards me just don't make any sense. Maybe you don't really know, yourself. I hope you'll think some more about what your reasons could be, and you'll tell me, and we can find some way to resolve it.

It does make sense for you to react the way you did to what I said about John Greg's death, if you think that I was just doing it for appearances. What does not make sense is for you to keep imagining such dishonest and treacherous motives and intentions behind everything I say and do. Can you think of any reasons why you would want to think of me that way?

About weight loss, my wife and I have been following some practices we learned from Michel Montignac, with consistent success, for more than 20 years. Two basic principles:
- No fiberless carbs.
- All meals either no fats or no carbs, with at least two hours, preferably three, between carbs and fats.
There are other details that improve the results, but we've lost weight and kept it off for years, just following those two principles.

That's the second time, at least, that I've seen someone call me gay. I said "queer," not "gay."

Besides, I think now that I was wrong about being queer. I thought that the "Q" in LGBTQ included me, but I don't think so any more. I see now that it has political implications that don't apply to me.

comhcinc, I've been reviewing this thread, and I'm seeing some possible reasons for your behavior towards me:
- Calling you "One-Trick Pony."
- Some other mocking or scornful things I've said to you or about you.
- Adding you to my list of followers. I'll confess that I did intend for that to humiliate you. That would be enough for me, in itself, to explain your behavior towards me.

No. Not to humiliate you. To embarrass you.

I've decided to respond here to some things that people have said about me, that look false to me.

comhcinc wrote:... refuses to answer questions ...

Partly false. I have refused to answer questions that don't look friendly to me, and questions about the Baha'i Faith, most of the time, but I have answered many other questions.

Jim is part of a cult ...

Since the most popular use of the word "cult" is to stigmatize some group or category of people, without actually communicating anything other than malice, "true" or "false" would have no meaning here. I'll only say that I'm not part of any movement or organization that systematically isolates people from the rest of society and/or uses psychologically damaging techniques to program their behavior.

... his purpose here is to convert people ...

False.

... he had zero to do with John.

False.

... trying to use John's death as a way to endear himself to people.

False.

free thoughtpolice wrote:... he is gay

False.

If the Universal House of Justice finds out he is gay he gets excommunicated ...

False. The Universal House of Justice has never excommunicated anyone for being gay.

JackSkeptic wrote:... nice all the time ...

False.

You can't just say "false", dude, you need to present evidence. Show some examples.

Jim, you can't only respond to kindness either. Sometimes acknowledge that hostility is the default setting, and it's your job to counter it, not simply walk away. It's your choice, of course. But if you want communication, then I would seriously consider my recommendations. Also, don't buy into comchinc's hostility. Doesn't your faith have anything resembling stoicism?

jimhabegger wrote:Besides, I think now that I was wrong about being queer. I thought that the "Q" in LGBTQ included me, but I don't think so any more. I see now that it has political implications that don't apply to me.

I could have sworn you mentioned a wife...?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:You can't just say "false", dude, you need to present evidence. Show some examples.

That post is only intended for people whose intentions towards me are friendly. If anyone with friendly intentions has any reason to think that any of those allegations against me are true, I'll trust them to tell me so, so we can clear up any misunderstandings. Your intentions look friendly to me. Do you have any reasons for thinking that any of those allegations against me are true?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Jim, you can't only respond to kindness either. Sometimes acknowledge that hostility is the default setting, and it's your job to counter it, not simply walk away. It's your choice, of course. But if you want communication, then I would seriously consider my recommendations. Also, don't buy into comchinc's hostility. Doesn't your faith have anything resembling stoicism?

My response to hostility is to ignore it. In my experience, it does nothing but harm to try to communicate with anyone whose intentions are not friendly, and even more so when they treat everything I say as a lie. The only reason I responded to those allegations against me was because I saw some of them being repeated, and if people see me passing over them without saying anything, they might take that as implicit admission that they're true.

I thought that comchinc might have honest and sincere reasons for his defamation campaign against me, and I wanted to give him every possible chance to resolve those with me. I've given him all the chances I intend to for now.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Besides, I think now that I was wrong about being queer. I thought that the "Q" in LGBTQ included me, but I don't think so any more. I see now that it has political implications that don't apply to me.

I could have sworn you mentioned a wife...?

Yes,

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Jim, you can't only respond to kindness either. Sometimes acknowledge that hostility is the default setting, and it's your job to counter it, not simply walk away.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. Can you give me some examples of what you mean by countering hostility?

I'm assuming that you're trying to help me, and your friendliness is helpful in itself, but you might be able to help me more if you understood better what I think I'm trying to do here. Would you like to try to understand that better?

If anyone here has any friendly interest in me at all, and if you see any reasons for anyone to think that I've lied about anything, please, I'm begging you, tell me what they are.

Ignore the part about begging. If anyone with friendly intentions has trouble believing something I've said, and if it matters to you, I would be glad for you to tell me about it.

The problem with dividing people into categories, that concerns me the most, is the popularity of despising and continually maligning some category of people, like SJWs for example, and raking up muck about them, and approving or condemning attitudes and behavior according to their targets rather than according to their effects. I imagine that most people sense that that's wrong, but they're too attached to the psychological and social benefits of doing it, to face up to its wrongness. The only way I see for most people to break free of it is by being attracted into a fellowship where they feel welcome, but where that behavior is not popular.

If anyone's curious about the kind of community development I'm promoting, you can read about it here:
Rising Together: Building the Capacity to Recover from Within

jimhabegger wrote:If anyone's curious about the kind of community development I'm promoting, you can read about it here:
Rising Together: Building the Capacity to Recover from Within

Over the past two decades Bahá'ís and likeminded collaborators have worked to establish a worldwide process of spiritual and moral education, open to all. Structured in stages to meet the developmental needs of differing ages, this system tends to the moral education of children

I class it as child abuse to indoctrinate children with versions of 'morality' delivered millenia ago by fantasy omnipotent sky faries to men (Moses & mohamed) who were clearly suffering from delusional mental illness.

Whenever I read about moral education for children, all I see is brainwashing to further delude another generation. If that's your 'community-building' then it's bullshit weasel words to hide the real intent of converting people during times of extreme duress.

HunnyBunny wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:If anyone's curious about the kind of community development I'm promoting, you can read about it here:
Rising Together: Building the Capacity to Recover from Within

Over the past two decades Bahá'ís and likeminded collaborators have worked to establish a worldwide process of spiritual and moral education, open to all. Structured in stages to meet the developmental needs of differing ages, this system tends to the moral education of children

I class it as child abuse to indoctrinate children with versions of 'morality' delivered millenia ago by fantasy omnipotent sky faries to men (Moses & mohamed) who were clearly suffering from delusional mental illness.

I don't see the relevance of when it was delivered, by whom or to whom, but the references for the morality in that education process are Baha'i scriptures, which were originally written between 1844 and 1921.

You class it as child abuse to teach children to be honest, fair, respectful of others, and free from prejudice?

Whenever I read about moral education for children, all I see is brainwashing to further delude another generation. If that's your 'community-building' ...

It isn't.

HunnyBunny, are you opposed to any kind of moral training for children at all? What about parent? Are you opposed to parents trying to teach their children to be honest and fair for example?

Associating the most harmful behavior exclusively with some group or category of people defined by ideology, like "atheists," "theists" "Muslims," "MRAs" or "SJWs" for example, is a way of camouflaging a double standard of behavior, where "what is wrong for others is not wrong for us."

HunnyBunny, I'm still not satisfied with the way I responded to your post, and I want to try to do better.

I thought I understood what you were saying, but now I'm not so sure. I thought you were talking about the damaging and disabling effects that some religious training has on people, including children, but when I did a Web search for articles about moral training, most of it did not look religious. Now I'm wondering if you're opposed to all moral training of any kind, religious or not, or if maybe most or all of the institutional moral training you've seen was really religious training, even if it was masquerading as something else.

The discussions here and at KotakuInAction have dramatically increased my awareness of the popularity in media stories of demonizing men, and white people, and its possible demoralizing and incapacitating effects on men, on white people, and on all of society. I've spent a lot of time searching on the Internet for people addressing that problem in healthy ways, without finding any responses nearly as healthy as what I'm seeing here. Of course I haven't observed any other initiatives nearly as closely for nearly as long.

I've browsed a little on some men's advocacy sites, and on the Good Men Project site, and various other places, and so far the only people I've seen outside of the Pit who show any awareness of the problem are responding either by demonizing, scorning or scoring women, or ironically, by demonizing men, as in "We need to treat men more compassionately, because if we don't, they're going to kill us."

On the face of it, the Pit looks poisonous to me in some ways, but now, looking past that, I'm seeing exactly the kind of mutual support that I see as part of the remedy for the ravages of SFDJS (Scapegoat Feminism, Diversity and Social Justice, with "scapegoat" applying to all three). I'm talking for example about health walks, SJW crises with daughters, and such trivial-looking discussion topics as fixing dripping showers, avoiding death by electrocution while drilling in walls, and riposte-eating iPads.

Steersman, it looks to me like you think I've been lying about some things. If that isn't what you think, please let me know.

Steersman wrote:... you are, apparently, intellectually dishonest and egregriously evasive.

Isn't that exactly what some people here think about you? I've been tempted, repeatedly, to think the same thing about you, myself, but I know that appearances can be deceiving, so I resist that temptation. Besides, even if you really are being as dishonest and evasive as you appear to me to be, I consider it better for my purposes to proceed as if you aren't.

Are you feeling that way, that I'm being dishonest and evasive, because I'm not telling you much about what I think, in response to what you're saying? Because I'm not agreeing with you about everything, but I'm not offering any reasons for thinking otherwise? Because I don't always agree that something I said meant what you thought it meant? Because I change my mind, or contradict myself, sometimes? Anything else?

Before I would tell you more about what I think, and my reasons for it, I would need to see some signs that you have some friendly interest in what I think, and my reasons for it. Otherwise, maybe I'll just have to live with you thinking that I'm being dishonest and evasive.

jimhabegger wrote:

Steersman wrote:... you are, apparently, intellectually dishonest and egregriously evasive.

Isn't that exactly what some people here think about you? ....

I kind of doubt it. But maybe.

jimhabegger wrote:Are you feeling that way, that I'm being dishonest and evasive, because I'm not telling you much about what I think, in response to what you're saying? ....

You remind me of Eliza:

ELIZA is a computer program and an early example of primitive natural language processing. .... When the "patient" exceeded the very small knowledge base, DOCTOR might provide a generic response, for example, responding to "My head hurts" with "Why do you say your head hurts?" .... It was one of the first chatterbots. ....

Formulaic responses with next to no understanding of the content, and no ability, or willingness, to respond to it.

jimhabegger wrote:Before I would tell you more about what I think, and my reasons for it, I would need to see some signs that you have some friendly interest in what I think, and my reasons for it. Otherwise, maybe I'll just have to live with you thinking that I'm being dishonest and evasive.

"Friendliness" doesn't cut a lot of ice, particularly if it seems motivated by ulterior motives or a hidden agenda. Or if an expectation of it entails whitewashing an issue.

Thanks. You've just helped me avoid wasting a lot of time and effort.

Steersman wrote:You might try looking to your own credibility than being overly concerned with mine.

I'm not concerned with your credibility at all. You said that you weren't sure why I think you would want to answer any of my questions, and I was suggesting that a possible reason for answering my questions would be for your message to have more credibility with more people.

Steersman wrote:You make a great summary of my position, but seem remarkably reluctant, being charitable, to actually address the substance of it.

I have addressed every part of your position, as I recently outlined it in what you called a "great summary" of it, from the very beginning of our conversation in the Islam and Islamists thread. On the day after you first responded to my questions there, I told you what I thought about your position. Later, I offered to tell you again what I thought about it, and you said that you didn't want to know. Apart from that, from the very start, all I've been doing there, in my posts to you, has been asking you questions about your position.

If my "great summary" of your position does not include the substance of it, then please specify the substance of it, and tell me what I haven't done, from the very start, that you would call "addressing" it.

Now I'm seeing Internet discussions about social issues as being like rain dances in some ways.

Steersman wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:Is "agree with conclusion" part of your definition of "consider"?

More weaselling and intellectual dishonesty. Consider this earlier post of yours which is what I expect you're referring to ...

What I was referring to was my posts in the Islam and Islamists thread where I've repeatedly addressed every point that you've made, after hours of trying to see some truth in them, asking you questions about them, and thinking about them some more.

Steersman wrote:But you rather clearly and pointedly refuse to consider the question of why the Quran influences some people towards violence.

False. I have spent hours considering that question, and addressing it in my posts in the Islam and Islamists thread, repeatedly and extensively. Repeating, over and over, the groundless, unsubstantiated and blatantly false allegation that I haven't addressed your points, doesn't make that allegation true.

Steersman wrote:But I think we have rather different definitions for consider:

con·sid·er
v. con·sid·ered, con·sid·er·ing, con·sid·ers
v.tr.
1. To think carefully about (something), especially before making a decision ....

That's exactly what I have done with every point of yours.

I might stay away from the Pit for a few weeks, or maybe more, for reasons which I'll explain if and when I come back, if anyone wants to know. For now I will only say that it is not because of anything com has done.

It's not because of anything anyone said or did to me.

jimhabegger wrote:

Steersman wrote:You make a great summary of my position, but seem remarkably reluctant, being charitable, to actually address the substance of it.

I have addressed every part of your position, as I recently outlined it in what you called a "great summary" of it, from the very beginning of our conversation in the Islam and Islamists thread. ....

If my "great summary" of your position does not include the substance of it, then please specify the substance of it, and tell me what I haven't done, from the very start, that you would call "addressing" it.

I really don't think you have. Maybe it's analogous to the spinning dancer - you might search on the term for discussions on it here - where people literally see different things in cognitive illusions, but I'm not sure it's worth much effort to argue the case. Particularly as it doesn't appear you've actually looked at what evidence I've put on the table. However, maybe addressing one of your points might help if you actually focus on what I'm saying. You said:

Steersman, I've revised what you called my "great summary" of your position, in accordance with your latest comments, and I'm posting the revision here, along with a revision of my responses to it.

1. "The Quran influences people towards violence, especially if they think of it as the word of God, which makes it a danger to society."

I think that the Quran can influence people towards violence, or away from it, regardless of whether or not they think of it as the word of God. I think it depends entirely on how a person uses it, which depends on heredity, conditioning and environment.

That's fine, but all you're doing is repeating what you're paraphrasing I've said, i.e., "the Quran influences people towards violence". Big fucking deal, so you can parrot me - really advances the debate, and moves the ball half way down the field. Not.

Yet you've said absolutely diddly squat about why that happens, or referred to the several pieces of information that I've provided that might answer that question - notably the quotes of Huxley and Loyola. While I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the psychology of religion or about delusions and psychoses, you might seriously reflect on something from Mark Twain:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

You seem to think that believing in poisonous, barbaric, bigoted, and hateful crap "that just ain't so" - and believing that it came from the Grand High Poobah of the Entire Universe, the GHPEU - is not going to lead to barbaric and violent actions: "the thought is party to the deed". You think that believing the GHPEU condones certain barbaric actions isn't going to lead many, particularly the ignorant and the psychotic, to engage in such?

No doubt "heredity, conditioning and environment" are factors, but you seem remarkably reluctant to consider that the barbaric beliefs themselves, and those who peddle them, are possibly even bigger ones with a much greater impact. Looks like you want to put all the blame on the first three without being the least bit interested in ascribing any to the last two.

I don't agree with saying or insinuating that the only reason anyone could have for raising alarms about Islam and Muslims, is race prejudice, but that doesn't mean I don't think there's any race prejudice involved in defamation campaigns against Islam and Muslims. I think that whatever influence those campaigns has is partly a consequence of popular racial stereotypes of Muslims.

That doesn't make it right to discount those alarms. All it means to me is that no matter how thoroughly race prejudices have been discredited, we might still have a long way to go, to be completely free of them.

Steersman, I want to keep discussions about my personal understanding of religious scriptures here in my closet.

Steersman wrote:So, are you going to deny what the Quran ... says in 5:51about "not taking Jews and Christians as friends"? Which, en passant, looks egregiously bigoted if not racist. Are you going to repudiate that or not? Or, once again, waffle?

jimhabegger wrote:... I'm not practicing or promoting that, because I don't think it applies to our time. I'm not saying that it was wrong in the context in which it was given.

Steersman wrote:Ah, so! Maybe you'd care to provide a reference to the Quran that qualifies that? Something to the effect of "best before 2001"?

It isn't in the Quran. It was written some time between 1879 and 1891.

The second Glad-Tidings: It is permitted that the peoples and kindreds of the world associate with one another with joy and radiance. O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.

(Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 22)

Steersman wrote:Looks kind of presumptuous to be second-guessing that grand high Poobah of Islam, take it away!, Allah!

I'm not second-guessing Him. As you can see from the passage above, my God has explicitly told us to practice fellowship with the followers of all religions.

Incidentally, if you want to think of me as a Muslim, or if you want to think of the Baha'i Faith as a sect of Islam, I won't try to change your mind, but I want it to be clear that I'm not calling myself a Muslim, and I'm not calling the Baha'i Faith a sect of Islam.

Steersman wrote:Can't very credibly insist that the Quran is "the words of gawd hisself", and then turn around and claim that "He" forgot to clarify things adequately which your "prophet" (aka raving lunatic) - mirabile dictu - just happens to have been the one to have been blessed with such.

A better way of describing what I think about the Quran is that my God is, by my definition, the author of the words of Muhammad that evolved into the Quran. He is also, by my definition, the author of the words of Baha'u'llah that evolved into Baha'i scriptures.

He didn't forget anything. Some of His prescriptions change from time to time, because of different social conditions at each stage of progress in civilization.

jimhabegger wrote:

Steersman wrote:Can't very credibly insist that the Quran is "the words of gawd hisself", and then turn around and claim that "He" forgot to clarify things adequately which your "prophet" (aka raving lunatic) - mirabile dictu - just happens to have been the one to have been blessed with such.

A better way of describing what I think about the Quran is that my God is, by my definition, the author of the words of Muhammad that evolved into the Quran. He is also, by my definition, the author of the words of Baha'u'llah that evolved into Baha'i scriptures.

He didn't forget anything. Some of His prescriptions change from time to time, because of different social conditions at each stage of progress in civilization.

And your evidence for that is what? Something you got in a box of cracker-jacks? Something you pulled out of your arse? You seem not to realize that just because you believe something doesn't make it true. You lot look crazier than shithouse rats.

Steersman wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:A better way of describing what I think about the Quran is that my God is, by my definition, the author of the words of Muhammad that evolved into the Quran. He is also, by my definition, the author of the words of Baha'u'llah that evolved into Baha'i scriptures.

He didn't forget anything. Some of His prescriptions change from time to time, because of different social conditions at each stage of progress in civilization.

And your evidence for that is what? Something you got in a box of cracker-jacks? Something you pulled out of your arse? You seem not to realize that just because you believe something doesn't make it true. You lot look crazier than shithouse rats.

Evidence for what? For my definition?

What I mean, when I say "God," is a metaphorical person, constructed dynamically from the origin stories of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Babi and Baha'i Faiths. He's the author of the words of the prophets of Israel and of Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah, that evolved into scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Babi and Baha'i faiths, by definition. I call that metaphorical person "God." That's what I mean, when I say "God."

If by "evidence," you mean the reference for my God saying that some of His prescriptions change from time to time, because of different social conditions at each stage of progress in civilization, here's one example:

That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.

(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287)

jimhabegger wrote: <snip>
What I mean, when I say "God," is a metaphorical person, constructed dynamically from the origin stories of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Babi and Baha'i Faiths. He's the author of the words of the prophets of Israel and of Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah, that evolved into scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Babi and Baha'i faiths, by definition. I call that metaphorical person "God." That's what I mean, when I say "God." ....

You're crazier than the proverbial shit-house rat. You think a "metaphorical person" can compete in - and win - the Ironman Triathlon contest? Real people wrote all what's in those "holy books" [ha!] - some of which makes sense, and some of which are little more than the ravings of mad men. But that hardly makes them, collectively or individually, "God Himself", the grand high poobah and master of the universe, able to dispense unending pain or pleasure on its whims. Only freaking nutcases actually believe that.

Steersman wrote:

Jim wrote: <snip>
What I mean, when I say "God," is a metaphorical person ...

You're crazier than the proverbial shit-house rat. You think a "metaphorical person" can compete in - and win - the Ironman Triathlon contest?

LOL! I think He could if He wanted to. :P

Steersman wrote:Real people wrote all what's in those "holy books"

Agreed.

Steersman wrote:So, now you're no longer a member in good standing of "the Baha'i Faith"?

I'm still a member in good standing.

Steersman wrote:You've now denied that the "words of the Koran are the words of God Himself"?

No. I've denied that Muslims can not take Christians and Jews as friends, which you say is denying that the words of the Quran are the words of God. I'm disagreeing with you about that. I'm saying that Muslims can take Christians and Jews as friends, and in my view, saying that is not the same as denying that the words of the Quran are the words of God.

Steersman wrote:Pray tell, you have a compendium of which ones were Allah's and which ones were those of his (deeply flawed) servants?[/i]

In my theology, all the words of the Quran are the words of God, by definition. In my theology, part of the definition of God is that He is the the author of the words of Muhammad that evolved into the Quran. That's what it means to me to say, for example, "The Quran is the Word of God," or "The words of the Quran are the words of God," or "The Quran was sent by God," or "The Quran was revealed by God," or "The Quran is a message from God," or "In the Quran, God says ..."

In Baha'i scriptures, my God says that some of His prescriptions change from time to time, because of "the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated."

Steersman wrote:And you have a gold standard to determine which are which?

Yes. My gold standard to determine which prescriptions apply to our time is in Baha'i scriptures.

Steersman wrote:So, now you're no longer a member in good standing of "the Baha'i Faith"? You've now denied that the "words of the Koran are the words of God Himself"?

There might be a misunderstanding there. As I understand it, the Baha'i Faith promotes a view of the Quran as the Word of God, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with that can't be a member in good standing. There is no creed that people have to endorse, in order to be members of the Baha'i Faith in good standing. When I say that the Baha'i Faith promotes a view of the Quran as the Word of God, that's my understanding of what I've seen in Baha'i scriptures and other Baha'i literature.

This is for anyone who's interested in helping to reduce and counteract the damage that's being done to people's lives, and to all of society, in the name of feminism, diversity and social justice.

One way I see of helping to reduce and counteract the damage is by encouraging and supporting working-class white boys and young men, in the challenges they're facing, and in their personal development, learning and working together to help improve the world for all people. I'm searching on the Internet now for examples of that. This looks like it might have some good ideas:

White boys from low-income backgrounds: good practice in schools