Brooks story: True or False?

[The Kid]

On 7/2/2025 at 1:22 PM, Husker_Du said:

i'm aware of the 'no false prophets' quip.

but the 'a billion muslims would like a word' was in response to 'why so much hate on Brooks'.

i don't see the hate for brooks coming from 'a billion muslims.'

and i saw the hate for brooks long before that incident. 

 

 

If the Muslims knew about bo's disparaging remarks,  they wouldn't too impressed with him.

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

I think he means: his brother in PED crime.   it a figurative connection not his literal 'brother' if I am understanding correctly. He is just mocking PED users as we all are. I think  Window may also be saying PED it is a worldwide problem. maybe

this thread has various things being said that have been asked for clarifications.   Not aimed at you GMF, but it would be nice if people here just said what they meant instead of hiding it behind apparently meaningless words. 

mspart

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, The Kid said:

If the Muslims knew about bo's disparaging remarks,  they wouldn't too impressed with him.

dynamite drop-in 

[Hammerlock3]

2 hours ago, The Kid said:

If the Muslims knew about bo's disparaging remarks,  they wouldn't too impressed with him.

what were Bo's disparaging remarks?

[wrestlingshoe]

On 7/2/2025 at 1:07 PM, Husker_Du said:

move goalposts all you want.

the hate isn't coming from muslims ffs. 

Coming from Muslims or not (and I'm sure you know all of them) Brooks' comment is horrendous.  I am a Lutheran (as far from the far right loonies as you can get). It is disheartening how Brooks comments (and the thinking of the far right Christians) denigrate the Christian religion. Acceptance, love, treat others they way you want to be treated... all that stuff, is lost in the verbage Brooks and his fellow right wing Christians use and live by. 

[Hammerlock3]

50 minutes ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Coming from Muslims or not (and I'm sure you know all of them) Brooks' comment is horrendous.  I am a Lutheran (as far from the far right loonies as you can get). It is disheartening how Brooks comments (and the thinking of the far right Christians) denigrate the Christian religion. Acceptance, love, treat others they way you want to be treated... all that stuff, is lost in the verbage Brooks and his fellow right wing Christians use and live by. 

No. Every professed christian thinks christ is the only path to salvation. Despite it being an odd time to blurt it out, his statement was tautological, and no thinking muslim would be offended by it. Again the outrage is political in nature, not religious. 

Edited Thursday at 11:11 PM by Hammerlock3

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

No. Every professed christian thinks christ is the only path to salvation. Despite it being an odd time to blurt it out, his statement was a tautological, and no thinking muslim would be offended by it. Again the outrage is political in nature, not religious. 

The quote you provided is not tautological.

Understanding Tautology

A tautology, in logic, is a statement that is always true due to its logical structure, such as "It will rain tomorrow or it won't rain."  In rhetoric, a tautology involves unnecessary repetition of the same idea using different words, like "free gift."

Analysis of the Quote

The quote expresses a theological viewpoint emphasizing the significance of Christ's resurrection and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ. It does not involve a logical structure that is always true by necessity, nor does it repeat the same idea using different words. Therefore, it is neither a logical nor a rhetorical tautology.

In summary, the quote is a doctrinal assertion, not a tautological statement.

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

 

The quote you provided is not tautological.

Understanding Tautology

A tautology, in logic, is a statement that is always true due to its logical structure, such as "It will rain tomorrow or it won't rain."  In rhetoric, a tautology involves unnecessary repetition of the same idea using different words, like "free gift."

Analysis of the Quote

The quote expresses a theological viewpoint emphasizing the significance of Christ's resurrection and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ. It does not involve a logical structure that is always true by necessity, nor does it repeat the same idea using different words. Therefore, it is neither a logical nor a rhetorical tautology.

In summary, the quote is a doctrinal assertion, not a tautological statement.

So you're saying if someone says "I'm a christian, and I think christ is the only path to salvation" thats not tautological, its doctrinal? Whats the distinction between the two? Is it not tautological because a tautology is self contained statement?

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

So you're saying if someone says "I'm a christian, and I think christ is the only path to salvation" thats not tautological, its doctrinal? Whats the distinction between the two? Is it not tautological because a tautology is self contained statement?

Let’s break it down clearly:

---

1. What is a tautology?

In formal logic:
A tautology is a statement that is true by its logical structure alone—no matter what the specifics are.

• Example: “Either it's raining or it's not.”

• That's because it's always true, regardless of any real-world facts.

In rhetoric/language:
It's redundant repetition — saying the same thing twice in different words.

• Example: “free gift,” “armed gunman” — the added adjective doesn’t add new meaning.

---

2. What’s a doctrinal statement?

A doctrinal statement makes a claim about reality or belief — it's asserting something, not just repeating or being true by definition.

• E.g.: “Jesus is the only path to salvation.”

• It's not true by definition, and it doesn’t repeat the same meaning redundantly. It expresses a belief that must be evaluated on its merits.

---

3. Why “Jesus is the only path…” isn’t tautology

• It isn't logically true by form alone—take away the subject, and it’s no longer valid. You could question or deny it.

• It isn't just repetitive or redundant.

• It's a claim about religious truth—thus, it’s doctrinal, not tautological.

Edited Thursday at 11:18 PM by Caveira

[Hammerlock3]

13 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Let’s break it down clearly:

---

1. What is a tautology?

In formal logic:
A tautology is a statement that is true by its logical structure alone—no matter what the specifics are.

• Example: “Either it's raining or it's not.”

• That's because it's always true, regardless of any real-world facts.

In rhetoric/language:
It's redundant repetition — saying the same thing twice in different words.

• Example: “free gift,” “armed gunman” — the added adjective doesn’t add new meaning.

---

2. What’s a doctrinal statement?

A doctrinal statement makes a claim about reality or belief — it's asserting something, not just repeating or being true by definition.

• E.g.: “Jesus is the only path to salvation.”

• It's not true by definition, and it doesn’t repeat the same meaning redundantly. It expresses a belief that must be evaluated on its merits.

---

3. Why “Jesus is the only path…” isn’t tautology

• It isn't logically true by form alone—take away the subject, and it’s no longer valid. You could question or deny it.

• It isn't just repetitive or redundant.

• It's a claim about religious truth—thus, it’s doctrinal, not tautological.

dude you could just answer. regardless my point stands.

[Window12]

5 hours ago, Caveira said:

So the answer is no: Aaron Brooks does not have a brother named Mozzafar who converted to Islam.

Oh- I must have got my wires crossed somehow. At any rate it would have been ironic if did have a Muslim covert brother though…

[wrestlingshoe]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

No. Every professed christian thinks christ is the only path to salvation. Despite it being an odd time to blurt it out, his statement was tautological, and no thinking muslim would be offended by it. Again the outrage is political in nature, not religious. 

Not true. I am a Lutheran (Christian) who leaves room for other beliefs. How do we know that God didn't reveal himself to other people in different forms, with different names. And I am not the only one to believe this by far. 

[Hammerlock3]

3 minutes ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Not true. I am a Lutheran (Christian) who leaves room for other beliefs. How do we know that God didn't reveal himself to other people in different forms, with different names. And I am not the only one to believe this by far. 

you can do it that way but that doesn't mean he has to, nor does he have to keep quiet about it, in fact I'm pretty sure he thinks its his duty to evangelize. 

[wrestlingshoe]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

you can do it that way but that doesn't mean he has to, nor does he have to keep quiet about it, in fact I'm pretty sure he thinks its his duty to evangelize. 

Not sure what that has to do with my comment. You said all Christians believe a certain way and I showed you a different perspective that many Christians have. The reason most people only know Brooks' viewpoint is because right wing Christians believe they must shout from every street corner even though in Matthew 6 it advises not to do so, but rather pray behind closed doors. 

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Not sure what that has to do with my comment. You said all Christians believe a certain way and I showed you a different perspective that many Christians have. The reason most people only know Brooks' viewpoint is because right wing Christians believe they must shout from every street corner even though in Matthew 6 it advises not to do so, but rather pray behind closed doors. 

you called his comment horrendous and its not. 

[wrestlingshoe]

Just now, Hammerlock3 said:

you called his comment horrendous and its not. 

That's your opinion. To me and to many others it is. 

[Hammerlock3]

3 minutes ago, wrestlingshoe said:

That's your opinion. To me and to many others it is. 

well then you require hypocrisy of people. 

[wrestlingshoe]

4 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

well then you require hypocrisy of people. 

Nice try... Your use of convoluted words does not make your initial statement towards Christians any less wrong. 

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Nice try... Your use of convoluted words does not make your initial statement towards Christians any less wrong. 

what statement was that?

[wrestlingshoe]

23 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

what statement was that?

With all the big words you use I figured you knew had to read back through your posts. 

[Hammerlock3]

10 minutes ago, wrestlingshoe said:

With all the big words you use I figured you knew had to read back through your posts. 

this doesn't make any sense. and i still don't know what you were talking about

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

this doesn't make any sense. and i still don't know what you were talking about

He’s saying.  As all are.  Brooks was very offensive to Muslims.  

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

On 6/29/2025 at 6:56 PM, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Look at all the people making excuses for a guy who tested positive twice in less than a year...

Take out the trash and give him a permanent suspension, USAW.

[Psalm 1 guy]

On 7/1/2025 at 1:32 PM, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Baschamania.

He also talked about during the weight cutting process the last day, he was chanting "Walk on water," almost as if he was considering himself a Christ-like figure.  Very odd.

I haven't heard this interview, but I would think it highly more likely that a Christian chanting "walk on water" would be referring to Peter and not Jesus. When Peter kept his eyes on Jesus he was able to walk on the water. When he started looking at the waves and wind he lost his faith and began to sink. In that context I would think "walk on water" is shorthand for keeping your eyes on Jesus and not fearing the "wind and waves" of your current trial. See Matthew 14:22-33

[Husker_Du]

you guys have the same energy/hate for the many muslims that say, essentially, the same thing as Brooks but in reverse?

the bottom line is that's what they believe. 

i find it funny that the same class of people that scream inclusion and acceptance vilify people for their words.

and in this instance, selectively. 

did i like the comment? no.

do i like when others subjugate my beliefs? no.

but to each, their own. it harms me none.