Do Muslims celebrate Christmas?
Tr...@acay.com.au
Pardon my ignorance, but I really don't know.
thanks
Trent
NewBondUnionisation
who believe in trolls and elves.
<Tr...@acay.com.au> wrote in message
news:gfai0v8nk9c7b88ob...@4ax.com...
Loki
"NewBondUnionisation" <f...@from.here> wrote in message
news:G4cO9.12707$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
netvegetable
news:gfai0v8nk9c7b88ob...@4ax.com:
In Malaysia they do. I know that. Probably elsewhere.
And why not? To them Jesus is a Prophet, and they see that it's a big
money spinner in the West. So why not celebrate his birth as well?
--
http://politicsoz.0catch.com/
"They say we always get the government we deserve, but I don't recall
knife raping any benedictine nuns."
Thadeus Margrove
news:OkeO9.501414$QZ.75148@sccrnsc02...
> You must be a troll.
I thought I caught a whiff of elve too...
Kolu Koleff
"netvegetable" <deathtos...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92EFE1FCD85AEA...@130.133.1.4...
> Tr...@acay.com.au wrote in
> news:gfai0v8nk9c7b88ob...@4ax.com:
>
> > And if so, what do they do?
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance, but I really don't know.
> >
> > thanks
> > Trent
> >
>
> In Malaysia they do. I know that. Probably elsewhere.
>
> And why not? To them Jesus is a Prophet, and they see that it's a big
> money spinner in the West. So why not celebrate his birth as well?
>
comfortable about Christmas than authorities in western countries. Odd that
on US programmes you get "Happy Holidays" whereas I've seen Muslims
saying "Merry Christmas". PC I guess, sad.
killer2
(Marium [19.15]) And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the
day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life
Different people interpret it in different ways.
netvegetable <deathtos...@altavista.com> wrote in message news:<Xns92EFE1FCD85AEA...@130.133.1.4>...
Sharaf Al-Islam
> Pardon my ignorance, but I really don't know.
>
> thanks
> Trent
First of all, I pardon your ignorance,
Second, to answer your query: No, Muslims do not celebrate Christmas.
By the way celebrating christmas is even not allowed in christianity.
Later on it was an innovation introduced to it.
Besides, Islam respects Jesus as a Prophet, but refuses to elevate his
status to be a God, According to ISlam the only God is Allah who
created the Earth and Heaven, Muhammad as well as Jesus both are noble
prophets and Messengers of Allah. Muslims do not celebrate the birth
of Jesus as well as Muhammad, but that does not mean not respecting
them.
In Islam, only two festivals are celebrated: After the occasion of
fasting and after the occasion of Pilgrimage (Hajj). So, Muslims
celebrate their good actions like fasting and Pilgrimage, and
Celebration in ISlam means visiting relatives remembering Allah and
sharing happiness with the poor.
Hope I have shed some light on your question.
bwahahahahahaha
Says who?
"Sharaf Al-Islam" <sharaf_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f4c3c5.02122...@posting.google.com...
Red Herring
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of
the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth.
However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient."
-- Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar, April 18, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
netvegetable
news:655d414e.0212...@posting.google.com:
> Moron it is written Quran
>
> (Marium [19.15]) And peace on him on the day he was born, and on
> the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life
>
> Different people interpret it in different ways.
>
As I said: Why not?
Mike Craney
"Sharaf Al-Islam" <sharaf_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4f4c3c5.02122...@posting.google.com...
> By the way celebrating christmas is even not allowed in christianity.
Where did you ever get a crazy idea like that??????
Mike
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "Mike Craney" mikec...@directvinternet.com
>Date: 12/25/2002 10:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3e0a07a5$1...@nopics.sjc>
There was a time when celebrating Christmas was forbidden by the early
Pilgrims. Supposedly celebrating detracted from the true meaning of Christmas -
which was the no nonsense worship of Christ. But nothing recent comes to mind.
John Watson
In the USA they don't really celebrate Xmas, more so they celebrate
Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving I believe if from the first settlers of the US.
The Muslims in keeping this type of celebratation have an event too. This
event is held on September 11th and is known as "We Fucked Up Day". A time
for the Muslims to look back and cherish the moment they where a free people
with an extensive terrorist network and were able to use and transfer large
sums of money to different educational activities like Pilot Training. It
is also a time to celebrate their understanding of US oppression and racial
segregation (i.e. cunts don't give and fuck about them and they aint worth
the time of day).
I hope that helps you understand a little bit of their new cultural heritage
:c)))
PS.... for all the rag heads out there that want to have a go at me for
saying the above, read your fucken Quor'an and realise that the words in
that book mean you should shut the fuck up and accept it.
PPS... for all the wankers that are not Muslims and believe that the above
was not the right thing to say. Shut the fuck up and become a Muslim and
see (PS).
PPPS... For all those who are Americans and think the above was in order for
the atrocities placed on American Soil. You can shut the fuck up, because
you are no better in your own right!
PPPPS... For all that believe the above was warranted and are not an
American, cheers and have a beer :c) relax and enjoy the flame that will
come with this post.
<Tr...@acay.com.au> wrote in message
news:gfai0v8nk9c7b88ob...@4ax.com...
John Watson
References, don't really follow the news I find it is too exciting :c)))
Please give me a good read and a little excitement.
"Red Herring" <red.h...@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:0suj0vo08gmv6jtkh...@4ax.com...
K.-Benoit Evans
netvegetable <deathtos...@altavista.com> wrote:
> Tr...@acay.com.au wrote in
> news:gfai0v8nk9c7b88ob...@4ax.com:
>
> > And if so, what do they do?
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance, but I really don't know.
> >
> > thanks
> > Trent
> >
>
> In Malaysia they do. I know that. Probably elsewhere.
>
> And why not? To them Jesus is a Prophet, and they see that it's a big
> money spinner in the West. So why not celebrate his birth as well?
As an actual regligious festival, Christmas is NOT celebrated by the
Muslim community. In predominantly Muslim countries where there are
Christian minorities, some individual Muslims do exchange gifts and even
do some decorating. The first time I went to Casablanca, in 1988, I was
surprised to see a very slender man in a red Santa suit greeting
children outside a shopping area in the downtown buisness district. That
was, however, not really a celebration of the Nativity Jesus (peace be
on him) but an emulation of all that is bad in Western, especially North
American "Christmas" activities.
Let's face facts. Although some individual Christians do indeed use the
period of Advent and Christmastide to prepare for and celebrate the
birth of Jesus, for most it is now the festival of the Mamon, ka-ching,
ka-ching.
In our home we try to counter some of that influence by taking about the
TRUE story of Christmans, as it is related both in the Gospel according
to Luke and in the Qur'an. But we never told our daughter that any gifts
were from "Santa Claus". Once, when she was almost 6, a store clerk
asked her if Santa was going to bring her lots of toys. She replied "No.
There is no Santa." If you ask her who gives the best gift at Christmas,
she will say God and if you ask what he gave her, she will say "Jesus,
peace be on him."
The real "kaffirs" (infidels) in the West are not Christians who
misunderstand the nature of Jesus and the absolute unicity of the
Godhead. The real infidels are the non-religious interests who have use
the anniversary of the birth of Jesus as the basis for their largest
commercial activity of the year.
Generally, in the Christian Churches, the 4 weeks preceding Christmas
(Advent) is a penitencial period in which the Church reminds believers
that at the end of time Jesus will come again (a belief that Muslims
share) and urges believers to amend their lives so that they will be
ready for that second coming. Christmastide is the period of 12 days
from Christmas to the Epiphany, during which the Church celebrates the
birth of Jesus, his circumcision, his baptism and his manifestation to
the Gentiles (the Wise Men).
There is someone who is "making a list, checking it twice, gonna find
out who's naught or nice" but when he "comes to town" he will not be
dressed in a red suit, riding in a sleigh drawn by reindeer.
To the extent that Muslims bring to mind the nativity of Jesus (in
December or at any other time) this is what they remember:
"We sent her (Mary) our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in
all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from you in (Allah) Most
Gracious: (come not near) if you fear Allah." He said: "No, I am only a
messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son.
She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me,
and I am not unchaste?" He said: "Even so: Your Lord says, 'that is
easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a
Mercy from Us' It is a matter decreed." (Qur'an, Surat Mary, 19:17ff)
"Christ Jesus the son of Mary was Allah's prophet, and His Word, which
He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him." (4:171)
--
Regards,
Benoit Evans
K.-Benoit Evans
"Mike Craney" <mikec...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
Probably from history books and perhaps modern radio/TV sermons or
neighbours. The Puritans in New England and the protestants during the
time of Cromwell's protectorate outlawed Christmas "frivolities".
I think the Seventh Day Adventists (?) and several other small
protestant groups still maintain that Christmas and Easter are in fact
pagan festivals that were merged into some Chruches practices.
The nativity as an event is not mentioned in all four gospels and did
not become a general Church festival until the period of Roman
influence, when the Chruch needed something to draw people away from the
Roman Saturnalia at the time of the winter solstice. Until then, the
celebration of the arrival of Jesus (peace be on him) in the world was
on 6 January, the Epiphany when three of his manifestations were
celebrated: his manifestation to the Wise Men, to the wedding party in
Cana and at his baptism by John (peace be on him).
--
Benoit Evans
Mike Craney
"XpatriotgamesX" <xpatrio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021225144643...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Interesting info; I didn't know that.
But, somehow, I don't think our friend Al-Bubba had the Pilgrims in mind.
Mike
Mike Craney
"K.-Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kevans-C440AC....@news.videotron.net...
> In article <3e0a07a5$1...@nopics.sjc>,
>
> Probably from history books and perhaps modern radio/TV sermons or
> neighbours. The Puritans in New England and the protestants during the
> time of Cromwell's protectorate outlawed Christmas "frivolities".
>
> I think the Seventh Day Adventists (?) and several other small
> protestant groups still maintain that Christmas and Easter are in fact
> pagan festivals that were merged into some Chruches practices.
For the record, these are pretty minor sects.
> The nativity as an event is not mentioned in all four gospels
Well, the Navity is of course mentioned, but the NT does not specify ANY
particular dates or events to be universally celebrated. It is a theological
document, not a road map describing how to manage the Church.
....and did
> not become a general Church festival until the period of Roman
> influence, when the Chruch needed something to draw people away from the
> Roman Saturnalia at the time of the winter solstice. Until then, the
> celebration of the arrival of Jesus (peace be on him) in the world was
> on 6 January, the Epiphany when three of his manifestations were
> celebrated: his manifestation to the Wise Men, to the wedding party in
> Cana and at his baptism by John (peace be on him).
This is my understanding as well, basically. More to the point, in the years
of persecution, it was necessary for the Church to make its feasts coincide
with existing festivals. Simple pragmatism.
Also, the emphasis on the Ephiphany over the Navitivy is still the custom in
the oldest Christian traditions (Julian calendar Orthodox.)
Mike
> --
>
> Benoit Evans
bwahahahahahaha
about celebrating one's birthday as well, yet people from both religions do
it.
It is not correct or fair to "impose" one's interpretation of any scriptures
on anybody. There are also christians who do not celebrate christmas. But it
is the spirit of the event not the letter and here I am realizing that islam
tends towards the letter. If God is so uncompromising as to even disallow
humans to celebrate an event, then woe betide us all if we misinterpret any
scriptures at all, be they muslim or christian.
In the same vein, I would like to draw one certain festivals observed by the
shia... how would non-shia muslims view it.
I am sure not everybody will share the same opinion, but...
"K.-Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kevans-C440AC....@news.videotron.net...
tipper
Don't even think about it, if you are in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/sns-ap-a-saudi-christmas1225de
c25,0,5927135.story
Saudi Arabia Frowns on Christmas Cheer
By GEORGE GEDDA
Associated Press Writer
December 25, 2002, 12:56 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- At Christmas, the cultural divide between the United States
and Saudi Arabia reaches a high point, at least for American Christians
living in a kingdom where puritanical Islam is the norm.
There are no churches in Saudi Arabia. Public displays of Christian worship
are unlawful and draw the attention of the Muttawa, government-paid agents
who monitor religious deviationism. Customs officials confiscate materials
considered offensive, such as Bibles.
U.S. officials said Christians in the American diplomatic community were
holding Christmas services in private homes on Wednesday, as they do every
year. Other Christians in the kingdom do the same.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, recalls the restrictions on
Christmas services imposed on the hundreds of thousands of American troops
deployed in Saudi Arabia in preparation for Desert Storm in December 1990.
In an article in the current issue of The National Interest, Pipes says the
Saudis decreed that Christmas services could be held, but only in places
"where they would be invisible to the outside world, such as tents and mess
halls."
All citizens of Saudi Arabia must be Muslim. Conversion by a Muslim to
another religion is considered apostasy and can be punishable by death.
Christian missionaries are unwelcome.
Christians who go to Saudi Arabia for other kinds of work are welcome, so
long as they abide by religious rules. At least 500,000 Roman Catholics are
believed to be in Saudi Arabia, including many women from the Philippines
who work as domestics.
A State Department report on religious freedom around the world, released in
October, says, "Non-Muslim worshippers (in Saudi Arabia) risk arrest,
imprisonment, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture for engaging in
overt religious activity that attracts official attention."
Christians lack religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, but Jews for the most
part are denied entry. Timothy Hunter, a former U.S. diplomatic official
assigned to Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, says State Department policy was to
avoid sending Jewish employees to the kingdom under an agreement with the
Saudis.
In a letter this past June, Hunter told Pipes that it was "the duty of the
foreign service director of personnel to screen all Foreign Service officers
applying for service in the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and to `tick'
Jewish officers' names using the letter `J' next to their names, so that
selection panels would not select Jewish diplomats for service in Saudi
Arabia."
Through it all, the United States has maintained close official ties with
the kingdom for more than 60 years, although not without strain since the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
There is a debate, for example, about whether Saudi Arabia contributes to
terrorism by giving money to extremist Islamic groups in South Asia and
elsewhere, or whether they have joined hands with the United States in the
fight against terrorism.
The United States calls the kingdom a partner in the fight against terror
but says the Saudis could do more. The Saudis say they have arrested more
than 200 terrorist suspects, including those involved with al-Qaida, the
network headed by Saudi-born expatriate Osama bin Laden. They say
intelligence sharing has resulted in the freezing of more than $70 million
linked to terrorist organization financial accounts.
Washington seems determined to preserve good relations with the country,
which has 25 percent of the world's oil reserves. The Saudis won points with
the United States a year ago by issuing a formal proposal for a
comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Pipes sees an obsequious U.S. policy toward the kingdom.
"For decades," he writes, "U.S. government agencies have engaged in a
persistent pattern of deference to Saudi wishes, making so many unwanted and
unnecessary concessions that one gets the impression that a switch has taken
place, with both sides forgetting which of them is the great power and which
the minor one." ___
EPrem
>Date: Wed, Dec 25, 2002 23:05 EST
>Message-id: <audkjb$f8r$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>
>
>
>I don't think any of the scriptures of either islam or christianity mentions
>about celebrating one's birthday as well, yet people from both religions do
>it.
The angels celebrated and rejoiced over the birth of Christ (as when they
appeared to the lowly shepherds on the hills), so it's only fitting that his
followers rejoice over His birth as well. Who cares if it's celebrated on
December 25, or March 20 or July 17? Jesus is the single most important person
ever to be born. He is AWESOME and I am celebrating his birthday even as I
write this (just finished birthday cake, too, as a matter of fact).
Phaedrine Stonebridge
"K.-Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> The first time I went to Casablanca, in 1988, I was
> surprised to see a very slender man in a red Santa suit greeting
> children outside a shopping area in the downtown buisness district. That
> was, however, not really a celebration of the Nativity Jesus (peace be
> on him) but an emulation of all that is bad in Western, especially North
> American "Christmas" activities.
Oh yeah, gee whiz, I guess he should have been wearing a vest full of
C-4 to qualify for Islamic merriment and fun.
EPrem
>Date: Wed, Dec 25, 2002 18:16 EST
>Message-id: <kevans-1565E9....@news.videotron.net>
>
>
>In our home we try to counter some of that influence by taking about the
>TRUE story of Christmans, as it is related both in the Gospel according
>to Luke and in the Qur'an.
Aside from the fact that it is Mary that is giving birth to Jesus, the account
in Luke and the lie in the Qur'an are as alike as apples and rotten oranges.
EPrem
>Date: Wed, Dec 25, 2002 23:22 EST
>Message-id: <3e0a...@news.alphalink.com.au>
>
>
>Christian missionaries are unwelcome.
>
>
That's because the Saudi government don't want the people to know the TRUTH
about JESUS CHRIST: "For God so loved the world he gave his Only Begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." John
3:16
bwahahahahahaha
"EPrem" <ep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021225235809...@mb-fe.aol.com...
friend
"EPrem" wrote:...
> >Subject: Re: Do Muslims celebrate Christmas?
> >Christian missionaries are unwelcome.
Woman! Can you explain how did God beget a Son?
A man born of an Immortal Being (God) and a mortal human being (Mary (a.s))?
In case you can't and I'm sure you can't, then know that there's
only one TRUTH about Jesus (a.s);i.e. the qur'anic account alone.
Anything else is rather the result of our own fanciful but limited
imagination.
friend.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
netvegetable
> As an actual regligious festival, Christmas is NOT celebrated by
> the Muslim community. In predominantly Muslim countries where
> there are Christian minorities, some individual Muslims do
> exchange gifts and even do some decorating. The first time I
> went to Casablanca, in 1988, I was surprised to see a very
> slender man in a red Santa suit greeting children outside a
> shopping area in the downtown buisness district. That was,
> however, not really a celebration of the Nativity Jesus (peace
> be on him) but an emulation of all that is bad in Western,
> especially North American "Christmas" activities.
>
I was raised Catholic, though these days I'm an atheist. And I'll be
frank, I don't hold much stock in religion - be it protestant,
Catholic, Bahai, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism or anything!
Nevertheless, I celebrate Christmas. Believe it or not, I love to
give the relies presents! For example, I love to give my teenage
nephews weird presents (the sort only a weird uncle can give!) Last
year I got one of them a Battle Axe, and the other one a gas mask -
this year I got one of them a Soviet flag, and the other a pair of
moose horns on a plaque. In short, I get a creative kick out of
choosing presents for people.
And given that the custom isn't unknown in Malaysia (as well as other
Muslim countries), it wouldnt' suprise me at all if there was the odd
Muslim Malay, who gets a kick out of Xmas in exactly the same way.
And is there anything wrong with that? i.e, giving presents to people
to celebrate the birth of that guy on the stick?
--
Mike Craney
"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3e0a...@post.usenet.com...
> Woman! Can you explain how did God beget a Son?
> A man born of an Immortal Being (God) and a mortal human being (Mary
(a.s))?
> In case you can't and I'm sure you can't, then know that there's
> only one TRUTH about Jesus (a.s);i.e. the qur'anic account alone.
> Anything else is rather the result of our own fanciful but limited
> imagination.
This POV is, of course, liberating.
If a person is unable to comprehend the Virgin Birth in the manner outlined
in the N.T., the alternative is not, simply, the quranic version, I'm happy
to say. That discipline also presents challenges to reason, as you have to
buy off on the notion that things got so screwed up the first time God sent
a Last Prophet that he had to send an angel to a guy in a cave to explain
how the guy was going to be the Next Last Prophet, and how he needed to fix
things. (For those keeping count at home, that's two Last Prophets.)
Also, there is speculation that the teachings of the Next Last Prophet have
now gotten so screwed
up(http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html) that
there might have to be Another Last Prophet, but no one is really sure if
the Another Last Prophet will be actually be, in fact, a Last Last Prophet,
for if the First Last Prophet will be brought back for another go.
Of course, for those of you who would prefer to just avoid this entire mess
(and, believe me, I understand completely if you do) be advised that
rejecting the Christian version the Virgin Birth and the Nature of Christ
does not predispose you to either Judaism or Islam. As the thread of
JudeoChristian theology totally unravels without the Deity of Christ, you
will find that there is no reason to be monotheistic, allowing you to choose
from a plethora of competing (and perhaps more palatable) alternatives.
Consider the possibilities, from Zoroastrianism (which is due for a
comeback) to Hinduism to Buddhism to Confusianism. You may travel to the
Greek isles and fall down at the statue of Aphrodite, as the poetess Sappho
did, or, you may worship at the altar of Ishtar. becoming the spiritual
sibling of Gilgamesh. You may become a devotee of Isis (assuming you're not
allergic to cats), offer incense to Baal and Astarte, or embrace subsaharan
animism. (For those of you with Celtic backgrounds, there are many
alternatives from the Golden Isles, but I wouldn't recommend them if you
don't like bagpipes.)
(Editor's Note: If it were me, I would head for the Greek Isles. I've always
thought that the worship of the Mother Goddess in all her forms was
potentially the purest and most beautiful form of spirituality. If I weren't
a Christian, that's where I'd be.)
Or, you may, if you wish, create your own religion. After all, the Cosmic
Deity(ies), whoever He/She/It/They may be, are, as the Godly Friend points
out, ALWAYS enslaved to the limitations of our human reason. ("If you can't
understand it, it can't be God", I believe is the teaching of the Prophet
Friend.) So be it. Whatever God is, He/She/It/They want you to be happy
within your own human limitations, not challenge or expand those
limitations.
All Hail To The Godly Friend for this illuminating exhortation. (Could he be
the Last Last Prophet? Time will tell.)
Mike
DemSoc
"NewBondUnionisation" <f...@from.here> wrote in message
news:G4cO9.12707$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Xmas is a waste of time.
Yes we know you don't beleive in peace on earth and goodwill to all men. You
are a marxists who beleives in terrorism as political tool.
> No one celebrates it.
Only a marxist would say such an obvious lie.
> Its a gimmick for people who believe in trolls and elves.
Now you are just proving how ignorant you are. Wicca beleive in elves,
trolls and dragons. Muslims believe in demons. Elves and trolls come from
celt and vking mythology.
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
>>Woman! Can you explain how did God beget a Son?
>>A man born of an Immortal Being (God) and a mortal human being (Mary
>>(a.s))?
>>In case you can't and I'm sure you can't, then know that there's
>>only one TRUTH about Jesus (a.s);i.e. the qur'anic account alone.
>>Anything else is rather the result of our own fanciful but limited
>>imagination.
Holding my breath....
>This POV is, of course, liberating.
>If a person is unable to comprehend the Virgin Birth in the manner outlined
>in the N.T., the alternative is not, simply, the quranic version, I'm happy
>to say.
What is outlined in your NT? The virgin birth? Well, no Muslim denies it.
Not
even the Holy Qur'an does. What Islam simply is contesting, is rather
your blurred interpretation of the same event.
Instead of holding a long discourse and viciously attacking the Prophet
(asws),
why don't you just address the issue?
Tell us, O wise one, how did God beget a son. Oh and BTW, why not a
daughter?
<rest of nonsense snipped>
Mike Craney
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Mike Craney" wrote:...
> >"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
>
> >>Woman! Can you explain how did God beget a Son?
> >>A man born of an Immortal Being (God) and a mortal human being (Mary
> >>(a.s))?
> >>In case you can't and I'm sure you can't, then know that there's
> >>only one TRUTH about Jesus (a.s);i.e. the qur'anic account alone.
> >>Anything else is rather the result of our own fanciful but limited
> >>imagination.
>
> Holding my breath....
>
> >This POV is, of course, liberating.
>
> >If a person is unable to comprehend the Virgin Birth in the manner
outlined
> >in the N.T., the alternative is not, simply, the quranic version, I'm
happy
> >to say.
>
> What is outlined in your NT? The virgin birth? Well, no Muslim denies it.
> Not
> even the Holy Qur'an does. What Islam simply is contesting, is rather
> your blurred interpretation of the same event.
> Instead of holding a long discourse and viciously attacking the Prophet
> (asws),
> why don't you just address the issue?
I believe I did, O Godly Friend. But, I will be glad to help you along by
providing the equivalent of the Cliff's Notes for my assertions, which have
been replaced into the thread below, after they had mysteriously been
clipped by someone who was obviously ill-equipped to deal with that much
satiric truth.
First, I pointed out, with both style and substance, how a belief considered
true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can easily be
considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the product of a
"...fanciful but limited imagination", to properly quote chapter and verse
of the Great and Godly Friend.
For the simple truth is, Great and Godly Friend, that it is, for myself and
many others, far more reasonable and logical to believe that the Child born
of the Virgin was begotten of the Living God, than it is to believe that God
was forced to anoint a Next Last Prophet to fix the alleged screwups caused
by the followers of the Prior Last Prophet.
Secondly, I speculated how, if you prefer this Multiple-Last-Prophets
concept, and noting all the bad behavior in the world today perpetrated by
followers of the Next Last Prophet (who, we are told by other followers of
said Prophet, aren't REALLY following the Next Last Prophet like they say
they are), then it seems only reasonable to expect that God would have to
anoint ANOTHER Next Last Prophet to clean up the mess caused by followers of
the First Next Last Prophet. After all, He's done it before, why not again?
(Here, however, we followers of the First Last Prophet would tend to point
out that the entire idea of God having to continually anoint more Last
Prophets to fix the mess caused by the Prior Last Prophet kind of makes God
out to be a bit of a bumbler, and maybe people would do well to toss out
this entire notion of Last Prophets altogether.)
Thirdly, O Great and Wise Friend, I pointed out that the entire logical
development of JudeoChristian theology unravels without the Deity of Christ.
Simply put, without Christ, one can easily begin to question the validity of
the entire JudeoChristian theological construct upon which the religion of
the Next Last Prophet depends; so, you may as well check out some more
entertaining religions where people can drink and eat hot dogs and cavort
naked in the woods and not worry about how many Last Prophets there are.
Finally, I clearly and succintly (which is probably why you snipped it) I
attacked your basic implied premise, (by demanding an explanation to the
Godly begetting of Christ, an explanation which, I assume, would have to
pass *your* personal appoval to be accepted), that a theological precept
must be "reasonable" to be true. (Of course, the definition of what is
reasonable is defined by you-the-human, which places God subservient to your
own human reason, which is precisely the same sin committed by the atheist,
albeit contained in a theist's wrapper.)
> Tell us, O wise one, how did God beget a son. Oh and BTW, why not a
daughter?
Dunno. You might check with Him, then report back. However, I would caution
you that the answer might wind up with us getting another Last Prophet. You
never know.
Mike
**********************
"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3e0a...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Woman! Can you explain how did God beget a Son?
> A man born of an Immortal Being (God) and a mortal human being (Mary
(a.s))?
> In case you can't and I'm sure you can't, then know that there's
> only one TRUTH about Jesus (a.s);i.e. the qur'anic account alone.
> Anything else is rather the result of our own fanciful but limited
> imagination.
This POV is, of course, liberating.
If a person is unable to comprehend the Virgin Birth in the manner outlined
in the N.T., the alternative is not, simply, the quranic version, I'm happy
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:....
>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
> > "Mike Craney" wrote:...
> > >"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
> > >>Woman! Can you explain how did God beget a Son?
> > >>A man born of an Immortal Being (God) and a mortal human being (Mary
> > >>(a.s))?
> > >>In case you can't and I'm sure you can't, then know that there's
> > >>only one TRUTH about Jesus (a.s);i.e. the qur'anic account alone.
> > >>Anything else is rather the result of our own fanciful but limited
> > >>imagination.
> > Holding my breath....
>>>This POV is, of course, liberating.
>>>If a person is unable to comprehend the Virgin Birth in the manner
>>>outlined in the N.T., the alternative is not, simply, the quranic
version, I'm
>>>happy to say.
>>What is outlined in your NT? The virgin birth? Well, no Muslim denies it.
>>Not even the Holy Qur'an does. What Islam simply is contesting, is rather
>>your blurred interpretation of the same event.
>>Instead of holding a long discourse and viciously attacking the Prophet
>>(asws), why don't you just address the issue?
>I believe I did, O Godly Friend. But, I will be glad to help you along by
>roviding the equivalent of the Cliff's Notes for my assertions, which have
>been replaced into the thread below, after they had mysteriously been
>clipped by someone who was obviously ill-equipped to deal with that much
>satiric truth.
Ill-equiped, you say? Oh, please...let's better stick to the issue, wouldn'd
we?
>First, I pointed out, with both style and substance, how a belief
considered
>true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can easily be
>considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the product of a
>"...fanciful but limited imagination", to properly quote chapter and verse
>of the Great and Godly Friend.
First off, a "belief" as you suggest doesn't fit into the same concept
of "Iman" or "'Aqeedah" as the Muslims generally understand and define it.
Second, there can be one single TRUTH: either God exists or He doesn't,
therefore there's no way in the midst.
Thus, your relativism regarding what is reasonable
for an adherent of a certain "belief" could be for another the product of
"your fanciful & limited Imagination" doesn't hold a second.
Since we are dealing with a human being (aka Jesus (asws) the son of Mary
(as)
and his birth, you may hardly resort to that kind of argumentation in order
to
define what is and what is not reasonable. Would we argue about about
, for instance, God's Being, so I would accept your line of reasoning. But,
while we're talking about someone who at least according to Christianiy and
islam, was born, grew up and lived among men, I think, you have no
point in claiming that reason cannot explain Jesus' being.
>For the simple truth is, Great and Godly Friend, that it is, for myself and
>many others, far more reasonable and logical to believe that the Child born
>of the Virgin was begotten of the Living God,
I'm asking you to bring forth us with your "reasonbale" and "logical"
explanation for a God born of Himself through a woman,
allegedly called Himself the Son of the Father, but is
not less than the Father Himself and the Holy Ghost!!
The living God, you say? Isn't it an ironie that according to your fairy
tales the Almighty Living God ended up his live on a wooden cross. Be at
least consistent in argumentation.
>than it is to believe that God
>was forced to anoint a Next Last Prophet to fix the alleged screwups caused
>by the followers of the Prior Last Prophet.
Forced? Has any Muslim ever suggested what you're claiming now?
Or are you just making up stories in order to entertain your audience?
> Secondly, I speculated how, if you prefer this Multiple-Last-Prophets
> concept, and noting all the bad behavior in the world today perpetrated by
> followers of the Next Last Prophet (who, we are told by other followers of
> said Prophet, aren't REALLY following the Next Last Prophet like they say
> they are), then it seems only reasonable to expect that God would have to
> anoint ANOTHER Next Last Prophet to clean up the mess caused by followers
>of the First Next Last Prophet. After all, He's done it before, why not
>again?
> (Here, however, we followers of the First Last Prophet would tend to point
> out that the entire idea of God having to continually anoint more Last
> Prophets to fix the mess caused by the Prior Last Prophet kind of makes
God
> out to be a bit of a bumbler, and maybe people would do well to toss out
> this entire notion of Last Prophets altogether.)
Once again, how is this related to my original query: Is Jesus(asws) God's
son or not?
If yes, How did HE (God) beget a son (who is not less than
God Himslef) through a mortal being (Mary (as))?
> Thirdly, O Great and Wise Friend, I pointed out that the entire logical
> development of JudeoChristian theology unravels without the Deity of
>Christ.
JudeoChristian? I think, pious Jews would stone you for such a blasphemy.
> Simply put, without Christ, one can easily begin to question the validity
of
> the entire JudeoChristian theological construct upon which the religion of
> the Next Last Prophet depends; so, you may as well check out some more
> entertaining religions where people can drink and eat hot dogs and cavort
> naked in the woods and not worry about how many Last Prophets there are.
The whole construct is a mess. It's as simple as that.
> Finally, I clearly and succintly (which is probably why you snipped it) I
> attacked your basic implied premise, (by demanding an explanation to the
> Godly begetting of Christ, an explanation which, I assume, would have to
> pass *your* personal appoval to be accepted),
If I approve of it, I would believe therein, which I do not. Moreover,
if your explanation is not based on clear cut and tangible evidence, then
it's less an explanation than an apologetic rambling.
In other words you have no explanation.
>that a theological precept
>must be "reasonable" to be true.
Many precepts, but not all. Especially those related to the Divine Being are
not subjet to human reason.
>(Of course, the definition of what is
>reasonable is defined by you-the-human,
huh?
>which places God subservient to your
>own human reason,
His existence, YES! His Being, NO!
>which is precisely the same sin committed by the atheist,
>albeit contained in a theist's wrapper.)
LOL...are you suggesting that Muslims are now close to atheists?
What's coming next? Maybe that the Holy Qur'an which emphasizes the
role of reason and intellect in creedal matters is concocted by an
atheist...
You christian fundies never change....the same medieval spirit is
boiling within you.
>>Tell us, O wise one, how did God beget a son. Oh and BTW, why not a
>>daughter?
>Dunno. You might check with Him, then report back.
Well, last time I checked the anthanasian creed (quicunque vult), I still
found three deities,
so I don't know yet which one amog them I should address to?
I'm still confused, O unholy one!
friend.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
friend
> > Holding my breath....
huh?
friend.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
friend
A minor correction:
>For the simple truth is, Great and Godly Friend, that it is, for myself and
>many others, far more reasonable and logical to believe that the Child born
>of the Virgin was begotten of the Living God,
<<I'm asking you to bring forth us with your "reasonbale" and "logical"
***********************************************************************
explanation for a God born of Himself through a woman,
allegedly called Himself the Son of the Father, but is
not less than the Father Himself and the Holy Ghost!!>>
should be read:
I'm asking you to bring forth your "reasonable" and "logical" explanation
etc....
friend
A minor correction:
>For the simple truth is, Great and Godly Friend, that it is, for myself and
>many others, far more reasonable and logical to believe that the Child born
>of the Virgin was begotten of the Living God,
<<I'm asking you to bring forth us with your "reasonbale" and "logical"
***********************************************************************
explanation for a God born of Himself through a woman,
allegedly called Himself the Son of the Father, but is
not less than the Father Himself and the Holy Ghost!!>>
should be read:
I'm asking you to bring forth your "reasonable" and "logical" explanation
etc....
Mike Craney
wouldn'd
> we?
How cute!
>
> >First, I pointed out, with both style and substance, how a belief
> considered true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can
easily be
> >considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the product of a
> >"...fanciful but limited imagination", to properly quote chapter and
verse
> >of the Great and Godly Friend.
>
> First off, a "belief" as you suggest doesn't fit into the same concept
> of "Iman" or "'Aqeedah" as the Muslims generally understand and define it.
Which has to do with.....what?
> Second, there can be one single TRUTH: either God exists or He doesn't,
> therefore there's no way in the midst.
> Thus, your relativism regarding what is reasonable
> for an adherent of a certain "belief" could be for another the product of
> "your fanciful & limited Imagination" doesn't hold a second.
You somehow read into all that marvelous prose that I was taking a
relavistic stance? Au Contraire!
> Since we are dealing with a human being (aka Jesus (asws) the son of Mary
> (as) and his birth, you may hardly resort to that kind of argumentation in
order
> to define what is and what is not reasonable. Would we argue about about
> , for instance, God's Being, so I would accept your line of reasoning.
But,
> while we're talking about someone who at least according to Christianiy
and
> islam, was born, grew up and lived among men, I think, you have no
> point in claiming that reason cannot explain Jesus' being.
Reason can explain his Being. It can also cause us to fall short of
understanding that Being.
>
> >For the simple truth is, Great and Godly Friend, that it is, for myself
and
> >many others, far more reasonable and logical to believe that the Child
born
> >of the Virgin was begotten of the Living God,
>
> I'm asking you to bring forth us with your "reasonbale" and "logical"
> explanation for a God born of Himself through a woman,
> allegedly called Himself the Son of the Father, but is
> not less than the Father Himself and the Holy Ghost!!
For what purpose? Because you have suddenly become a seeker after His truth?
If so, you don't need me to post, again, what has been posted here, and in
other places, so many times before. Actually, I'm sure that each of us could
take the other's side in a debate and equit ourselves admirably, arguing
each other's points. The continued absurdity here is that while you scoff at
what you see as an indefensible religious construct, you maintain the
"reasonableness" of your own indefensible religious construct.
> The living God, you say? Isn't it an ironie that according to your fairy
> tales the Almighty Living God ended up his live on a wooden cross. Be at
> least consistent in argumentation.
It is theologically consistent, I assure you, for the Son of God to abase
himself on a tree for the sake of those whom He loves. The consistency can
be tracked all the way back to the Torah, in fact. Search the net for
"substitutionary atonement."
>
> >than it is to believe that God
> >was forced to anoint a Next Last Prophet to fix the alleged screwups
caused
> >by the followers of the Prior Last Prophet.
>
> Forced? Has any Muslim ever suggested what you're claiming now?
> Or are you just making up stories in order to entertain your audience?
Please. You and yours have argued many times as to how St. Paul and the
immediate followers of Christ corrupted His teachings, and have a verse or
two in the Koran about it, as well. That would be what we colloquially refer
to as a "screwup".
> > Secondly, I speculated how, if you prefer this Multiple-Last-Prophets
> > concept, and noting all the bad behavior in the world today perpetrated
by
> > followers of the Next Last Prophet (who, we are told by other followers
of
> > said Prophet, aren't REALLY following the Next Last Prophet like they
say
> > they are), then it seems only reasonable to expect that God would have
to
> > anoint ANOTHER Next Last Prophet to clean up the mess caused by
followers
> >of the First Next Last Prophet. After all, He's done it before, why not
> >again?
>
> > (Here, however, we followers of the First Last Prophet would tend to
point
> > out that the entire idea of God having to continually anoint more Last
> > Prophets to fix the mess caused by the Prior Last Prophet kind of makes
> God out to be a bit of a bumbler, and maybe people would do well to toss
out
> > this entire notion of Last Prophets altogether.)
>
> Once again, how is this related to my original query: Is Jesus(asws) God's
> son or not?
Yes.
> If yes, How did HE (God) beget a son (who is not less than
> God Himslef) through a mortal being (Mary (as))?
As the Apostle said, "The power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her." Is not
enough? What would satisfy you, here? A precise, detailed explanation of
the mechanism involved? Some sort of discussion on the theological "birds
and the bees?" For what purpose? Because you cannot concieve of what you
cannot imagine?
> > Thirdly, O Great and Wise Friend, I pointed out that the entire logical
> > development of JudeoChristian theology unravels without the Deity of
> >Christ.
>
> JudeoChristian? I think, pious Jews would stone you for such a blasphemy.
Of course they would. That's half the point.
>
> > Simply put, without Christ, one can easily begin to question the
validity
> of
> > the entire JudeoChristian theological construct upon which the religion
of
> > the Next Last Prophet depends; so, you may as well check out some more
> > entertaining religions where people can drink and eat hot dogs and
cavort
> > naked in the woods and not worry about how many Last Prophets there are.
>
> The whole construct is a mess. It's as simple as that.
The history of the construct speaks otherwise, and to an extremly high
internal theological consistency, such that people who study it find their
faith developed.
> > Finally, I clearly and succintly (which is probably why you snipped it)
I
> > attacked your basic implied premise, (by demanding an explanation to the
> > Godly begetting of Christ, an explanation which, I assume, would have to
> > pass *your* personal appoval to be accepted),
>
> If I approve of it, I would believe therein, which I do not.
Q.E.D. I maintain that your approval is irrelevant to truth. Lots of folks
will prefer that the sun not come up at 7AM on the 1st of January, but I
assure you, it will.
> Moreover,
> if your explanation is not based on clear cut and tangible evidence, then
> it's less an explanation than an apologetic rambling.
> In other words you have no explanation.
This could have been posted by one of our friends from alt.atheism. Have you
considered that your very human NEED for that explanation is your
shortcoming?
> >that a theological precept
> >must be "reasonable" to be true.
>
> Many precepts, but not all. Especially those related to the Divine Being
are
> not subjet to human reason.
Then why, above, are you demanding explanations?
>
> His existence, YES! His Being, NO!
>
> >which is precisely the same sin committed by the atheist,
> >albeit contained in a theist's wrapper.)
>
>
> LOL...are you suggesting that Muslims are now close to atheists?
See your own quote above. I have always maintained that any religion which
demeans faith and emphasizes human attributes is, in fact, atheism in a
deist wrapper.
> What's coming next? Maybe that the Holy Qur'an which emphasizes the
> role of reason and intellect in creedal matters is concocted by an
> atheist...
> You christian fundies never change....the same medieval spirit is
> boiling within you.
BRAVO! Your best ad hominem of the match!
>
> >>Tell us, O wise one, how did God beget a son. Oh and BTW, why not a
> >>daughter?
>
> >Dunno. You might check with Him, then report back.
>
> Well, last time I checked the anthanasian creed (quicunque vult), I still
> found three deities,
I only find one.
Mike
Mike Craney
How come your client is double-posting? (Or, are you just trying to
emphasize your points?) :-)
Mike
"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3e0b5d75$1...@post.newsfeed.com...
Loki
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
> "friend" wrote:..
>>Ill-equiped, you say? Oh, please...let's better stick to the issue,
>>wouldn'd we?
>How cute!
Indeed!
>>>First, I pointed out, with both style and substance, how a belief
>>>considered true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can
>>>easily be considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the
product of a
>>>"...fanciful but limited imagination", to properly quote chapter and
>>>verse of the Great and Godly Friend.
>>First off, a "belief" as you suggest doesn't fit into the same concept
>> of "Iman" or "'Aqeedah" as the Muslims generally understand and define
it.
>Which has to do with.....what?
With "belief" or "faith".
Since there's no equivalent term in English, so let's call it merely an
"idea".
>>Second, there can be one single TRUTH: either God exists or He doesn't,
>>therefore there's no way in the midst.
>>Thus, your relativism regarding what is reasonable
>>for an adherent of a certain "belief" could be for another the product of
>>"your fanciful & limited Imagination" doesn't hold a second.
>You somehow read into all that marvelous prose that I was taking a
>relavistic stance? Au Contraire!
Ah non, désolé mon ami.
You just need to re-read your statement a few lines
above in order to see the obvious. And since again I explained in the
following
paragraph that we are dealing with an obvious human being, your
argumentation that [I quote you]:
"I pointed out, with both style and substance, how a belief
considered true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can
easily be considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the
product of a
"...fanciful but limited imagination" [sic]
is simply untenable.
As I previously stated, there can be only one single truth independenly from
those
who claim to hold it and those who reject it outright. Either God exists or
He doesn't
and both assumptions must be verifiable, otherwise the idea, that each group
adheres to,
is not more than the result of their fanciful but limited imagination.
You further claim that Jesus (asws) is God's son or God's incarnate and I on
the
other hand ask for a proof. Either is Jesus (asws) in fact the one or the
other or
he simply is not. There's no other way in the midst.
Neither is there any way to resort to that kind of relativism in order to
justify your position
nor are your unjustified attacks against Muhammad (asws) the proof that your
claim is true by default.
>>Since we are dealing with a human being (aka Jesus (asws) the son of Mary
>>(as) and his birth, you may hardly resort to that kind of argumentation in
>>order to define what is and what is not reasonable. Would we argue about
about
>>, for instance, God's Being, so I would accept your line of reasoning.
>>But, while we're talking about someone who at least according to
Christianity
>>and islam, was born, grew up and lived among men, I think, you have no
>>point in claiming that reason cannot explain Jesus' being.
>Reason can explain his Being. It can also cause us to fall short of
>understanding that Being.
Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
limited
in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a Divine Being is
not
supposed to be].
>>>For the simple truth is, Great and Godly Friend, that it is, for myself
>>>and many others, far more reasonable and logical to believe that the
Child
>>>born of the Virgin was begotten of the Living God,
>>I'm asking you to bring forth us with your "reasonbale" and "logical"
>>explanation for a God born of Himself through a woman,
>>allegedly called Himself the Son of the Father, but is
>>not less than the Father Himself and the Holy Ghost!!
>For what purpose?
Simple. You and your pals claim ad nauseum that the Holy Qur'an tells
lies about Jesus (asws), that Muhammad (asws) perverted Jesus' (asws)
teachings (do you remember?), that Muslims follow a superstition of a mad
man who once claimed to have gotten a revelation in a arabian cave and so on
and so forth.
So we are challenging you to substantiate your claims, nothing more and
nothing less.
>Because you have suddenly become a seeker after His truth?
No.
Because, I want you to reasonably present us your truth.
>If so, you don't need me to post, again, what has been posted here, and in
>other places, so many times before. Actually, I'm sure that each of us
could
>take the other's side in a debate and equit ourselves admirably, arguing
>each other's points. The continued absurdity here is that while you scoff
at
>what you see as an indefensible religious construct, you maintain the
>"reasonableness" of your own indefensible religious construct.
Huh? My indefensible religious construct? I proved to you just above and
in one single sentence that Jesus' (as) is far from being a divinity.
It's now your turn to prove the contrary, otherwise your sentence [I quote
you again]:
"The continued absurdity here is that while you scoff at
what you see as an indefensible religious construct, you maintain the
"reasonableness" of your own indefensible religious construct.[sic]"
is as absurd as your whole theological construct.
>>The living God, you say? Isn't it an ironie that according to your fairy
>>tales the Almighty Living God ended up his live on a wooden cross. Be at
>>least consistent in argumentation.
>It is theologically consistent, I assure you, for the Son of God to abase
>himself on a tree for the sake of those whom He loves. The consistency can
>be tracked all the way back to the Torah, in fact. Search the net for
>"substitutionary atonement."
The Jews would disagree with you.
>>>than it is to believe that God
>>>was forced to anoint a Next Last Prophet to fix the alleged screwups
>>>caused by the followers of the Prior Last Prophet.
>>Forced? Has any Muslim ever suggested what you're claiming now?
>>Or are you just making up stories in order to entertain your audience?
>Please. You and yours have argued many times as to how St. Paul and the
>immediate followers of Christ corrupted His teachings, and have a verse or
>two in the Koran about it, as well. That would be what we colloquially
refer
>to as a "screwup".
So please, show me any thread of mine where I made such a claim
that "God was forced to anoint a next last prophet to fix etc..etc...".
And by the way, we are still talking about Jesus (asws) and his birth, so
please
don't waste my time with Paul, the apostles' killer.
>>>Secondly, I speculated how, if you prefer this Multiple-Last-Prophets
>>>concept, and noting all the bad behavior in the world today perpetrated
>>>by followers of the Next Last Prophet (who, we are told by other
followers
>>>of said Prophet, aren't REALLY following the Next Last Prophet like they
>>>say they are), then it seems only reasonable to expect that God would
have
>>>to anoint ANOTHER Next Last Prophet to clean up the mess caused by
>>>followers of the First Next Last Prophet. After all, He's done it before,
why not
>>>again?
>>>(Here, however, we followers of the First Last Prophet would tend to
>>>point out that the entire idea of God having to continually anoint more
Last
>>>Prophets to fix the mess caused by the Prior Last Prophet kind of makes
>>>God out to be a bit of a bumbler, and maybe people would do well to toss
>>>out this entire notion of Last Prophets altogether.)
>>Once again, how is this related to my original query: Is Jesus(asws) God's
>>son or not?
>Yes.
Good. More hereto below.
>>If yes, How did HE (God) beget a son (who is not less than
>>God Himslef) through a mortal being (Mary (as))?
>As the Apostle said, "The power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her." Is
not
>enough?
No. To overshadow someone could mean everything and nothing.
>What would satisfy you, here?
How did the "holy spirit" overshadow her? Why suddenly the "holy spirit" did
it?
Why not God the Almighty Himself?
>A precise, detailed explanation of
>the mechanism involved?
So please do. I would know it.
>Some sort of discussion on the theological "birds
>and the bees?" For what purpose?
Just answered above.
>Because you cannot concieve of what you cannot imagine?
No. Because you are "joining" an immortal being with a mortal one and
suggesting
they did something, which is solely common to mortal beings.
So please do explain. I'm all ears and eyes!!
>>>Thirdly, O Great and Wise Friend, I pointed out that the entire logical
>>>development of JudeoChristian theology unravels without the Deity of
>>>Christ.
>>JudeoChristian? I think, pious Jews would stone you for such a blasphemy.
>Of course they would. That's half the point.
>>>Simply put, without Christ, one can easily begin to question the
>>>validity of
>>>the entire JudeoChristian theological construct upon which the religion
>>>of the Next Last Prophet depends; so, you may as well check out some more
>>>entertaining religions where people can drink and eat hot dogs and
>>>cavort naked in the woods and not worry about how many Last Prophets
there are.
>>The whole construct is a mess. It's as simple as that.
>The history of the construct speaks otherwise, and to an extremly high
>internal theological consistency, such that people who study it find their
>faith developed.
Well, then please explain how this holy spirit overshadowed Mary (as) and
how she further got pregnant.
>>>Finally, I clearly and succintly (which is probably why you snipped it)
>>>I attacked your basic implied premise, (by demanding an explanation to
the
>>>Godly begetting of Christ, an explanation which, I assume, would have to
>>>pass *your* personal appoval to be accepted),
>>If I approve of it, I would believe therein, which I do not.
>Q.E.D. I maintain that your approval is irrelevant to truth.
Which truth? That God the Illimited Being has been reduced
by you guys to a miserable, helpless, wooden figure hanging on a cross?
>Lots of folks will prefer that the sun not come up at 7AM on the 1st of
January, but I
>assure you, it will.
Not If the Almighty decides otherwise.
>>Moreover,
>>if your explanation is not based on clear cut and tangible evidence, then
>>it's less an explanation than an apologetic rambling.
>>In other words you have no explanation.
>This could have been posted by one of our friends from alt.atheism. Have
you
>considered that your very human NEED for that explanation is your
>shortcoming?
A shortcoming only if someone asks for an explanation of the Divine Being,
something
which I do not. We are talking about a man you claim he were God.
>>>that a theological precept
>>>must be "reasonable" to be true.
>>Many precepts, but not all. Especially those related to the Divine Being
>>are not subject to human reason.
>Then why, above, are you demanding explanations?
Because Jesus' (asws) was a concrete being, perceptible by our senses as is
every
man and thus his phenomenon is by comparison to other living men
subject to our reason. Q.E.D.
>>His existence, YES! His Being, NO!
>>>which is precisely the same sin committed by the atheist,
>>>albeit contained in a theist's wrapper.)
>>LOL...are you suggesting that Muslims are now close to atheists?
>See your own quote above. I have always maintained that any religion which
>demeans faith and emphasizes human attributes is, in fact, atheism in a
>deist wrapper.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, this doesn't make it true.
>>What's coming next? Maybe that the Holy Qur'an which emphasizes the
>>role of reason and intellect in creedal matters is concocted by an
>>atheist...
>>You christian fundies never change....the same medieval spirit is
>>boiling within you.
>BRAVO! Your best ad hominem of the match!
How many ad hominems have you launched till now? It seems that you're
oneeyed.
>>>>Tell us, O wise one, how did God beget a son. Oh and BTW, why not a
>>>>daughter?
>>>Dunno. You might check with Him, then report back.
>>Well, last time I checked the anthanasian creed (quicunque vult), I still
>>found three deities,
>I only find one.
To be more precise: you find three in one, who are still equal to each other
but
at the same time are one too.
LOL...
friend.
Mike Craney
> considered true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can
> easily be considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the
> product of a
> "...fanciful but limited imagination" [sic]
>
> is simply untenable.
What I am saying is so incredibly obvious that I feel I must, then, restate:
It is possible that theological issues that seem wholly reasonable and
logical to a Muslim can seem wholly insane to a Christian; conversely, it is
possible that theological issuses that seem wholly reasonable and logical to
a Christian can seem wholly insane to a Muslim.
That is all. Capice? It's really nothing more than a statement of observed
fact.
> As I previously stated, there can be only one single truth independenly
from
> those who claim to hold it and those who reject it outright. Either God
exists or
> He doesn't and both assumptions must be verifiable, otherwise the idea,
that each group
> adheres to, is not more than the result of their fanciful but limited
imagination.
But, both assumptions are not (usually) equal. The burden of proof falls
upon the less reasonable assumption, yes? Also, parties must agree on what
sorts of evidences are admissible. When dealing with theological issues,
debate generally falls apart because of disagreements regarding terminology
and admissibility of evidence.
>You further claim that Jesus (asws) is God's son or God's incarnate and I
on
> the other hand ask for a proof. Either is Jesus (asws) in fact the one or
the
> other or he simply is not. There's no other way in the midst.
> Neither is there any way to resort to that kind of relativism in order to
> justify your position nor are your unjustified attacks against Muhammad
(asws) the proof that your
> claim is true by default.
Assumptions concerning the Incarnation and the Transmission of the Koran to
Muhammad are causally linked as follows:
(1) If the Incarnation is true, then Muhammad was decieved or disingenuous.
(2) If the Incarnation is false, then Muhammad still could have been
decieved or disingenuous, but at least the possibility exists that he is
whom you believe him to be.
(3) If Muhammad was decieved or disingenous, the Incarnation is not
necessarily true, but the possibility exists that it is true.
(4) If Muhammad was whom you believe him to be, then the Incarnation is
false.
> Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
> limited in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a Divine
Being is
> not supposed to be].
Reason is only reason; it establishes nothing beyond any doubt. It merely
places the burden of proof onto the Christian for believing the less
reasonable scenario.
> Simple. You and your pals claim ad nauseum that the Holy Qur'an tells
> lies about Jesus (asws), that Muhammad (asws) perverted Jesus' (asws)
> teachings (do you remember?), that Muslims follow a superstition of a mad
> man who once claimed to have gotten a revelation in a arabian cave and so
on
> and so forth. So we are challenging you to substantiate your claims,
nothing more and
> nothing less.
And I am challenging you to look at the larger picture here. I am simply
asking a much more philosophic question: How do you define "Proof" as it
pertains to Things Theological?
When you say "Prove to me that Christ is God" my first impulse is NOT to
grab my Bible and start quoting chapter and verse. My first impulse is to
ask you "What type of proof would you accept?" (Refer to discussion
concerning "verifiable evidence" above.) You see, as human beings, we set
our own criteria, on any given issue, as to what level of proof we would
require. This notion roughly corresponds to the burden of proof in different
sorts of trial proceedings, where in the criminal court the case must be
proven "beyond reasonable doubt," while in a civil proceeding, the case is
decided on the "preponderance of evidence."
As it pertains to religion, few beliefs, if any, are proveable beyond
reasonable doubt. The best we can hope for is a preponderance of evidence.
BUT, when it comes to closely held religious beliefs that we wish to defend,
we shift our demand for proof to that which eliminates "reasonable doubt,"
knowing that such proof cannot be forthcoming.
Back to the Incarnation. You have rightly pointed out that reason dictates
that a given newborn child is not God. This places the burden of proof on
me. But, your "challenge" to me is a fool's errand, one I choose not to
play, partly because I am lazy, partly because USENET is a crappy medium for
this, and partly because I don't think you will give me the remotest chance
of succeeding. The matter of the Incarnation is settled in my mind, not only
becuase of Scriptural evidence or logic, but because of my ongoing
experience of Christ as the Risen Lord. I cannot transmit my personal,
spiritual experiences to you, simply because they trancend communications.
But, the reverse, I think, is also true. You claim that Muhammad received
revelation from Gabriel in a cave. Well, Joseph Smith made the same claim
outside of Palmyra, New York, and the result was Mormonism. You accept the
account of the Muhammad's revelation as axiomatic. If I were a Mormon, you
would ask me for proof regarding the claims of Smith beyond reasonable
doubt. From where the Christian sits looking at history and science,
Muhammad's claim to have recieved revlelation from an angel is not unique;
in addition, there are many documented cases of people who claim to have
recieved "revelation" who appear rational, are persuasive, but are
certifiably schizophrenic.
So, on this issue, the burden of proof is on you. Would you provide for me
proof that Muhammad recieved revelation from Gabriel in that cave? However,
I would like it beyond reasonable doubt. Video, perhaps. Having said that,
you will not be inclined to provide for me the circumstantial evidence for
the veracity of this story, simply becuase I have already placed the burden
of proof beyond your ability to meet.
<I'm snipping stuff that appears to be answered above>
> >>The living God, you say? Isn't it an ironie that according to your fairy
> >>tales the Almighty Living God ended up his live on a wooden cross. Be at
> >>least consistent in argumentation.
>
> >It is theologically consistent, I assure you, for the Son of God to abase
> >himself on a tree for the sake of those whom He loves. The consistency
can
> >be tracked all the way back to the Torah, in fact. Search the net for
> >"substitutionary atonement."
>
> The Jews would disagree with you.
Of course. If they agreed, they'd be called......Christians.
> So please, show me any thread of mine where I made such a claim
> that "God was forced to anoint a next last prophet to fix etc..etc...".
You didn't have to, explicitly. I'm referring to how the revelation of
Christ (as we understand it) and the revelation of Muhammad are antagonistic
at the core. They cannot be simulaneously correct.
Historically, God sent prophets to call the people back to righteous living
and true worship. This is why they weren't particularly popular during their
lives. Muhammad's revelation claimed that the revelation of Isa had been
corrupted, and (from my read) came to enlighten all men (including the
followers of Isa) concerning their errant beliefs, calling them back to true
worship (Islam.)
Is that not right?
> And by the way, we are still talking about Jesus (asws) and his birth, so
> please don't waste my time with Paul, the apostles' killer.
Interested phraseology. The Apostles acknowledged and acclaimed Paul as
being truthful and God-appointed. You may wish to re-read Peter.
> No. To overshadow someone could mean everything and nothing. How did the
"holy spirit" overshadow her? Why suddenly the "holy spirit"
> did it? Why not God the Almighty Himself? A precise, detailed explanation
of the mechanism involved? So please do. I would know it.
This is kind of a perfect example of what I was talking about previously. To
the Christian, who is predisposed to belief in the Incarnation, the
"overshadowing" explanation is sufficient. The nonChristian demands a
mechanistic/scienfic explanation, which, of course, the Christian cannot
provide.
I suspect you and I would agree that the Red Sea parted to permit Moses to
pass. We would likely agree also that God spoke from a burning bush, and
that water came forth from the rock after being struck with Moses staff. We
believe these things because they are written, and without any sort of
scientific or mechanistic explanation as to how such a thing could occur.
Since they do not conflict with our chosen faith, our burden of proof is
naive, by the world's standards: We believe it because it is written in a
document of incredible age, and of questionable authorship.
However, on this issue, you ask for a mechanistic explanation, knowing full
well that there is none to be had. Your burden of proof skyrockets to
"beyond reasonable doubt." Your request is the equivalent of my requesting
video of Gabriel meeting Muhammad.
>
> >>>which is precisely the same sin committed by the atheist,
> >>>albeit contained in a theist's wrapper.)
>
> >>LOL...are you suggesting that Muslims are now close to atheists?
>
> >See your own quote above. I have always maintained that any religion
which
> >demeans faith and emphasizes human attributes is, in fact, atheism in a
> >deist wrapper.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. However, this doesn't make it true.
It's more than just opinion. I used to hang out on various atheist boards
before I learned how much fun you guys at ARI are. I find it more than a
little fascinating that the challenges that are levied at Christians are
precisely the same on both boards. The same is true on the Jewish boards,
mostly. Discussion amongst pagans, Hindus, and Buddhists take on an entirely
different character.
If it were just Jews and Muslims, I would have assumed that the Abrahamic
religions were just testy around one another, as each claims to be the
accurate transmission of the Abramic covenants. But, that doesn't account
for the atheists.
There is a fundamental ideological difference between Christians and other
other three groups, that being the difference between works-based ideologies
and faith-based ideologies. In Judaism and Islam (and, by definition, in
atheism) you have to DO something to ACHIEVE something. Putting the atheists
aside, both Judaism and Islam seem to take the position that there are
actions that must be undertaken both to please God, AND to achieve the
promises of God.
Jesus, through a number of different parables, causally disconnected, these
two concepts, arguing (1) that godless, evil people are capable of good
works, and (2) good works done out of obligation are noxious to God. Faith
was the driving force in achieving the promises of God (in our religions,
heaven) and good works naturally proceed from true faith.
So, to conclude, my observations were simply that works-based theolgies were
ideologically closer to atheism in thought than Christianty
Over time, I have modified this view a bit with regard to Islam. There was a
point in time where I had engaged numerous debates where the Muslims heaped
scorn on the entire notion of faith. Then, I realized we were having a
terminology problem; what was being scorned was actually what we refer to as
"blind faith", which, Muslims and Christians would agree, is worthy of
scorn. I also have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with
non-Internet Muslims, who assure me that faith is extremely important in
Islam, and that a rabid rejection of faith is likely due to a preoccupation
with polemics.
> >>Well, last time I checked the anthanasian creed (quicunque vult), I
still
> >>found three deities,
>
> >I only find one.
>
> To be more precise: you find three in one, who are still equal to each
other
> but
> at the same time are one too.
> LOL...
Well, at least you've got a good reading list.....
Mike
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
> "friend" wrote:...
>>"I pointed out, with both style and substance, how a belief
>>considered true and reasonable by the adherent's of one religion can
>>easily be considered, by the adherent's of another religion, to be the
>>product of a "...fanciful but limited imagination" [sic]
>>is simply untenable.
>What I am saying is so incredibly obvious that I feel I must, then,
restate:
Threre's no need to repeat what's obvious.
>It is possible that theological issues that seem wholly reasonable and
>logical to a Muslim can seem wholly insane to a Christian; conversely, it
is
>possible that theological issuses that seem wholly reasonable and logical
to
>a Christian can seem wholly insane to a Muslim.
>That is all. Capice? It's really nothing more than a statement of observed
>fact.
I'm telling you once again that such a statement cannot stand any scrutiny
and
thusly cannot be considered universally valid, especially with regard to
verifiable events.
Capice?
And once again since we are dealing with non-abstract and verifiable
phenomena such
as the birth of a human being, your statement above doesn't make any sense
at all
and does therefore in no way support your line of reasoning which I called
relativistic,
even though your very statement itself might be related to theological
issues.
Capice again? Or not?
Now if we consider values and peoples' value judgements, yes, they may
differ and what
is good/right for one may be bad/wrong for another. In such cases, your
aforementioned
statement is correct.
>>As I previously stated, there can be only one single truth independenly
>>from those who claim to hold it and those who reject it outright. Either
God
>>exists or He doesn't and both assumptions must be verifiable, otherwise
the idea,
>>that each group adheres to, is not more than the result of their fanciful
but limited
>>imagination.
>But, both assumptions are not (usually) equal. The burden of proof falls
>upon the less reasonable assumption, yes?
No, the burden of proof falls upon any claimant, it doesn't matter how
positive
or negative the claim may be.
>Also, parties must agree on what sorts of evidences are admissible.
>When dealing with theological issues,
>debate generally falls apart because of disagreements regarding terminology
>and admissibility of evidence.
Correct. Or because of the lack of intellectual honesty.
>>You further claim that Jesus (asws) is God's son or God's incarnate and I
>>on the other hand ask for a proof. Either is Jesus (asws) in fact the one
or
>>the other or he simply is not. There's no other way in the midst.
>>Neither is there any way to resort to that kind of relativism in order to
>> justify your position nor are your unjustified attacks against Muhammad
>>(asws) the proof that your claim is true by default.
>Assumptions concerning the Incarnation and the Transmission of the Koran to
>Muhammad are causally linked as follows:
>(1) If the Incarnation is true, then Muhammad was decieved or disingenuous.
>(2) If the Incarnation is false, then Muhammad still could have been
>decieved or disingenuous, but at least the possibility exists that he is
>whom you believe him to be.
>(3) If Muhammad was decieved or disingenous, the Incarnation is not
>necessarily true, but the possibility exists that it is true.
>(4) If Muhammad was whom you believe him to be, then the Incarnation is
>false.
And? Do you think that kind of syllogism would settle the issue? I think
not.
>>Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
>>limited in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a Divine
>>Being is not supposed to be].
>Reason is only reason; it establishes nothing beyond any doubt.
Nothing? Um...Are you certain that you're Mike Craney or not?
>It merely places the burden of proof onto the Christian for believing the
less
>reasonable scenario.
Not, necessarily. The reason provides a well reasonable argument which backs
up
the islamic claim wrt. Jesus (asws) and therefore shiftet the burden
of proof upon the other side. It's as simple as that and moreover a very
fair challenge.
>>Simple. You and your pals claim ad nauseum that the Holy Qur'an tells
>>lies about Jesus (asws), that Muhammad (asws) perverted Jesus' (asws)
>>teachings (do you remember?), that Muslims follow a superstition of a mad
>>man who once claimed to have gotten a revelation in a arabian cave and so
>>on and so forth. So we are challenging you to substantiate your claims,
>>nothing more and nothing less.
>And I am challenging you to look at the larger picture here. I am simply
>asking a much more philosophic question: How do you define "Proof" as it
>pertains to Things Theological?
It depends on the issue. If you say God speaks, then there's no such proof,
unless
it's reported by a scripture which must be definitely verifiable as a
scripture from a
divine source.
If you say God exists, you have only two choices:
1) either you're a prophet and provide a clear cut evidence for yor claim
(as did all the prophets
and messengers), i.e. a miracle which literally defies the natural laws,
2) or you have to use your intellect (reason) in order to prove His
existence.
There's no other way to prove His existence, since His Being is
imperceptible
and thus not subject to our perception (senses).
>When you say "Prove to me that Christ is God" my first impulse is NOT to
>grab my Bible and start quoting chapter and verse. My first impulse is to
>ask you "What type of proof would you accept?" (Refer to discussion
>concerning "verifiable evidence" above.)
We don't set our criteria in Jesus' (asws) case at all, because the
immediate reality
of human beings obviously show that a human being is a human being, how much
he
even appeairs to be "divine". It's in fact the result of a simple
observation.
>You see, as human beings, we set
>our own criteria, on any given issue, as to what level of proof we would
>require. This notion roughly corresponds to the burden of proof in
different
>sorts of trial proceedings, where in the criminal court the case must be
>proven "beyond reasonable doubt," while in a civil proceeding, the case is
>decided on the "preponderance of evidence."
Correct. Islam sets its own criteria too in matter of "Iman". And an "Iman"
is
as such to be defined when it's beyond any doubt.
>As it pertains to religion, few beliefs, if any, are proveable beyond
>reasonable doubt. The best we can hope for is a preponderance of evidence.
>BUT, when it comes to closely held religious beliefs that we wish to
defend,
>we shift our demand for proof to that which eliminates "reasonable doubt,"
>knowing that such proof cannot be forthcoming.
>Back to the Incarnation. You have rightly pointed out that reason dictates
>that a given newborn child is not God. This places the burden of proof on
>me. But, your "challenge" to me is a fool's errand, one I choose not to
>play, partly because I am lazy, partly because USENET is a crappy medium
for
>this, and partly because I don't think you will give me the remotest chance
>of succeeding.
Correct.
>The matter of the Incarnation is settled in my mind, not only
> becuase of Scriptural evidence or logic, but because of my ongoing
> experience of Christ as the Risen Lord. I cannot transmit my personal,
> spiritual experiences to you, simply because they trancend communications.
Several months ago, we discussed a similar issue and I recall having told
you
that I respect your belief(s) and whatever you stand for but I cannot and
won't
accept that you bash Islam without getting unchallenged and further
denigrate our
Prophet Muhammad (asws) without a substantial proof on your part.
>But, the reverse, I think, is also true.
No, it's not.
>You claim that Muhammad received revelation from Gabriel in a cave.
>Well, Joseph Smith made the same claim
>outside of Palmyra, New York, and the result was Mormonism. You accept the
>account of the Muhammad's revelation as axiomatic.
Muhammad's (revelation), aka the Holy Qur'an, is the living clear cut proof
of his
truthfullness and not the other way around. Weren't this everlasting
linguistic and
inimitable masterpiece between in our hands, I think, you wouldn't find any
Muslim more.
>If I were a Mormon, you would ask me for proof regarding the claims of
Smith
>beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course, I would.
>From where the Christian sits looking at history and science,
>Muhammad's claim to have recieved revlelation from an angel is not unique;
So did all prophets and messengers and so can do any charlatan too.
A claim alone is not sufficient to prove its veracity nor the claimant's
truthfullness.
>in addition, there are many documented cases of people who claim to have
>recieved "revelation" who appear rational, are persuasive, but are
>certifiably schizophrenic.
This doesn't disprove Muhammad's (asws) message neither.
>So, on this issue, the burden of proof is on you. Would you provide for me
>proof that Muhammad recieved revelation from Gabriel in that cave? However,
>I would like it beyond reasonable doubt.
See above.
Look, bring forth a similar arabic written book which surpasses the Holy
Qur'an
in its style, skills, idioms, eloquence, internal coherence, spirituality
and much more and I'll be more
than willing to concede you the point. But, Im afraid, you'll find no single
one, not even within
the next 1000.000.000 years. The challenge is since over 1400 years open and
remains
valid till the doomday. No one except the arabian man, namely Muhammad ibn
Abdullah (asws) has ever
claimed to have brought the Holy Qur'an as evidence for his truthfullness,
neither prior to nor after him.
If you have doubts therein, disprove the qur'anic challenge. Simple, isn't
it?
>Video, perhaps. Having said that,
>you will not be inclined to provide for me the circumstantial evidence for
>the veracity of this story, simply becuase I have already placed the burden
>of proof beyond your ability to meet.
As previously stated, the Holy Qur'an is the living proof for Muhammad's
(asws)
Prophethood. No need for a video tape, nor for any other account outside
this book.
Simply disprove the inimitability of the Holy Qur'an and you will get what
you ask for.
> <I'm snipping stuff that appears to be answered above>
>>>>The living God, you say? Isn't it an ironie that according to your fairy
>>>>tales the Almighty Living God ended up his live on a wooden cross. Be at
>>>>least consistent in argumentation.
>>>It is theologically consistent, I assure you, for the Son of God to abase
>>>himself on a tree for the sake of those whom He loves. The consistency
>>>can be tracked all the way back to the Torah, in fact. Search the net for
>>>"substitutionary atonement."
>>The Jews would disagree with you.
>Of course. If they agreed, they'd be called......Christians.
Good.
>>So please, show me any thread of mine where I made such a claim
>>that "God was forced to anoint a next last prophet to fix etc..etc...".
>You didn't have to, explicitly. I'm referring to how the revelation of
>Christ (as we understand it) and the revelation of Muhammad are
antagonistic
>at the core.
Antagonistic to you perhaps, but in no way to Jesus (asws) nor to Mary
(asws).
In no way!
>They cannot be simulaneously correct.
Correct.
Tri-theism and Monotheism cannot meet together.
One of both must be correct.
>Historically, God sent prophets to call the people back to righteous living
>and true worship. This is why they weren't particularly popular during
their
>lives. Muhammad's revelation claimed that the revelation of Isa had been
>corrupted, and (from my read) came to enlighten all men (including the
>followers of Isa) concerning their errant beliefs, calling them back to
true
>worship (Islam.)
>Is that not right?
He calls them back to the purest form of Monotheism: Abraham's (asws) faith.
>>And by the way, we are still talking about Jesus (asws) and his birth, so
>>please don't waste my time with Paul, the apostles' killer.
>Interested phraseology. The Apostles acknowledged and acclaimed Paul as
>being truthful and God-appointed.
Before or after he handed them over to the roman pagans?
>You may wish to re-read Peter.
>>>No. To overshadow someone could mean everything and nothing. How did the
>>>"holy spirit" overshadow her? Why suddenly the "holy spirit"
>>>did it? Why not God the Almighty Himself?
>>A precise, detailed explanation
>>of the mechanism involved?
>>So please do. I would know it.
>This is kind of a perfect example of what I was talking about previously.
To
>the Christian, who is predisposed to belief in the Incarnation, the
>"overshadowing" explanation is sufficient. The nonChristian demands a
>mechanistic/scienfic explanation, which, of course, the Christian cannot
>provide.
As a Musim I demand a simple rationale explanation, neither do I ask for a
scientific nor
for a logical one. If you say that you've none, then it's okay to me.
Consequently, you should refrain from denigrating Islam and Muslims for
adhering to
another quite reasonabe and consistent expalantion for Jesus' (asws) being,
birh and life
and from claiming without presenting the shred of a counterevidence
that Muhammad (asws) told lies about him and his blessed mother. Is that too
much asked?
>I suspect you and I would agree that the Red Sea parted to permit Moses to
>pass.
>We would likely agree also that God spoke from a burning bush, and
> that water came forth from the rock after being struck with Moses staff.
We
> believe these things because they are written, and without any sort of
> scientific or mechanistic explanation as to how such a thing could occur.
> Since they do not conflict with our chosen faith, our burden of proof is
> naive, by the world's standards: We believe it because it is written in a
> document of incredible age, and of questionable authorship.
The authorship of your scripture(s) may be questionable. The authorship
of ours is for any Muslim clear cut: God.
> However, on this issue, you ask for a mechanistic explanation, knowing
full
> well that there is none to be had. Your burden of proof skyrockets to
> "beyond reasonable doubt." Your request is the equivalent of my requesting
> video of Gabriel meeting Muhammad.
>>>>>which is precisely the same sin committed by the atheist,
>>>>>albeit contained in a theist's wrapper.)
>>>>LOL...are you suggesting that Muslims are now close to atheists?
>>>See your own quote above. I have always maintained that any religion
>>>which demeans faith and emphasizes human attributes is, in fact, atheism
in a
>>>deist wrapper.
>>You're entitled to your opinion. However, this doesn't make it true.
>It's more than just opinion. I used to hang out on various atheist boards
>before I learned how much fun you guys at ARI are. I find it more than a
>little fascinating that the challenges that are levied at Christians are
>precisely the same on both boards. The same is true on the Jewish boards,
>mostly. Discussion amongst pagans, Hindus, and Buddhists take on an
entirely
>different character.
Well, ARI has unfortunately become a forum for all sort of Islam bashers and
trolls.
>If it were just Jews and Muslims, I would have assumed that the Abrahamic
>religions were just testy around one another, as each claims to be the
>accurate transmission of the Abramic covenants. But, that doesn't account
>for the atheists.
>There is a fundamental ideological difference between Christians and other
>other three groups, that being the difference between works-based
ideologies
>and faith-based ideologies. In Judaism and Islam (and, by definition, in
>atheism) you have to DO something to ACHIEVE something. Putting the
atheists
>aside, both Judaism and Islam seem to take the position that there are
>actions that must be undertaken both to please God, AND to achieve the
>promises of God.
Your oversimplfication is not quite correct. Islam is not a work based
ideology, but on the purest form of monotheism: "Tawheed".
The works are rather the fruits of that conviction.
> Jesus, through a number of different parables, causally disconnected,
these
> two concepts, arguing (1) that godless, evil people are capable of good
> works, and (2) good works done out of obligation are noxious to God. Faith
> was the driving force in achieving the promises of God (in our religions,
> heaven) and good works naturally proceed from true faith.
> So, to conclude, my observations were simply that works-based theolgies
were
> ideologically closer to atheism in thought than Christianty
Your analogy is not as consistent as it appears at a first look. Judaism and
Islam
emphasize the fact that works must be conform to what God has ordered and
that
the value judgement should not be left to men, otherwise mischief on earth
would
prevail. Obviously both are right.
>>>>Well, last time I checked the anthanasian creed (quicunque vult), I
>>>>still found three deities,
>>>I only find one.
>>To be more precise: you find three in one, who are still equal to each
>>other but at the same time are one too.
>>LOL...
>Well, at least you've got a good reading list.....
Well, the first revealed word in Islam is: "READ"!
Hence, to read means to use your intellect too, which is one the best gifts
Allah (swt) gave us.
So let us use it.
Mike Craney
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Mike Craney" wrote:...
> > "friend" wrote:...
>
> >logical to a Muslim can seem wholly insane to a Christian; conversely, it
> is
> >possible that theological issuses that seem wholly reasonable and logical
> to
> >a Christian can seem wholly insane to a Muslim.
>
> >That is all. Capice? It's really nothing more than a statement of
observed
> >fact.
>
> I'm telling you once again that such a statement cannot stand any scrutiny
> and
> thusly cannot be considered universally valid, especially with regard to
> verifiable events.
> Capice?
I take it you're speaking abstractly here, and ignoring my example. ISTM
that under "lab"conditions this is true, but in matters of theology, where
few events are verifiable, the point is moot.
> And once again since we are dealing with non-abstract and verifiable
> phenomena such
> as the birth of a human being, your statement above doesn't make any sense
> at all
> and does therefore in no way support your line of reasoning which I called
> relativistic,
> even though your very statement itself might be related to theological
> issues.
> Capice again? Or not?
Sure.
> Now if we consider values and peoples' value judgements, yes, they may
> differ and what
> is good/right for one may be bad/wrong for another. In such cases, your
> aforementioned
> statement is correct.
Got it.
> >>As I previously stated, there can be only one single truth independenly
> >>from those who claim to hold it and those who reject it outright. Either
> God
> >>exists or He doesn't and both assumptions must be verifiable, otherwise
> the idea,
> >>that each group adheres to, is not more than the result of their
fanciful
> but limited
> >>imagination.
>
> >But, both assumptions are not (usually) equal. The burden of proof falls
> >upon the less reasonable assumption, yes?
>
> No, the burden of proof falls upon any claimant, it doesn't matter how
> positive
> or negative the claim may be.
Eh. Seems like a recipe for disaster (or, an system which allows anyone to
believe pretty much whatever they want.)
> >Also, parties must agree on what sorts of evidences are admissible.
> >When dealing with theological issues,
> >debate generally falls apart because of disagreements regarding
terminology
> >and admissibility of evidence.
>
> Correct. Or because of the lack of intellectual honesty.
>
Yea, actually, intellectual dishonesty ought to top the list, especially as
it pertains to USENET.
> >>You further claim that Jesus (asws) is God's son or God's incarnate and
I
> >>on the other hand ask for a proof. Either is Jesus (asws) in fact the
one
> or
> >>the other or he simply is not. There's no other way in the midst.
> >>Neither is there any way to resort to that kind of relativism in order
to
> >> justify your position nor are your unjustified attacks against Muhammad
> >>(asws) the proof that your claim is true by default.
>
> >Assumptions concerning the Incarnation and the Transmission of the Koran
to
> >Muhammad are causally linked as follows:
>
> >(1) If the Incarnation is true, then Muhammad was decieved or
disingenuous.
> >(2) If the Incarnation is false, then Muhammad still could have been
> >decieved or disingenuous, but at least the possibility exists that he is
> >whom you believe him to be.
> >(3) If Muhammad was decieved or disingenous, the Incarnation is not
> >necessarily true, but the possibility exists that it is true.
> >(4) If Muhammad was whom you believe him to be, then the Incarnation is
> >false.
>
> And? Do you think that kind of syllogism would settle the issue? I think
> not.
Of course not, because each element in the syllogism is subject to debate
under the usual set of difficulties (intellectual dishonesty, etc.) The use
of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are undecided about the
topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing opinion. But,
as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially) clarifies the issue at
hand. YMMV, of course.
>
> >>Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
> >>limited in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a
Divine
> >>Being is not supposed to be].
>
> >Reason is only reason; it establishes nothing beyond any doubt.
>
> Nothing? Um...Are you certain that you're Mike Craney or not?
That's documentable; no need to reason it out. A bit beside my point.
>
> >It merely places the burden of proof onto the Christian for believing the
> less reasonable scenario.
>
> Not, necessarily. The reason provides a well reasonable argument which
backs
> up
> the islamic claim wrt. Jesus (asws) and therefore shiftet the burden
> of proof upon the other side. It's as simple as that and moreover a very
> fair challenge.
Uh, right. I think you misunderstood me. We both said that the burden of
proof for the Incarnation is on the Christian, right?
Sure. Question. Remove the Quran from the equation for a moment, if you can.
Without the Quranic references, would you preclude His divinity based on
this observation (such as it exists), or based on a more extended
application of reason, or both?
> Several months ago, we discussed a similar issue and I recall having told
> you
> that I respect your belief(s) and whatever you stand for but I cannot and
> won't
> accept that you bash Islam without getting unchallenged and further
> denigrate our
> Prophet Muhammad (asws) without a substantial proof on your part.
Isn't that how we got started, this time, because I reacted to a "bash" on
Christianity?
Do we again disagree on the requirement for proof? First, I contend that the
notion that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad is preposterous. No
bashing intended. Second, I contend that using your own criteria set forth
above, the burden of proof that this did occur is on you, not upon me to
prove that it did not.
>
> >But, the reverse, I think, is also true.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> >You claim that Muhammad received revelation from Gabriel in a cave.
> >Well, Joseph Smith made the same claim
> >outside of Palmyra, New York, and the result was Mormonism. You accept
the
> >account of the Muhammad's revelation as axiomatic.
>
> Muhammad's (revelation), aka the Holy Qur'an, is the living clear cut
proof
> of his
> truthfullness and not the other way around. Weren't this everlasting
> linguistic and
> inimitable masterpiece between in our hands, I think, you wouldn't find
any
> Muslim more.
Well, "proof" is again in the eye of the beholder. I've read it multiple
times, and didn't find anything of any great interest, literary merit, etc.
A redux of other known ideas, IMHO. My wife read it in Arabic, her dad's
read it in Arabic, and came away with the same opinion, pretty much. How
does that sort of observation fit into your paradigm? Since you dislike
relativism, are you then forced to judge us negatively? Or, are we permitted
a value judgement of our own?
I have a book on my shelf that goes on for dozens of pages of the same sort
of statistics with regard to the Old and New Testaments. And, as a matter of
fact, I think the author issues a "challenge" of the same sort as yours.
Personally, I dislike these sorts of apologetics; ISTM that they are simply
attempts at wininng belivers based on "preponderance of evidence". Plus,
they are straw man arguments, since they assume that a certain set of
literary characteristics implies divine origin, which it does not,
necessarily.
>
> >>So please, show me any thread of mine where I made such a claim
> >>that "God was forced to anoint a next last prophet to fix etc..etc...".
>
> >You didn't have to, explicitly. I'm referring to how the revelation of
> >Christ (as we understand it) and the revelation of Muhammad are
> antagonistic
> >at the core.
>
> Antagonistic to you perhaps, but in no way to Jesus (asws) nor to Mary
> (asws).
> In no way!
That was the purpose of the parenthetical phrase "as we understand it." Our
understandings of the revelations are rather different, obviously.
>
>
> Correct.
> Tri-theism and Monotheism cannot meet together.
> One of both must be correct.
OK. We've had that discussion before, and I'm tired.
>
> >Historically, God sent prophets to call the people back to righteous
living
> >and true worship. This is why they weren't particularly popular during
> their
> >lives. Muhammad's revelation claimed that the revelation of Isa had been
> >corrupted, and (from my read) came to enlighten all men (including the
> >followers of Isa) concerning their errant beliefs, calling them back to
> true
> >worship (Islam.)
>
> >Is that not right?
>
> He calls them back to the purest form of Monotheism: Abraham's (asws)
faith.
>
> >>And by the way, we are still talking about Jesus (asws) and his birth,
so
> >>please don't waste my time with Paul, the apostles' killer.
>
> >Interested phraseology. The Apostles acknowledged and acclaimed Paul as
> >being truthful and God-appointed.
>
> Before or after he handed them over to the roman pagans?
Interesting interpretation. Cite?
>
>
> >>>No. To overshadow someone could mean everything and nothing. How did
the
> >>>"holy spirit" overshadow her? Why suddenly the "holy spirit"
> >>>did it? Why not God the Almighty Himself?
>
> >>A precise, detailed explanation
> >>of the mechanism involved?
>
> >>So please do. I would know it.
>
> >This is kind of a perfect example of what I was talking about previously.
> To
> >the Christian, who is predisposed to belief in the Incarnation, the
> >"overshadowing" explanation is sufficient. The nonChristian demands a
> >mechanistic/scienfic explanation, which, of course, the Christian cannot
> >provide.
>
> As a Musim I demand a simple rationale explanation, neither do I ask for a
> scientific nor
> for a logical one. If you say that you've none, then it's okay to me.
OK.
>
> Consequently, you should refrain from denigrating Islam and Muslims for
> adhering to
> another quite reasonabe and consistent expalantion for Jesus' (asws)
being,
> birh and life
> and from claiming without presenting the shred of a counterevidence
> that Muhammad (asws) told lies about him and his blessed mother. Is that
too
> much asked?
Presentation is everything. You can state the same point in two totally
different ways. One way will be interpreted as slamming, whilst the other
will be interpreted as a reasonable request for information. You do both,
depending on your mood, I suppose.
>
> >I suspect you and I would agree that the Red Sea parted to permit Moses
to
> >pass.
> >We would likely agree also that God spoke from a burning bush, and
> > that water came forth from the rock after being struck with Moses staff.
> We
> > believe these things because they are written, and without any sort of
> > scientific or mechanistic explanation as to how such a thing could
occur.
> > Since they do not conflict with our chosen faith, our burden of proof is
> > naive, by the world's standards: We believe it because it is written in
a
> > document of incredible age, and of questionable authorship.
>
> The authorship of your scripture(s) may be questionable. The authorship
> of ours is for any Muslim clear cut: God.
Sorry, I should have said "despite the fact that it is of incredible age and
questionable authorship, from the standpoint of the secular world." From
that standpoint, both our books are of questionable authorship.
>
> >If it were just Jews and Muslims, I would have assumed that the Abrahamic
> >religions were just testy around one another, as each claims to be the
> >accurate transmission of the Abramic covenants. But, that doesn't account
> >for the atheists.
> >There is a fundamental ideological difference between Christians and
other
> >other three groups, that being the difference between works-based
> ideologies
> >and faith-based ideologies. In Judaism and Islam (and, by definition, in
> >atheism) you have to DO something to ACHIEVE something. Putting the
> atheists
> >aside, both Judaism and Islam seem to take the position that there are
> >actions that must be undertaken both to please God, AND to achieve the
> >promises of God.
>
> Your oversimplfication is not quite correct. Islam is not a work based
> ideology, but on the purest form of monotheism: "Tawheed".
> The works are rather the fruits of that conviction.
Please clarify how monotheism is causally linked to this type of paradigm.
Your last sentence could have been said by those of many faiths, including
pagan polytheists.
>
> > Jesus, through a number of different parables, causally disconnected,
> these
> > two concepts, arguing (1) that godless, evil people are capable of good
> > works, and (2) good works done out of obligation are noxious to God.
Faith
> > was the driving force in achieving the promises of God (in our
religions,
> > heaven) and good works naturally proceed from true faith.
> > So, to conclude, my observations were simply that works-based theolgies
> were
> > ideologically closer to atheism in thought than Christianty
>
> Your analogy is not as consistent as it appears at a first look. Judaism
and
> Islam
> emphasize the fact that works must be conform to what God has ordered and
> that
> the value judgement should not be left to men, otherwise mischief on earth
> would
> prevail. Obviously both are right.
Yea, it's not a clear cut distinction by any means. John Calvin and Martin
Luther's theology was "Sola Fide," teaching that man is saved by his faith
alone, regardless of their works. However, when you delve into the issue of
works, the explanation quickly follows that good works naturally proceed
from true faith, so one will ever find one without the other. In practice,
therefore, it is as you said; both are right, and wether the chicken comes
from the egg is an abstraction left for the theologians.
Mike
>
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
>>"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>>> "friend" wrote:...
>>>It is possible that theological issues that seem wholly reasonable and
>>>logical to a Muslim can seem wholly insane to a Christian; conversely, it
>>>is possible that theological issuses that seem wholly reasonable and
>>>logical to a Christian can seem wholly insane to a Muslim.
>>>That is all. Capice? It's really nothing more than a statement of
>>>observed fact.
>>I'm telling you once again that such a statement cannot stand any scrutiny
>>and thusly cannot be considered universally valid, especially with regard
to
>>verifiable events. Capice?
>I take it you're speaking abstractly here, and ignoring my example. ISTM
>that under "lab"conditions this is true, but in matters of theology, where
>few events are verifiable, the point is moot.
And any birth of a man of a mortal woman is a verifiable - though
extraordinary
such as Jesus' (asws) case - event. That's the point.
>>And once again since we are dealing with non-abstract and verifiable
>>phenomena such as the birth of a human being, your statement above
>>doesn't make any sense at all
>>and does therefore in no way support your line of reasoning which I called
>>relativistic, even though your very statement itself might be
>>related to theological issues.
>>Capice again? Or not?
>Sure.
Good.
>>Now if we consider values and peoples' value judgements, yes, they may
>>differ and what is good/right for one may be bad/wrong for another.
>>In such cases, your aforementioned statement is correct.
>Got it.
Good.
>>>>As I previously stated, there can be only one single truth independenly
>>>>from those who claim to hold it and those who reject it outright. Either
>>>God exists or He doesn't and both assumptions must be verifiable,
otherwise
>>>the idea, that each group adheres to, is not more than the result of
their
>>>fanciful but limited imagination.
>>>But, both assumptions are not (usually) equal. The burden of proof falls
>>>upon the less reasonable assumption, yes?
>>No, the burden of proof falls upon any claimant, it doesn't matter how
>>positive or negative the claim may be.
>Eh. Seems like a recipe for disaster (or, an system which allows anyone to
>believe pretty much whatever they want.)
??
>>>Also, parties must agree on what sorts of evidences are admissible.
>>>When dealing with theological issues,
>>>debate generally falls apart because of disagreements regarding
>>>terminology and admissibility of evidence.
>>Correct. Or because of the lack of intellectual honesty.
>Yea, actually, intellectual dishonesty ought to top the list, especially as
>it pertains to USENET.
Good that you acknowledge it.
>>>>You further claim that Jesus (asws) is God's son or God's incarnate and
>>>>I on the other hand ask for a proof. Either is Jesus (asws) in fact the
>>>>one or
>>>>the other or he simply is not. There's no other way in the midst.
>>>>Neither is there any way to resort to that kind of relativism in order
>>>>to justify your position nor are your unjustified attacks against
Muhammad
>>>>(asws) the proof that your claim is true by default.
>>>Assumptions concerning the Incarnation and the Transmission of the Koran
>>>to Muhammad are causally linked as follows:
>>>(1) If the Incarnation is true, then Muhammad was decieved or
>>>disingenuous.
>>>(2) If the Incarnation is false, then Muhammad still could have been
>>>decieved or disingenuous, but at least the possibility exists that he is
>>>whom you believe him to be.
>>>(3) If Muhammad was decieved or disingenous, the Incarnation is not
>>>necessarily true, but the possibility exists that it is true.
>>>(4) If Muhammad was whom you believe him to be, then the Incarnation is
>>>false.
>>And? Do you think that kind of syllogism would settle the issue? I think
>>not.
>Of course not, because each element in the syllogism is subject to debate
>under the usual set of difficulties (intellectual dishonesty, etc.)
Good.
>The use
>of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are undecided about the
>topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing opinion. But,
>as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially) clarifies the issue at
>hand. YMMV, of course.
Such reasoning leads in no way to what one may qualify as a clear cut
knowledge, i.e.
a creed. Thus syllogism built upon unverifiable premises is, theologically
seen, not more
than an exercise in futility.
>>>>Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
>>>>limited in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a
>>>>Divine Being is not supposed to be].
>>>Reason is only reason; it establishes nothing beyond any doubt.
>>Nothing? Um...Are you certain that you're Mike Craney or not?
>That's documentable; no need to reason it out. A bit beside my point.
You missed the point again. A document may be useful to certify - at least
for
an outsider - who you are. You claim that reason establishes nothing beyond
any
doubt, and in return ask you again, whether you perceive yourself [i.e.your
ego] or not.
Hence my question about certainty.
>>>It merely places the burden of proof onto the Christian for believing the
>>>less reasonable scenario.
>>Not, necessarily. The reason provides a well reasonable argument which
>>backs up
>>the islamic claim wrt. Jesus (asws) and therefore shiftet the burden
>>of proof upon the other side. It's as simple as that and moreover a very
>>fair challenge.
>Uh, right. I think you misunderstood me. We both said that the burden of
>proof for the Incarnation is on the Christian, right?
In this case: yes!
Both. Because reason and observation are IMO inseparable.
>>Several months ago, we discussed a similar issue and I recall having told
>>you that I respect your belief(s) and whatever you stand for but I cannot
and
>>won't accept that you bash Islam without getting unchallenged and further
>>denigrate our
>>Prophet Muhammad (asws) without a substantial proof on your part.
>Isn't that how we got started, this time, because I reacted to a "bash" on
>Christianity?
A bash on Christianity? No.
Rather a fair challenge to Eprem who never missed any opportunity
to say nasty words about Muhammad (asws) and claimed that [I quote]:
"That's because the Saudi government don't want the people to know the TRUTH
about JESUS CHRIST" [sic]
Well, I asked her as I'm asking you to show us this TRUTH!
>Do we again disagree on the requirement for proof?
Of course, we'll always disagree thereupon.
>First, I contend that the
>notion that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad is preposterous. No
>bashing intended. Second, I contend that using your own criteria set forth
>above, the burden of proof that this did occur is on you, not upon me to
>prove that it did not.
Well, I think that the initial subject of our thread is not Muhammad (asws)
being a prophet
or not, but rather your "TRUTH" about Jesus (asws). You incessantly try to
shift the argumention
in order to consolidate your claim vis-à-vis Muhammad (asws).
As for your query to prove that he (as) got a revelation, well, I think, I
clearly answered
your question: The Holy Qur'an is the living miracle brought by Muhammad
(asws). If you
don't agree with me, then fine, bring forth at least a similar arabic
masterpiece and
I'll be more than willing to concede you this point. As I previously said:
The challenge is still valid.
[17:88]
Qul laini ijtamaAAati alinsu waaljinnu AAala an yatoo bimithli hatha
alqurani la yatoona bimithlihi walaw kana baAAduhum libaAAdin thaheeran
Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to
produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof,
even if they backed up each other with help and support.
>>>But, the reverse, I think, is also true.
>>No, it's not.
>>>You claim that Muhammad received revelation from Gabriel in a cave.
>>>Well, Joseph Smith made the same claim
>>>outside of Palmyra, New York, and the result was Mormonism. You accept
>>>the account of the Muhammad's revelation as axiomatic.
>>Muhammad's (revelation), aka the Holy Qur'an, is the living clear cut
>>proof of his
>>truthfullness and not the other way around. Weren't this everlasting
>>linguistic and
>>inimitable masterpiece between our hands, I think, you wouldn't find
>>any Muslim more.
>Well, "proof" is again in the eye of the beholder. I've read it multiple
>times, and didn't find anything of any great interest, literary merit, etc.
>A redux of other known ideas, IMHO. My wife read it in Arabic, her dad's
>read it in Arabic, and came away with the same opinion, pretty much. How
>does that sort of observation fit into your paradigm?
Well, just to cite two examples: Abu Jahl read it in Arabic, Al Waleed ibn
al Mughirah read
it in Arabic. Both didn't believe in it. And I'm pretty sure they were more
versed in Arabic
than your wife and her dad put together.
>Since you dislike
>relativism, are you then forced to judge us negatively?
No. Unless you accuse Muhammad (asws) of lies about Jesus (asws). Then I'm
in a
good position to ask you to prove your claim. And As far as i can see you
didn't yet.
>Or, are we permitted a value judgement of our own?
Of course, you are. Again unless your "value judgement" degenerates in
irrational and
unprovable slander.
>>See above.
It does. Because the qur'anic style is no common style used in any language.
It's neither prose nor poesy, it's Qur'an.
>>>>So please, show me any thread of mine where I made such a claim
>>>>that "God was forced to anoint a next last prophet to fix etc..etc...".
>>>You didn't have to, explicitly. I'm referring to how the revelation of
>>>Christ (as we understand it) and the revelation of Muhammad are
>>>antagonistic at the core.
>>Antagonistic to you perhaps, but in no way to Jesus (asws) nor to Mary
>>(asws). In no way!
>That was the purpose of the parenthetical phrase "as we understand it." Our
>understandings of the revelations are rather different, obviously.
Of course.
>>Correct.
>>Tri-theism and Monotheism cannot meet together.
>>One of both must be correct.
>OK. We've had that discussion before, and I'm tired.
Good. I'm tired too.
>>>Historically, God sent prophets to call the people back to righteous
>>>living and true worship. This is why they weren't particularly popular
during
>>>their lives. Muhammad's revelation claimed that the revelation of Isa had
been
>>>corrupted, and (from my read) came to enlighten all men (including the
>>>followers of Isa) concerning their errant beliefs, calling them back to
>>>true worship (Islam.)
>>>Is that not right?
>>He calls them back to the purest form of Monotheism: Abraham's (asws)
>>faith.
>>>>And by the way, we are still talking about Jesus (asws) and his birth,
>>>>so please don't waste my time with Paul, the apostles' killer.
>>>Interested phraseology. The Apostles acknowledged and acclaimed Paul as
>>>being truthful and God-appointed.
>>Before or after he handed them over to the roman pagans?
>Interesting interpretation. Cite?
I was asking you not interpreting those events.
It depends on the degree of your offense.
Islam simply stipulates that God created men in order to worship Him.
Worshipping Him
in the broad sense, that they not only acknowledge Him and his existence but
obey Him in all aspects of their daily life.
friend
Mike Craney
Sure. But the converse claim of this particular event -- the source of the
"male contribution", to attempt to put it delicately, is not verifiable by
the carnal senses.
> >>>But, both assumptions are not (usually) equal. The burden of proof
falls
> >>>upon the less reasonable assumption, yes?
>
> >>No, the burden of proof falls upon any claimant, it doesn't matter how
> >>positive or negative the claim may be.
>
> >Eh. Seems like a recipe for disaster (or, an system which allows anyone
to
> >believe pretty much whatever they want.)
>
> ??
My point is essentially that of William of Occeam, albeit extended a bit. In
any given assumption (assumption is probably not the best word here,
anymore, but anyway....), multiple theories will exist to explain what
occurred. Some of these theories will be more plausible than others,
scientifically speaking. Your posit above is that the implausible is as
worthy of defense (and subject to refutation) as the plausible theory. IOW,
the burden of proof is spread equally, regardless of the nature of the
theory; it ignores the scientific method.
When you get into theology, it is possible for implausible theories to be
scientifically irrefutable. Thus, a license for believing whatever one
likes.
> >The use
> >of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are undecided about
the
> >topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing opinion.
But,
> >as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially) clarifies the issue at
> >hand. YMMV, of course.
>
> Such reasoning leads in no way to what one may qualify as a clear cut
> knowledge, i.e.
> a creed. Thus syllogism built upon unverifiable premises is, theologically
> seen, not more
> than an exercise in futility.
Well, it is not futile if it helps an individual clarify their beliefs. Not
all deists are educated people. Given that the set of premises in the
syllogism are potentially valid (IOW, not cleverly designed to steer someone
in one direction or another) it's not for me to pass judgement on tools that
others may find edifying.
> >>>>Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
> >>>>limited in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a
> >>>>Divine Being is not supposed to be].
>
> >>>Reason is only reason; it establishes nothing beyond any doubt.
>
> >>Nothing? Um...Are you certain that you're Mike Craney or not?
>
> >That's documentable; no need to reason it out. A bit beside my point.
>
>
> You missed the point again. A document may be useful to certify - at least
> for
> an outsider - who you are. You claim that reason establishes nothing
beyond
> any
> doubt, and in return ask you again, whether you perceive yourself
[i.e.your
> ego] or not.
> Hence my question about certainty.
OK. This issue probably isn't worth toying with. My point was simply to say
that IMO reason is a risky foundation for theology, since what appears
"reasonable" can vary from culture to culture, from education level to
education level, from economic position to economic position. We have been
here before, I think, and never did agree on this issue.
So, since you can not observe the Christian contention, it MUST be
impossible? You do not see the similarity here between this position and
mine on the transmission of the Quran?
>
> Well, I think that the initial subject of our thread is not Muhammad
(asws)
> being a prophet
> or not, but rather your "TRUTH" about Jesus (asws). You incessantly try to
> shift the argumention
> in order to consolidate your claim vis-à-vis Muhammad (asws).
This is for two reasons: (1) We've discussed the incarnation ad nausum, but
rarely discuss the other, (IOW, I am simply more interested in it) and (2)
because I view the PROCESS behind which a person chooses to believe as
similar, in that I reject the "Quranic Challenge" as viable evidence (or, as
far as evidence goes, ISTM that it's quality is no better than the NT
evidence regarding the deity of Christ.)
> >Well, "proof" is again in the eye of the beholder. I've read it multiple
> >times, and didn't find anything of any great interest, literary merit,
etc.
> >A redux of other known ideas, IMHO. My wife read it in Arabic, her dad's
> >read it in Arabic, and came away with the same opinion, pretty much. How
> >does that sort of observation fit into your paradigm?
>
> Well, just to cite two examples: Abu Jahl read it in Arabic, Al Waleed ibn
> al Mughirah read
> it in Arabic. Both didn't believe in it. And I'm pretty sure they were
more
> versed in Arabic
> than your wife and her dad put together.
Please explain the relevance here. (Her dad still doesn't speak English, and
holds a PhD, just for info.)
>
> >Since you dislike
> >relativism, are you then forced to judge us negatively?
>
> No. Unless you accuse Muhammad (asws) of lies about Jesus (asws). Then I'm
> in a
> good position to ask you to prove your claim. And As far as i can see you
> didn't yet.
>
> >Or, are we permitted a value judgement of our own?
>
>
> Of course, you are. Again unless your "value judgement" degenerates in
> irrational and
> unprovable slander.
Good. I wanted to make sure that we were, in fact, entitiled to said "value
judgement" in your way of thinking.
>
>
> It does. Because the qur'anic style is no common style used in any
language.
> It's neither prose nor poesy, it's Qur'an.
Again? You're making a stylistic literary argument to "prove" divine origin?
Sorry, can't buy it. It's weak, for a lot of reasons, IMO.
>
> >>>Interested phraseology. The Apostles acknowledged and acclaimed Paul as
> >>>being truthful and God-appointed.
>
> >>Before or after he handed them over to the roman pagans?
>
> >Interesting interpretation. Cite?
>
> I was asking you not interpreting those events.
Oh. Yes, in St. Peter's epistles, which reference the Pauline epistles, and
thus were written later.
Mike
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:....
>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
>>"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>>>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
>>>>"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>>>>>"friend" wrote:...
>>>>>It is possible that theological issues that seem wholly reasonable and
>>>>>logical to a Muslim can seem wholly insane to a Christian; conversely,
>>>>>it is possible that theological issuses that seem wholly reasonable and
>>>>>logical to a Christian can seem wholly insane to a Muslim.
>>>>>That is all. Capice? It's really nothing more than a statement of
>>>>>observed fact.
>>>>I'm telling you once again that such a statement cannot stand any
>>>>scrutiny and thusly cannot be considered universally valid, especially
with
>>>>regard to verifiable events. Capice?
>>>I take it you're speaking abstractly here, and ignoring my example. ISTM
>>>that under "lab"conditions this is true, but in matters of theology,
>>>where few events are verifiable, the point is moot.
>>And any birth of a man of a mortal woman is a verifiable - though
>>extraordinary such as Jesus' (asws) case - event. That's the point.
>Sure. But the converse claim of this particular event -- the source of the
>"male contribution", to attempt to put it delicately, is not verifiable by
>the carnal senses.
None, at least not me, has alluded to any male contribution, while
your own scripture lets this room open to all sort of speculation.
Remember your Apostles' citation: "The power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed
her"[sic].
Furhter, I am not questioning the idea that according to the Holy Qur'an his
birth was
as miraculous as Adam's (as) and Eve's (as) own creation. What I am hitherto
trying to point out is the merely observable and verifiable fact that any
man born
of a woman is a mortal, and thusly in no way divine.
And BTW no single Muslim believes that Jesus' (as) was born through male
contribution.
>>>>>But, both assumptions are not (usually) equal. The burden of proof
>>>>falls upon the less reasonable assumption, yes?
>>>>No, the burden of proof falls upon any claimant, it doesn't matter how
>>>>positive or negative the claim may be.
>>>Eh. Seems like a recipe for disaster (or, an system which allows anyone
>>>to believe pretty much whatever they want.)
>>??
>My point is essentially that of William of Occeam, albeit extended a bit.
In
>any given assumption (assumption is probably not the best word here,
>anymore, but anyway....), multiple theories will exist to explain what
>occurred. Some of these theories will be more plausible than others,
>scientifically speaking.
>Your posit above is that the implausible is as
>worthy of defense (and subject to refutation) as the plausible theory.
Exactly.
>IOW, the burden of proof is spread equally, regardless of the nature of the
>theory; it ignores the scientific method.
> When you get into theology, it is possible for implausible theories to be
>scientifically irrefutable. Thus, a license for believing whatever one
>likes.
Thus, science is not necessarily the right tool to prove or disprove
the "unseen". Can archeology prove that Moses (as) existed? Till now, it
could not. Can science prove that the first man was in fact created and
could have originated from outside our universe? Till now, it couldn't.
Nonetheless, I firmly believe that both existed.
>>>The use of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are undecided
about
>>>the topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing
opinion.
>>>But, as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially) clarifies the
issue at
>>>hand. YMMV, of course.
>>Such reasoning leads in no way to what one may qualify as a clear cut
>>knowledge, i.e. a creed. Thus syllogism built upon unverifiable premises
is, theologically
>>seen, not more than an exercise in futility.
>Well, it is not futile if it helps an individual clarify their beliefs.
If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all Greeks
followers should
have been monotheist thousands of yours ago and sending Prophets and
Messengers
were without any utility, while sectarian wars and heresies within
Chistianity would have
probably been less bloody.
>Not all deists are educated people. Given that the set of premises in the
>syllogism are potentially valid (IOW, not cleverly designed to steer
someone
>in one direction or another) it's not for me to pass judgement on tools
that
>others may find edifying.
see above.
When the premises themselves in a logical construct are conjectural, i.e.
not verifiable,
the result is, at least to me, of no value, even though it may be correct.
>>>>>>Reason establishes beyond any doubt that he was a human being [needy,
>>>>>>limited in time and space and moreover created, thus he was what a
>>>>>>Divine Being is not supposed to be].
>>>>>Reason is only reason; it establishes nothing beyond any doubt.
>>>>Nothing? Um...Are you certain that you're Mike Craney or not?
>>>That's documentable; no need to reason it out. A bit beside my point.
>>You missed the point again. A document may be useful to certify - at least
>>for an outsider - who you are. You claim that reason establishes nothing
>>beyond any doubt, and I in return ask you again, whether you perceive
yourself
>>[i.e.your ego] or not. Hence my question about certainty.
>OK. This issue probably isn't worth toying with. My point was simply to say
>that IMO reason is a risky foundation for theology, since what appears
>"reasonable" can vary from culture to culture, from education level to
>education level, from economic position to economic position. We have been
>here before, I think, and never did agree on this issue.
Ok.
Which one?
a) That Mary (as) got pregnant without any male contribution? Well, it
doesn't
need any deep thought because such reproductions happen within the world of
the flora and to my knowledge oft he faun too.
b) That a man born of a mortal is God's incarnate? Well, never seen!
Hence the burden of proof is upon the claimant. Furthermore, a
bit use of our God given intellect shows unambiguously the absurdity
of such a claim.
c) That "the Power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary"? So how did this
occur?
We all know that reproduction by men and animals are the product of the
preservation instinct.
So, how on earth a supposed Almighty, Everlasting and Eternal Divine Being
suddenly needs
a son? How is it possible that some Being which is supposed to transcend
time and space
that He created Himself, becomes denpendent on both and "plants" Himself
into a womb of
a mortal being and further becomes Himself a mortal?
Sorry, I can't buy that.
>You do not see the similarity here between this position and
>mine on the transmission of the Quran?
No. Using your argumentation, you should have then hard times believing
in God talking to Moses (asws) or Gabriel (as) appearing before Mary (as)
etc... The issue, my friend, is not someone claiming to have met an Angel,
it's
much bigger than that.
>>Well, I think that the initial subject of our thread is not Muhammad
>>(asws) being a prophet
>>or not, but rather your "TRUTH" about Jesus (asws). You incessantly try to
>>shift the argumention
>>in order to consolidate your claim vis-à-vis Muhammad (asws).
>This is for two reasons: (1) We've discussed the incarnation ad nausum, but
>rarely discuss the other, (IOW, I am simply more interested in it) and (2)
>because I view the PROCESS behind which a person chooses to believe as
>similar, in that I reject the "Quranic Challenge" as viable evidence (or,
as
>far as evidence goes, ISTM that it's quality is no better than the NT
>evidence regarding the deity of Christ.)
You can't pass any jugdement on the Holy Qur'an just from hearsay. Thus
your similarity doesn't hold.
>>>Well, "proof" is again in the eye of the beholder. I've read it multiple
>>>times, and didn't find anything of any great interest, literary merit,
>>>etc.
>>>A redux of other known ideas, IMHO. My wife read it in Arabic, her dad's
>>>read it in Arabic, and came away with the same opinion, pretty much. How
>>>does that sort of observation fit into your paradigm?
>>Well, just to cite two examples: Abu Jahl read it in Arabic, Al Waleed ibn
>>al Mughirah read
>>it in Arabic. Both didn't believe in it. And I'm pretty sure they were
>>more versed in Arabic than your wife and her dad put together.
>Please explain the relevance here. (Her dad still doesn't speak English,
and
>holds a PhD, just for info.)
He may have 1000 PhDs in several scientific and literature fields. It doesn'
matter.
Whoever wants to pass any judgement on the qur'anic challenge needs only
live
for a while among the beduines in the deepest arabian desert to get a
glimpse of why the qur'anic
style is unique. Not to mention the mastering of the pre-islamic poetry and
its rules.
>>>Since you dislike
>>>relativism, are you then forced to judge us negatively?
>>No. Unless you accuse Muhammad (asws) of lies about Jesus (asws). Then I'm
>>in a good position to ask you to prove your claim. And As far as i can see
you
>>didn't yet.
>>>Or, are we permitted a value judgement of our own?
>>Of course, you are. Again unless your "value judgement" degenerates in
>>irrational and unprovable slander.
>Good. I wanted to make sure that we were, in fact, entitiled to said "value
>judgement" in your way of thinking.
>>It does. Because the qur'anic style is no common style used in any
>>language. It's neither prose nor poesy, it's Qur'an.
>Again? You're making a stylistic literary argument to "prove" divine
origin?
Of course.
>Sorry, can't buy it. It's weak, for a lot of reasons, IMO.
You're free to believe in whatever you want.
>>>>>Interested phraseology. The Apostles acknowledged and acclaimed Paul as
>>>>>being truthful and God-appointed.
>>>>Before or after he handed them over to the roman pagans?
>>>Interesting interpretation. Cite?
>>I was asking you not interpreting those events.
>Oh. Yes, in St. Peter's epistles, which reference the Pauline epistles, and
>thus were written later.
Aha.
friend.
Mike Craney
> >>extraordinary such as Jesus' (asws) case - event. That's the point.
>
> >Sure. But the converse claim of this particular event -- the source of
the
> >"male contribution", to attempt to put it delicately, is not verifiable
by
> >the carnal senses.
>
> None, at least not me, has alluded to any male contribution, while
> your own scripture lets this room open to all sort of speculation.
> Remember your Apostles' citation: "The power of the Holy Spirit
overshadowed
> her"[sic].
> Furhter, I am not questioning the idea that according to the Holy Qur'an
his
> birth was
> as miraculous as Adam's (as) and Eve's (as) own creation. What I am
hitherto
> trying to point out is the merely observable and verifiable fact that any
> man born
> of a woman is a mortal, and thusly in no way divine.
You know, if an atheist were in the room, they'd be rolling on the floor
right now, listening to us debate the Incarnation on grounds of
observability/verifiability, while stipulating as true the Virgin Birth.
The fact is that both events are equally absurd, from the
observability/verifiability POV. (Please rethink your point, raised below,
that the asexual reproduction of the plant kingdom somehow provides reason
to the virgin birth. The fact is that highly differentiated life forms
cannot reproduce asexually.)
Also, I am surprised by your implied inclusion of humans into the animal
kingdom. Do you believe that man is simply a higher mammal, or that man is
uniquely created by God?
> >Your posit above is that the implausible is as
> >worthy of defense (and subject to refutation) as the plausible theory.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >IOW, the burden of proof is spread equally, regardless of the nature of
the
> >theory; it ignores the scientific method.
> > When you get into theology, it is possible for implausible theories to
be
> >scientifically irrefutable. Thus, a license for believing whatever one
> >likes.
>
> Thus, science is not necessarily the right tool to prove or disprove
> the "unseen". Can archeology prove that Moses (as) existed? Till now, it
> could not. Can science prove that the first man was in fact created and
> could have originated from outside our universe? Till now, it couldn't.
> Nonetheless, I firmly believe that both existed.
You're going back on yourself, now. Above, you reject the Incarnation
because it is not observable and verifiable. But herein, you believe in the
account of Moses and/or Creation, even while admitting he is not observable
or verifiable.
> >>>The use of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are
undecided
> about
> >>>the topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing
> opinion.
> >>>But, as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially) clarifies the
> issue at
> >>>hand. YMMV, of course.
>
> >>Such reasoning leads in no way to what one may qualify as a clear cut
> >>knowledge, i.e. a creed. Thus syllogism built upon unverifiable premises
> is, theologically
> >>seen, not more than an exercise in futility.
>
> >Well, it is not futile if it helps an individual clarify their beliefs.
>
> If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all Greeks
> followers should
> have been monotheist thousands of yours ago and sending Prophets and
> Messengers
> were without any utility, while sectarian wars and heresies within
> Chistianity would have
> probably been less bloody.
Non Sequitur. The four-point syllogism originally used was simply a way of
casually pointing out that the Incarnation and the revelation of Muhammad
cannot both be true. We are not arguing the point, we are arguing about how
effacious the methodology is. A waste of time. If you dislike the notion,
ignore it. Others may find them useful.
I'm not selling any of the above specifics. The only point I am "selling"
here is that the omnipotence of God precludes us making categorical
statements denying His ability to do "something." IOW, from your point two
above, I agree with you when you say "a bit use of our God given intellect
shows unambiguously the absurdity of such a claim." Now that we agree that
the claim is absurd, WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION? Do we conclude a) because it is
absurd, it COULD not have happened, b) becuase it is absurd it WOULD not
have happened, or c) its absurdity does not preclude it.
ISTM that (a) is the choice of the atheist, (b) the choice of the theist who
theology requires that God act rationally (as humans understand it), while
(c) is the choice of the theist with no such rationalistic requirement.
Does one of these choices suit you, or would you add an additional choice to
the question?
>
> >You do not see the similarity here between this position and
> >mine on the transmission of the Quran?
>
> No. Using your argumentation, you should have then hard times believing
> in God talking to Moses (asws) or Gabriel (as) appearing before Mary (as)
> etc... The issue, my friend, is not someone claiming to have met an Angel,
> it's
> much bigger than that.
Incorrect. The accounts of Moses and Mary are found in documents I consider
inspired. The account of Gabriel appearing to Muhammand, like the account of
Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, are found in documents I consider
spurious. None of these four incidents (the two you mention, Muhammad, and
Joseph Smith) pass your own "observable and verifiable" test.
>>Well, I think that the initial subject of our thread is not Muhammad
> >>(asws) being a prophet
> >>or not, but rather your "TRUTH" about Jesus (asws). You incessantly try
to
> >>shift the argumention
> >>in order to consolidate your claim vis-à-vis Muhammad (asws).
>
> >This is for two reasons: (1) We've discussed the incarnation ad nausum,
but
> >rarely discuss the other, (IOW, I am simply more interested in it) and
(2)
> >because I view the PROCESS behind which a person chooses to believe as
> >similar, in that I reject the "Quranic Challenge" as viable evidence (or,
> as
> >far as evidence goes, ISTM that it's quality is no better than the NT
> >evidence regarding the deity of Christ.)
>
> You can't pass any jugdement on the Holy Qur'an just from hearsay. Thus
> your similarity doesn't hold.
Why not? I've read it, and IMO, it's just another book of the classical
times. You're the one who claims it's special, based on some circumstantial
tidbits from textual criticism. Hardly evidence that would pass the test of
"beyond reasonable doubt."
An awfully convienient argument, this. You raise a straw man argument (this
quranic challenge), which itself contains a rather conveinent restriction
(that the comparison be made against other works in Arabic only -- never
mind the fact that very few other books in Arabic from the period are
extant), and then you add the further stipulation that such judgements can
only be made by physically living with the Arabian primitives, something
that non-Muslim textual critics are legally enjoined from doing. Nice. Soon,
the rationalization will even get better, because all the primitives will
have TVs, and then you can claim that any hope of understanding said issues
has passed away, as the primitives aren't primitive anymore. Because of
these conveninences, you insure that your straw man cannot be knocked down
by anyone who would be inclined to do so.
There is a point where a rationalization becomes so contrived that it falls
in upon itself. Your belief in the divine origins of the Quran, sir, is
simply faith. You ask the world to believe in this book, suggest how the
world might test its (alleged) divine origin, but then the world finds that
the ground rules of the test require 1) a native-speaker's knowledge of
Arabic, 2) an archeologist's knowledge of pre-Islamic poetry and rules,
3)living amongst Arabian peninsula primitives for a time (something that
only Muslims can legally do, thus eliminiating anyone who may undertake said
challenge with a critical eye.)
God certainly likes to make it difficult to believe in His Word, doesn't He?
Own up. This is weak. If you believe in that the Quran is divine, be a man
and admit you do so on faith. It's not a dirty word - the Old Testament is
full of verses talking about how God respects those who believe without
reason to believe. Genesis 15:6. If it was good enough for Abraham, it ought
to be good enough for everybody.
Mike
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Mike Craney" <mikec...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> The fact is that highly differentiated life forms cannot reproduce
> asexually.
Are you sure?
"Monday, 26 November, 2001, 06:47 GMT
"Scientists use 'virgin birth' technique
"By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse
"In many ways the most interesting announcement from Advanced Cell
Technology was not that its scientists had produced a human embryo clone
- significant though this was (if confirmed) - but that the researchers
had also got a human egg cell to start dividing on its own just like an
embryo.
"It sounds something like the virgin birth. Technically, it is called
parthenogenesis.
"The human egg cell develops into an embryo without the addition of any
genetic material from a sperm cell. The embryo would be a clone of the
mother."
Source: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1676240.stm>
--
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:..
>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
>>>>And any birth of a man of a mortal woman is a verifiable - though
>>>>extraordinary such as Jesus' (asws) case - event. That's the point.
>>>Sure. But the converse claim of this particular event -- the source of
>>>the "male contribution", to attempt to put it delicately, is not
verifiable
>>>by the carnal senses.
>>None, at least not me, has alluded to any male contribution, while
>>your own scripture lets this room open to all sort of speculation.
>>Remember your Apostles' citation: "The power of the Holy Spirit
>>overshadowed her"[sic].
>>Furhter, I am not questioning the idea that according to the Holy Qur'an
>>his birth was as miraculous as Adam's (as) and Eve's (as) own creation.
>>What I am hitherto trying to point out is the merely observable and
>>verifiable fact that any man born of a woman is a mortal, and thusly in
>>no way divine.
>You know, if an atheist were in the room, they'd be rolling on the floor
>right now, listening to us debate the Incarnation on grounds of
> observability/verifiability, while stipulating as true the Virgin Birth.
Ah..the "atheists" again!
If the recent Raelians' claim of a cloned baby would happen
to be true, our friends, the atheists, would have one
reason more to reconsider their stance regarding the possibility of the
virgin birth.
And of course you Christians too, especially wrt. to your bogus and obscure
claim that "The power of the holy spirit oversadowed her" [sic]
(whatever this might mean).
>The fact is that both events are equally absurd, from the
>observability/verifiability POV. (Please rethink your point, raised below,
>that the asexual reproduction of the plant kingdom somehow provides reason
>to the virgin birth.
I didn't say it "provides reason to the virgin birth", I rather implied
that such phenomenon is observable and therefore verifiable in our
immediate environment.
>The fact is that highly differentiated life forms cannot reproduce
asexually.)
Be patient. It's a matter of time. Meanwhile, you should look for another
explanation
of "the power of the holy spirit overshadowed Mary (asws)"
>Also, I am surprised by your implied inclusion of humans into the animal
>kingdom. Do you believe that man is simply a higher mammal, or that man is
>uniquely created by God?
Both are creation of God. Everything is created by God. So what's your
point?
The sole difference which is worth a discussion is that the Almighty gave
men
what he didn't to other creatures: an intellect, the faculty of reasoning
and thus
the capability of acquiring knowledge. What would be men without such a
great
gift? Simple animals!
>>>Your posit above is that the implausible is as
>>>worthy of defense (and subject to refutation) as the plausible theory.
>>Exactly.
>>>IOW, the burden of proof is spread equally, regardless of the nature of
>>>the theory; it ignores the scientific method.
>>>When you get into theology, it is possible for implausible theories to
>>>be scientifically irrefutable. Thus, a license for believing whatever one
>>>likes.
>>Thus, science is not necessarily the right tool to prove or disprove
>>the "unseen". Can archeology prove that Moses (as) existed? Till now, it
>>could not. Can science prove that the first man was in fact created and
>>could have originated from outside our universe? Till now, it couldn't.
>>Nonetheless, I firmly believe that both existed.
>You're going back on yourself, now. Above, you reject the Incarnation
>because it is not observable and verifiable. But herein, you believe in the
>account of Moses and/or Creation, even while admitting he is not observable
>or verifiable.
Exactly. All that because of the Holy Qur'an, which is between our hands.
Prove that the Holy Qur'an is not from God and we'll reject those stories
outright.
Furthermore, the same Qur'an is between our hands, everyone can observe and
verify it.
Simple.
>>>>>The use of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are
>>>>>undecided about
>>>>>the topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing
>>>>opinion. But, as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially)
clarifies the
>>>>issue at hand. YMMV, of course.
>>>>Such reasoning leads in no way to what one may qualify as a clear cut
>>>>knowledge, i.e. a creed. Thus syllogism built upon unverifiable premises
>>>>is, theologically seen, not more than an exercise in futility.
>>>Well, it is not futile if it helps an individual clarify their beliefs.
>>If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all Greeks
>>followers should have been monotheist thousands of yours ago and sending
>>Prophets and Messengers
>>were without any utility, while sectarian wars and heresies within
>>Chistianity would have probably been less bloody.
>Non Sequitur.
No, it's not. Do you deny the fact that several christian sects fought
bloody wars
against each other through the ages because of the nature of Jesus (as).
This was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
Jesus' (as)
nature.
>The four-point syllogism originally used was simply a way of
>casually pointing out that the Incarnation and the revelation of Muhammad
>cannot both be true. We are not arguing the point, we are arguing about how
>effacious the methodology is. A waste of time. If you dislike the notion,
>ignore it. Others may find them useful.
Sorry. If we had to discuss scientific issues, I would rather say, I
personally
have nothing against logical constructs and of course admit their
efficiency.
In theological disputes, I simply have no use therefor.
>>>>>Sure. Question. Remove the Quran from the equation for a moment, if you
>>>>>can. Without the Quranic references, would you preclude His divinity
>>>>based on this observation (such as it exists), or based on a more
extended
>>>>>application of reason, or both?
>>>>Both. Because reason and observation are IMO inseparable.
>>>So, since you can not observe the Christian contention, it MUST be
>>>impossible?
>>Which one?
>>a) That Mary (as) got pregnant without any male contribution? Well, it
>>doesn't need any deep thought because such reproductions
>>happen within the world of the flora and to my knowledge of the faun too.
>>b) That a man born of a mortal is God's incarnate? Well, never seen!
>>Hence the burden of proof is upon the claimant. Furthermore, a
>>bit use of our God given intellect shows unambiguously the absurdity
>>of such a claim.
>>c) That "the Power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary"? So how did this
>>occur?
>>We all know that reproduction by men and animals are the product of the
>>preservation instinct.
>>So, how on earth a supposed Almighty, Everlasting and Eternal Divine Being
>>suddenly needs son? How is it possible that some Being which is
>>supposed to transcend time and space
>>that He created Himself, becomes denpendent on both and "plants" Himself
>>into a womb of a mortal being and further becomes Himself a mortal?
>>Sorry, I can't buy that.
>I'm not selling any of the above specifics.
Aren't you on ARI to supposedly preach the "Good News"?
>The only point I am "selling" here is that the omnipotence of God precludes
us making
>categorical statements denying His ability to do "something."
I don't deny God's ability to do anything. What I am rather contesting is
the absurdity of the
claim which makes Him dependent of space and time and therefore limited and
reduced
Him to a tiny, helpless foetus residing in a woman womb. This is indeed
absurd.
An all Powerful and Illimited Creator is not created. Either he's
self-sufficient, eternally existing and
thusly is the Creator - who needs neither to be born nor to be re-born
again - or He's not.
Everything else is the fruit of syllogism and its unverifiable premises.
>IOW, from your point two
>above, I agree with you when you say "a bit use of our God given intellect
>shows unambiguously the absurdity of such a claim." Now that we agree that
>the claim is absurd, WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION?
>Do we conclude a) because it is
>absurd, it COULD not have happened,
It didn't happen. Because, from a rational POV, there's
no such thing which is immortal and mortal at the same time. Unless you
believe in Count Dracula.
>b) becuase it is absurd it WOULD not
> have happened,
It's simply absurd, because, it suggests that an immortal, eternally
existing being became suddenly a tiny, helpless foetus hanging
on a woman's (a mortal!) uterus, hence a mortal. A claim which
is more than self-contradictory.
or c) its absurdity does not preclude it.
I see that you can't leave the realm of syllogism which corrupted Jesus'
teachings.
> ISTM that (a) is the choice of the atheist, (b) the choice of the theist
who
> theology requires that God act rationally (as humans understand it), while
> (c) is the choice of the theist with no such rationalistic requirement.
None of the prior conclusions is convincible, whether they represent
the choice of an atheist or a theist or whomever. They are merely the result
of your logical construct. Nothing more and nothing less.
>Does one of these choices suit you, or would you add an additional choice
to
>the question?
Your conclusion is untenable because you seem to ignore a simple axiomatic
fact that a thing and its opposite doesn't exist at the same time.
You cannot claim that you exist and don't exist at the same time,
you cannot make at the same time a step forward and another backward,
you cannot be at two spots at the same time. You cannot be a mortal and
immortal at the same time. Hence your logic is to my taste inappropriate
in order to prove or disprove the absurdity of a presumed God's incarnation.
>>>You do not see the similarity here between this position and
>>>mine on the transmission of the Quran?
>>No. Using your argumentation, you should have then hard times believing
>>in God talking to Moses (asws) or Gabriel (as) appearing before Mary (as)
>>etc... The issue, my friend, is not someone claiming to have met an Angel,
>>it's much bigger than that.
>Incorrect. The accounts of Moses and Mary are found in documents I consider
>inspired.
Which documents among the 20.000 Bibles? Which one is inspired
and which is not? Why are the apocrypha not considered inspired? etc..etc...
Which bible should we consider inspired: KJV, the Catholic' version,
the Assyrian one, the Coptic one, the Ethiopian one and so forth....?
>The account of Gabriel appearing to Muhammand, like the account of
>Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, are found in documents I consider
>spurious. None of these four incidents (the two you mention, Muhammad, and
>Joseph Smith) pass your own "observable and verifiable" test.
The Holy Qur'an is one and unique since over 1420 years and open for
anyone to check whether it's the Word of God or not. The Qur'an is
observable
and verifiable. Which one stands a scrutiny: your 20.000 + "inspired" bibles
or our
one single revealed book?
> >>Well, I think that the initial subject of our thread is not Muhammad
>>>>(asws) being a prophet
>>>>or not, but rather your "TRUTH" about Jesus (asws). You incessantly try
>>>to shift the argumention
>>>>in order to consolidate your claim vis-à-vis Muhammad (asws).
>>>This is for two reasons: (1) We've discussed the incarnation ad nausum,
>>>but rarely discuss the other, (IOW, I am simply more interested in it)
and
> >>(2) because I view the PROCESS behind which a person chooses to believe
as
>>>similar, in that I reject the "Quranic Challenge" as viable evidence (or,
>>>as far as evidence goes, ISTM that it's quality is no better than the NT
>>>evidence regarding the deity of Christ.)
>>You can't pass any jugdement on the Holy Qur'an just from hearsay. Thus
>>your similarity doesn't hold.
>Why not? I've read it,
Have you read it in Arabic? No. I conclude, you haven't read it.
>and IMO, it's just another book of the classical
> times. You're the one who claims it's special, based on some
circumstantial
> tidbits from textual criticism. Hardly evidence that would pass the test
of
> "beyond reasonable doubt."
Whose test? Yours?
>>>>>Well, "proof" is again in the eye of the beholder. I've read it
>>>>multiple times, and didn't find anything of any great interest, literary
merit,
>>>>>etc.
>>>>>A redux of other known ideas, IMHO. My wife read it in Arabic, her
>>>>>dad's read it in Arabic, and came away with the same opinion, pretty
much.
>>>>How does that sort of observation fit into your paradigm?
>>>>Well, just to cite two examples: Abu Jahl read it in Arabic, Al Waleed
>>>>ibn al Mughirah read
>>>>it in Arabic. Both didn't believe in it. And I'm pretty sure they were
>>>>more versed in Arabic than your wife and her dad put together.
>>>Please explain the relevance here. (Her dad still doesn't speak English,
>>>and holds a PhD, just for info.)
>>He may have 1000 PhDs in several scientific and literature fields. It
>>doesn't matter.
>>Whoever wants to pass any judgement on the qur'anic challenge needs only
>>live for a while among the beduines in the deepest arabian desert to get a
>>glimpse of why the qur'anic
>>style is unique. Not to mention the mastering of the pre-islamic poetry
>>and its rules.
>An awfully convienient argument, this. You raise a straw man argument (this
>quranic challenge), which itself contains a rather conveinent restriction
>(that the comparison be made against other works in Arabic only -- never
>mind the fact that very few other books in Arabic from the period are
>extant), and then you add the further stipulation that such judgements can
>only be made by physically living with the Arabian primitives,
Arabian primitives? I think you misunderstood, what I said.
>something
>that non-Muslim textual critics are legally enjoined from doing. Nice.
Soon,
>the rationalization will even get better, because all the primitives will
>have TVs, and then you can claim that any hope of understanding said issues
>has passed away, as the primitives aren't primitive anymore. Because of
>these conveninences, you insure that your straw man cannot be knocked down
>by anyone who would be inclined to do so.
What are you babbling about primitives? Have you ever understood what
the purpose of what I said was?
Since you didn't, allow me to clarify my point again:
If anyone still wants to acknowledge the uncorrupted expression
of old Arabic, the purity of the langugae, the power of skill and style,
he can get of glimpse thereof, if he choses to live for a while among
some beduine tribes in Arabia, where the ancients words, idioms and
poetry are still in use. I'm not making any derogatory remark about their
being "primitive". That's rather your way of thinking, not mine. Oh... BTW,
I find
arabic beduines more civilized and decent than any one of you Yankees put
together.
>There is a point where a rationalization becomes so contrived that it falls
>in upon itself. Your belief in the divine origins of the Quran, sir, is
>simply faith.
Dude. Hopefully, you're are not going now to teach me my own religion. Are
you?
There's no blind faith in Islam. And whether you like it or not: The Holy
Qur'an is not
the work of man. Don't you believe in it, then fine. My rationalizations are
not far fetched
as you seem to imply. They are rather founded on long years of research,
studies and travels
through the ME and an approriate study of the arabic language and its rules.
And again,
whether you like it or not: Bring just a few verses similar to the qur'anic
ones, if you're
truthful. It's that simple.
>You ask the world to believe in this book, suggest how the
>world might test its (alleged) divine origin, but then the world finds that
>the ground rules of the test require 1) a native-speaker's knowledge of
>Arabic,
Well, the book was in fact revealed in Arabic. If the world
is too lazy to learn another language - something always useful - then
you can't blame The Almighty for your shortcoming.
>2) an archeologist's knowledge of pre-Islamic poetry and rules,
Well every language has its grammatic rules, its idioms, its allegories and
metaphors etc...and since the pre-islamic poetry was the summit of the
Aarabic
eloquence never seen before and after the Qur'an revelation,
therfore both are useful in order to see the obvious: that the Holy Qur'an
doesn't fit into those usually known categories: Prose and poetry.
>3)living amongst Arabian peninsula primitives for a time (something that
>only Muslims can legally do, thus eliminiating anyone who may undertake
said
>challenge with a critical eye.)
Well, you may invite them to you - as I used to invite some of them to me -
in order to see the purity of their skills and expression. Maybe you get an
eperience
in your life.
> God certainly likes to make it difficult to believe in His Word, doesn't
He?
God provides you sufficiently food, gave you an intellect and two hands.
Don't expect Him to spoonfeed you!
> Own up. This is weak. If you believe in that the Quran is divine, be a man
> and admit you do so on faith.
Wow!
Was your whole babbling all about this? To prove that Muslims have blind
faith?
Well be assured, that every Muslim child will belie you as I do.
Through out this thread to provide us your TRUTH about Jesus' (asws) and his
mother
Mary (asws). Now you are just babbling about the Holy Qur'an without
bringing forth
the shred of evidence.
Either you meet the qur'anic challenge and disprove its claims of being the
divine word
and we will give it up or you better shut up.
>It's not a dirty word - the Old Testament is
> full of verses talking about how God respects those who believe without
> reason to believe. Genesis 15:6. If it was good enough for Abraham, it
ought
> to be good enough for everybody.
Indeed what is good for Abraham (asws) is good enough for us Muslims but
obviously
not for you Tri-theists. Be rather a man and tell us your unbelievable story
about Jesus'
and his birth stipulates that God's had a sexual intercourse with Mary! But
your lack of
intellectual honesty prevents you from telling without feeling a shame.
Subhaanallah 'amma yassifoon!!!
As for Abraham (asws), here's a glimpse
his way as the Holy Qur'an describes it: A man of intellect and reason.
You should indeed follow your own advice, learn from him and obey Genesis
15:6.
74. Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I
see thee and thy people in manifest error."
75. So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and
the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude.
76. When the night covered him over, He saw a star: He said: "This is my
Lord." But when it set, He said: "I love not those that set."
77. When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord."
But when the moon set, He said: "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be
among those who go astray."
78. When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord; this
is the greatest (of all)." But when the sun set, he said: "O my people! I am
indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah.
79. "For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created
the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah."
80. His people disputed with him. He said: "(Come) ye to dispute with me,
about Allah, when He (Himself) hath guided me? I fear not (the beings) ye
associate with Allah. Unless my Lord willeth, (nothing can happen). My Lord
comprehendeth in His knowledge all things. Will ye not (yourselves) be
admonished?
81. "How should I fear (the beings) ye associate with Allah, when ye fear
not to give partners to Allah without any warrant having been given to you?
Which of (us) two parties hath more right to security? (tell me) if ye know.
82. "It is those who believe and confuse not their beliefs with wrong - that
are (truly) in security, for they are on (right) guidance."
83. That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use)
against his people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord
is full of wisdom and knowledge.
84. We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We
guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and
Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good:
85. And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the
righteous:
86. And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour
above the nations:
87. (To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose them,
and we guided them to a straight way.
88. This is the guidance of Allah. He giveth that guidance to whom He
pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, all
that they did would be vain for them.
89. These were the men to whom We gave the Book, and authority, and
prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them, Behold! We shall
entrust their charge to a new people who reject them not.
Use your head man!
PEM
<Tr...@acay.com.au> wrote in message
news:gfai0v8nk9c7b88ob...@4ax.com...
> And if so, what do they do?
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but I really don't know.
>
> thanks
> Trent
>
PEM
PEM
"Loki" <lo...@midgard.com> wrote in message
news:OkeO9.501414$QZ.75148@sccrnsc02...
> You must be a troll.
But do I have to believe in him/her/it?
PEM
> "NewBondUnionisation" <f...@from.here> wrote in message
> news:G4cO9.12707$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Xmas is a waste of time. No one celebrates it. Its a gimmick for
people
> > who believe in trolls and elves.
> >
> >
Mike Craney
"Abdelkarim Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kevans-EB72F5....@news.videotron.net...
> In article <3e0f1...@nopics.sjc>,
> "Mike Craney" <mikec...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that highly differentiated life forms cannot reproduce
> > asexually.
>
> Are you sure?
Yea, I am. What a scientist can pull off in vitro is irrelevant to an in
vivo event 2 millenia ago, and the suggestion that laboratory induced
parthenogensis has something to do with the birth of Jesus is rather silly.
Mike
Mike Craney
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Mike Craney" wrote:..
> >"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
>
> >right now, listening to us debate the Incarnation on grounds of
> > observability/verifiability, while stipulating as true the Virgin Birth.
>
> Ah..the "atheists" again!
> If the recent Raelians' claim of a cloned baby would happen
> to be true, our friends, the atheists, would have one
> reason more to reconsider their stance regarding the possibility of the
> virgin birth.
> And of course you Christians too, especially wrt. to your bogus and
obscure
> claim that "The power of the holy spirit oversadowed her" [sic]
> (whatever this might mean).
>
> >The fact is that both events are equally absurd, from the
> >observability/verifiability POV. (Please rethink your point, raised
below,
> >that the asexual reproduction of the plant kingdom somehow provides
reason
> >to the virgin birth.
>
> I didn't say it "provides reason to the virgin birth", I rather implied
> that such phenomenon is observable and therefore verifiable in our
> immediate environment.
But it is not. You have provided no cases where a human virgin birth was
recorded in vivo; you've attempted to swap in an in vitro cloning example,
and an example from nondifferentiated plant life, and pass this off as a
valid observation regarding a human situation. Doesn't work.
> >The fact is that highly differentiated life forms cannot reproduce
> asexually.)
>
> Be patient. It's a matter of time. Meanwhile, you should look for another
> explanation
> of "the power of the holy spirit overshadowed Mary (asws)"
Come on. The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an explanation.
You know this. The explanation is that God intervened miraculously to create
the virginal event. When science manages to create God in a laboratory, and
induce Him to create a virginal event, then I'll start looking for another
explanation.
>
> >Also, I am surprised by your implied inclusion of humans into the animal
> >kingdom. Do you believe that man is simply a higher mammal, or that man
is
> >uniquely created by God?
>
> Both are creation of God. Everything is created by God. So what's your
> point?
I was curious if you believed humanity was the product of evolution or not.
That's my point.
> >You're going back on yourself, now. Above, you reject the Incarnation
> >because it is not observable and verifiable. But herein, you believe in
the
> >account of Moses and/or Creation, even while admitting he is not
observable
> >or verifiable.
>
> Exactly. All that because of the Holy Qur'an, which is between our hands.
>
> Prove that the Holy Qur'an is not from God and we'll reject those stories
> outright. Furthermore, the same Qur'an is between our hands, everyone can
observe and verify it.
> Simple.
As if we could agree on grounds for the test........ :-)
> >>>>>The use of such reasoning however, is of value to those who are
> >>>>>undecided about
> >>>>>the topic at hand, or those that wish to galvanize their existing
> >>>>opinion. But, as a debate tactic-----it simply (and potentially)
> clarifies the
> >>>>issue at hand. YMMV, of course.
>
> >>>>Such reasoning leads in no way to what one may qualify as a clear cut
> >>>>knowledge, i.e. a creed. Thus syllogism built upon unverifiable
premises
> >>>>is, theologically seen, not more than an exercise in futility.
>
> >>>Well, it is not futile if it helps an individual clarify their beliefs.
>
> >>If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all
Greeks
> >>followers should have been monotheist thousands of yours ago and sending
> >>Prophets and Messengers
> >>were without any utility, while sectarian wars and heresies within
> >>Chistianity would have probably been less bloody.
>
> >Non Sequitur.
>
> No, it's not. Do you deny the fact that several christian sects fought
> bloody wars
> against each other through the ages because of the nature of Jesus (as).
> This was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
> Jesus' (as)
> nature.
You think that theological disputes are due to syllogisms? You don't think
theological differences are enough? (ROTFL.)
>
> Sorry. If we had to discuss scientific issues, I would rather say, I
> personally
> have nothing against logical constructs and of course admit their
> efficiency.
> In theological disputes, I simply have no use therefor.
Fair enough.
No. You've asked me that before, the answer hasn't changed.
> >The only point I am "selling" here is that the omnipotence of God
precludes
> us making
> >categorical statements denying His ability to do "something."
>
> I don't deny God's ability to do anything. What I am rather contesting is
> the absurdity of the
> claim which makes Him dependent of space and time and therefore limited
and
> reduced
> Him to a tiny, helpless foetus residing in a woman womb. This is indeed
> absurd.
> An all Powerful and Illimited Creator is not created. Either he's
> self-sufficient, eternally existing and
> thusly is the Creator - who needs neither to be born nor to be re-born
> again - or He's not.
> Everything else is the fruit of syllogism and its unverifiable premises.
Right. There is a 6th Century prayer about the Holy Virgin that contains an
anthem as follows:
"Rejoice, you who shows forth philosophers fools. Rejoice, you who proves
logicians illogical."
So, even the Christians understood that the notion lacks logic. (Perhaps
that was the intent.)
> >IOW, from your point two
> >above, I agree with you when you say "a bit use of our God given
intellect
> >shows unambiguously the absurdity of such a claim." Now that we agree
that
> >the claim is absurd, WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION?
>
> >Do we conclude a) because it is
> >absurd, it COULD not have happened,
>
> It didn't happen. Because, from a rational POV, there's
> no such thing which is immortal and mortal at the same time. Unless you
> believe in Count Dracula.
>
> >b) becuase it is absurd it WOULD not
> > have happened,
>
> It's simply absurd, because, it suggests that an immortal, eternally
> existing being became suddenly a tiny, helpless foetus hanging
> on a woman's (a mortal!) uterus, hence a mortal. A claim which
> is more than self-contradictory.
>
> or c) its absurdity does not preclude it.
>
> I see that you can't leave the realm of syllogism which corrupted Jesus'
> teachings.
Dude. It was a multiple choice question. I was trying to get a simple answer
to a simple question. Is there ANYTHING you can answer without a tome loaded
with abstractions?
> None of the prior conclusions is convincible, whether they represent
> the choice of an atheist or a theist or whomever. They are merely the
result
> of your logical construct. Nothing more and nothing less.
> >Does one of these choices suit you, or would you add an additional choice
> to
> >the question?
>
> Your conclusion is untenable because you seem to ignore a simple axiomatic
> fact that a thing and its opposite doesn't exist at the same time.
> You cannot claim that you exist and don't exist at the same time,
> you cannot make at the same time a step forward and another backward,
> you cannot be at two spots at the same time. You cannot be a mortal and
> immortal at the same time. Hence your logic is to my taste inappropriate
> in order to prove or disprove the absurdity of a presumed God's
incarnation.
<sigh> It is what it is. Works for me.
> >>>You do not see the similarity here between this position and
> >>>mine on the transmission of the Quran?
>
> >>No. Using your argumentation, you should have then hard times believing
> >>in God talking to Moses (asws) or Gabriel (as) appearing before Mary
(as)
> >>etc... The issue, my friend, is not someone claiming to have met an
Angel,
> >>it's much bigger than that.
>
> >Incorrect. The accounts of Moses and Mary are found in documents I
consider
> >inspired.
>
> Which documents among the 20.000 Bibles? Which one is inspired
> and which is not? Why are the apocrypha not considered inspired?
etc..etc...
> Which bible should we consider inspired: KJV, the Catholic' version,
> the Assyrian one, the Coptic one, the Ethiopian one and so forth....?
Please, no Islamic mythology. One Bible, one theology. You don't get to
count every punctuation error as a "new version." This position is wholly
untenable.
>
> >The account of Gabriel appearing to Muhammand, like the account of
> >Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, are found in documents I consider
> >spurious. None of these four incidents (the two you mention, Muhammad,
and
> >Joseph Smith) pass your own "observable and verifiable" test.
>
>
> The Holy Qur'an is one and unique since over 1420 years and open for
> anyone to check whether it's the Word of God or not. The Qur'an is
> observable
> and verifiable. Which one stands a scrutiny: your 20.000 + "inspired"
bibles
> or our
> one single revealed book?
Straw man argument again.
You'd have trouble finding anyone outside your religion who would buy off on
your syllogism. (That IS a syllogism, you know. Critical Textual Uniqueness
= Divine Origin.)
I'm sure you do.
>
> >There is a point where a rationalization becomes so contrived that it
falls
> >in upon itself. Your belief in the divine origins of the Quran, sir, is
> >simply faith.
>
> Dude. Hopefully, you're are not going now to teach me my own religion. Are
> you?
> There's no blind faith in Islam. And whether you like it or not: The Holy
> Qur'an is not
> the work of man. Don't you believe in it, then fine. My rationalizations
are
> not far fetched
> as you seem to imply. They are rather founded on long years of research,
> studies and travels
> through the ME and an approriate study of the arabic language and its
rules.
> And again,
> whether you like it or not: Bring just a few verses similar to the
qur'anic
> ones, if you're
> truthful. It's that simple.
Nobody said anything about blind faith. Blind faith is way different than
holy faith, and it's not popular in most Christian denominations, either,
despite some anti-Christian apologetics to the contrary.
I'm just going on what you said. You've built some very extensive and very
creative rationalizations for both Islam and anti-Christianity, and it seems
like a lot of work to establish some simple religious faith.
>
> >You ask the world to believe in this book, suggest how the
> >world might test its (alleged) divine origin, but then the world finds
that
> >the ground rules of the test require 1) a native-speaker's knowledge of
> >Arabic,
>
> Well, the book was in fact revealed in Arabic. If the world
> is too lazy to learn another language - something always useful - then
> you can't blame The Almighty for your shortcoming.
Oh, come on. Now you're being silly. People learn second languages for a
reason, and "Playing Quranic Challenge" isn't going to be at the top of the
list.
>
> >2) an archeologist's knowledge of pre-Islamic poetry and rules,
>
> Well every language has its grammatic rules, its idioms, its allegories
and
> metaphors etc...and since the pre-islamic poetry was the summit of the
> Aarabic
> eloquence never seen before and after the Qur'an revelation,
> therfore both are useful in order to see the obvious: that the Holy Qur'an
> doesn't fit into those usually known categories: Prose and poetry.
>
> >3)living amongst Arabian peninsula primitives for a time (something that
> >only Muslims can legally do, thus eliminiating anyone who may undertake
> said
> >challenge with a critical eye.)
>
> Well, you may invite them to you - as I used to invite some of them to
me -
> in order to see the purity of their skills and expression. Maybe you get
an
> eperience in your life.
>
> > God certainly likes to make it difficult to believe in His Word,
doesn't
> He?
>
>
> God provides you sufficiently food, gave you an intellect and two hands.
> Don't expect Him to spoonfeed you!
I don't. I also don't expect Him to set the bar so high that it can't be
reached by 99% of the non-Muslim human race. Listen to yourself: "Learn
Arabic, become an expert on pre-Islamic poetry, live with a bunch of
Bedouins for a few months, and see if I'm not right."
ROTFLMAO!
>
> > Own up. This is weak. If you believe in that the Quran is divine, be a
man
> > and admit you do so on faith.
>
> Wow!
>
> Was your whole babbling all about this? To prove that Muslims have blind
> faith?
Knock it with the "blind faith", willya! No one said that.
> Well be assured, that every Muslim child will belie you as I do.
> Through out this thread to provide us your TRUTH about Jesus' (asws) and
his
> mother
> Mary (asws). Now you are just babbling about the Holy Qur'an without
> bringing forth
> the shred of evidence.
> Either you meet the qur'anic challenge and disprove its claims of being
the
> divine word
> and we will give it up or you better shut up.
I have no intention of shutting up. USENET, free speech, and all that. If
the Quran is really the word of God, it can handle a little criticism; won't
hurt a soul. I've requested proof, and you've instead set up a straw man
argument that is no more "observable"and "verifiable" than "overshadowing."
If that works for you, that's fine; it doesn't work for me.T he burden of
proof is on you, and something better than textual critcism is required.
Failing that, you still have faith, not blind faith, but still, faith.
>
> >It's not a dirty word - the Old Testament is
> > full of verses talking about how God respects those who believe without
> > reason to believe. Genesis 15:6. If it was good enough for Abraham, it
> ought
> > to be good enough for everybody.
>
>
> Indeed what is good for Abraham (asws) is good enough for us Muslims but
> obviously
> not for you Tri-theists. Be rather a man and tell us your unbelievable
story
> about Jesus'
> and his birth stipulates that God's had a sexual intercourse with Mary!
But
> your lack of
> intellectual honesty prevents you from telling without feeling a shame.
>
Well, this is the first time anyone brought up the notion of sexual
intercourse between the Almightly and the Virgin. That's rather bawdy for my
tastes. I'll leave you to your own pornographic fantasy.
>
> As for Abraham (asws), here's a glimpse
> his way as the Holy Qur'an describes it: A man of intellect and reason.
> You should indeed follow your own advice, learn from him and obey Genesis
> 15:6.
>
<snip>
> Use your head man!
>
You call your stuff "using your head?"
Mike
EPrem
>From: "Mike Craney" <mikec...@directvinternet.com>
>Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2002 19:27 EST
>Message-id: <3e0fa...@nopics.sjc>
>I have no intention of shutting up. USENET, free speech, and all that. If
>the Quran is really the word of God, it can handle a little criticism; won't
>hurt a soul. I've requested proof, and you've instead set up a straw man
>argument that is no more "observable"and "verifiable" than "overshadowing."
>If that works for you, that's fine; it doesn't work for me.T he burden of
>proof is on you, and something better than textual critcism is required.
LOL Great job, Mike. Keep up the good work.
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
>>"Mike Craney" wrote:..
>>>"friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
>>>You know, if an atheist were in the room, they'd be rolling on the floor
>>>right now, listening to us debate the Incarnation on grounds of
>>>observability/verifiability, while stipulating as true the Virgin Birth.
>>Ah..the "atheists" again!
>>If the recent Raelians' claim of a cloned baby would happen
>>to be true, our friends, the atheists, would have one
>>reason more to reconsider their stance regarding the possibility of the
>>virgin birth. And of course you Christians too, especially wrt. to your
bogus and
>>obscure claim that "The power of the holy spirit oversadowed her" [sic]
>>(whatever this might mean).
>>>The fact is that both events are equally absurd, from the
>>>observability/verifiability POV. (Please rethink your point, raised
>>>below, that the asexual reproduction of the plant kingdom somehow
provides
>>>reason to the virgin birth.
>>I didn't say it "provides reason to the virgin birth", I rather implied
>>that such phenomenon is observable and therefore verifiable in our
>>immediate environment.
>But it is not. You have provided no cases where a human virgin birth was
>recorded in vivo;
Halt! No cheating please. I was talking thereabout, that asexual
reproduction in the faun and flora kingdom was verifiable. We are
not talking about the methods used for that purpose.
>you've attempted to swap in an in vitro cloning example,
>and an example from nondifferentiated plant life, and pass this off as a
>valid observation regarding a human situation. Doesn't work.
It's indeed a valid observation. Ask any expert in this field and he will
belie you.
>>>The fact is that highly differentiated life forms cannot reproduce
>>asexually.)
>>Be patient. It's a matter of time. Meanwhile, you should look for another
>>explanation
>>of "the power of the holy spirit overshadowed Mary (asws)"
>Come on. The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an explanation.
Than explain what the tell this terminology does mean.
How did this alleged power of the holy spirit overshadow Mary (as)?
How did he get pregnant? Where was God the Almighty while He
allegedly was hanging on Mary's (as) womb? How did the Almighty beget a son?
>You know this. The explanation is that God intervened miraculously to
create
>the virginal event.
Nah...now you appeal to the qur'anic version in order to get out of this
dilemma. How convenient!
Your scriptures does't support your claim. Your theology, neither. You claim
that God had begotten
a son. Nothing is to be found about God "created Jesus" in your theology.
John [1:4] claims Jesus [the Word, the Logos] was pre-existing with God.
So you are dishonest.
And BTW, my grandfather [who himself was a priest] and several members of my
families
who happen to be Catholics and evangelists, would disagree with your version
of the event.
>When science manages to create God in a laboratory, and
>induce Him to create a virginal event, then I'll start looking for another
>explanation.
This is absurd. Who is claiming that science would manage to create God?
Come back to your senses, dude.
>>>Also, I am surprised by your implied inclusion of humans into the animal
>>>kingdom. Do you believe that man is simply a higher mammal, or that man
>>>is uniquely created by God?
>>Both are creation of God. Everything is created by God. So what's your
>>point?
>I was curious if you believed humanity was the product of evolution or not.
I don't believe in evolution. Is that clear?
>That's my point.
Nonsense.
Read again your question above and pay more attention to "uniquely".
>>>You're going back on yourself, now. Above, you reject the Incarnation
>>>because it is not observable and verifiable. But herein, you believe in
>>>the account of Moses and/or Creation, even while admitting he is not
>>>observable or verifiable.
>>Exactly. All that because of the Holy Qur'an, which is between our hands.
>>Prove that the Holy Qur'an is not from God and we'll reject those stories
>>outright. Furthermore, the same Qur'an is between our hands, everyone can
>>observe and verify it. Simple.
>As if we could agree on grounds for the test........ :-)
Then leave it better to some impartial linguists. Simple, isn't it?
<snip for brevity>
>>>>If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all
>>>>Greeks followers should have been monotheist thousands of yours ago and
sending
>>>>Prophets and Messengers were without any utility, while sectarian wars
and heresies within
>>>>Chistianity would have probably been less bloody.
>>>Non Sequitur.
>>No, it's not. Do you deny the fact that several christian sects fought
>>bloody wars
>>against each other through the ages because of the nature of Jesus (as).
>>This was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
>>Jesus' (as) nature.
>You think that theological disputes are due to syllogisms? You don't
think
>theological differences are enough? (ROTFL.)
LOL...re-read my statement again. It seems that you didn't grasp it.
Dude, your whole theological construct is built upon nothing but syllogism.
>>Sorry. If we had to discuss scientific issues, I would rather say, I
>>personally have nothing against logical constructs and of course admit
their
>>efficiency. In theological disputes, I simply have no use therefor.
>Fair enough.
Good.
<snip>
>>>>Sorry, I can't buy that.
>>>I'm not selling any of the above specifics.
>>Aren't you on ARI to supposedly preach the "Good News"?
>No. You've asked me that before, the answer hasn't changed.
Well, I can recall it. Then, it's clear that you should know my response
to your answer too.
>>>The only point I am "selling" here is that the omnipotence of God
>>>precludes us making
>>>categorical statements denying His ability to do "something."
>>I don't deny God's ability to do anything. What I am rather contesting is
>>the absurdity of the
>>claim which makes Him dependent of space and time and therefore limited
>>and reduced
>>Him to a tiny, helpless foetus residing in a woman womb. This is indeed
>>absurd.
>>An all Powerful and Illimited Creator is not created. Either he's
>>self-sufficient, eternally existing and
>>thusly is the Creator - who needs neither to be born nor to be re-born
>>again - or He's not.
>>Everything else is the fruit of syllogism and its unverifiable premises.
>Right. There is a 6th Century prayer about the Holy Virgin that contains
an
>anthem as follows:
>"Rejoice, you who shows forth philosophers fools. Rejoice, you who proves
>logicians illogical."
>So, even the Christians understood that the notion lacks logic. (Perhaps
>that was the intent.)
Well, this is still no reply to my objections above.
>>>IOW, from your point two
>>>above, I agree with you when you say "a bit use of our God given
>>>intellect shows unambiguously the absurdity of such a claim."
>>>Now that we agree that
>>>the claim is absurd, WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION?
>>>Do we conclude a) because it is
>>>absurd, it COULD not have happened,
>>It didn't happen. Because, from a rational POV, there's
>>no such thing which is immortal and mortal at the same time. Unless you
>>believe in Count Dracula.
>>>b) becuase it is absurd it WOULD not
>>> have happened,
>>It's simply absurd, because, it suggests that an immortal, eternally
>>existing being became suddenly a tiny, helpless foetus hanging
>>on a woman's (a mortal!) uterus, hence a mortal. A claim which
>>is more than self-contradictory.
>>or c) its absurdity does not preclude it.
>>I see that you can't leave the realm of syllogism which corrupted Jesus'
>>teachings.
>Dude. It was a multiple choice question. I was trying to get a simple
answer
>to a simple question. Is there ANYTHING you can answer without a tome
loaded
>with abstractions?
Well if you think that my answers are too abstract, then they 're good for
me
and bad for you. Pech gehabt!
>>None of the prior conclusions is convincible, whether they represent
>>the choice of an atheist or a theist or whomever. They are merely the
>>result of your logical construct. Nothing more and nothing less.
>>>Does one of these choices suit you, or would you add an additional choice
>>>to the question?
>>Your conclusion is untenable because you seem to ignore a simple axiomatic
>>fact that a thing and its opposite doesn't exist at the same time.
>>You cannot claim that you exist and don't exist at the same time,
>>you cannot make at the same time a step forward and another backward,
>>you cannot be at two spots at the same time. You cannot be a mortal and
>>immortal at the same time. Hence your logic is to my taste inappropriate
>>in order to prove or disprove the absurdity of a presumed God's
>>incarnation.
><sigh> It is what it is. Works for me.
Absolutely not.
>>>>>You do not see the similarity here between this position and
>>>>>mine on the transmission of the Quran?
>>>>No. Using your argumentation, you should have then hard times believing
>>>>in God talking to Moses (asws) or Gabriel (as) appearing before Mary
>>>(as) etc... The issue, my friend, is not someone claiming to have met an
>>>Angel, it's much bigger than that.
>>>Incorrect. The accounts of Moses and Mary are found in documents I
>>>consider inspired.
>>Which documents among the 20.000 Bibles? Which one is inspired
>>and which is not? Why are the apocrypha not considered inspired?
>>etc..etc...
>>Which bible should we consider inspired: KJV, the Catholic' version,
>>the Assyrian one, the Coptic one, the Ethiopian one and so forth....?
>Please, no Islamic mythology. One Bible, one theology. You don't get to
>count every punctuation error as a "new version." This position is wholly
>untenable.
Should I dig in my archives in order to prove you wrong?.
<snip>
>>Have you read it in Arabic? No. I conclude, you haven't read it.
>>>and IMO, it's just another book of the classical
>>> times. You're the one who claims it's special, based on some
>>>circumstantial tidbits from textual criticism. Hardly evidence that would
pass the test
>>>of "beyond reasonable doubt."
>>Whose test? Yours?
>You'd have trouble finding anyone outside your religion who would buy off
on
>your syllogism. (That IS a syllogism, you know. Critical Textual Uniqueness
>= Divine Origin.)
LOL...that's the reason why many non-Muslims who spend years on
the book become Muslims.
The question is not a matter of syllogism, it's has rather to do with
whether
this book is the work of men or not. The answer is yes or no. Thus, we have
no
use for silly logical constructs nor any room for them.
<snip>
>>Oh... BTW, I find arabic beduines more civilized and decent than any
>>one of you Yankees put together.
>I'm sure you do.
Good.
>>>There is a point where a rationalization becomes so contrived that it
>>>falls in upon itself. Your belief in the divine origins of the Quran,
sir, is
>>>simply faith.
>>Dude. Hopefully, you're are not going now to teach me my own religion. Are
>>you?
>>There's no blind faith in Islam. And whether you like it or not: The Holy
>>Qur'an is not
>>the work of man. Don't you believe in it, then fine. My rationalizations
>>are not far fetched
>>as you seem to imply. They are rather founded on long years of research,
>>studies and travels through the ME and an approriate study of the arabic
language and its
>>rules. And again,
>>whether you like it or not: Bring just a few verses similar to the
>>qur'anic ones, if you're truthful. It's that simple.
>Nobody said anything about blind faith. Blind faith is way different than
>holy faith, and it's not popular in most Christian denominations, either,
>despite some anti-Christian apologetics to the contrary.
I think, I explained you at the very beginning of this therad that "Iman" or
"Aqueedah"
have no equivalent in English and that the use of the noun "faith" is just
for the convenience.
There's nothing such as holy or unholy faith.
>I'm just going on what you said. You've built some very extensive and very
>creative rationalizations for both Islam and anti-Christianity, and it
seems
>like a lot of work to establish some simple religious faith.
Dude, more than 500 years of orientalism and western scholarship as well as
over
thousand years christian polemics have already gone without the
slightest try to disprove th veracity of the Holy Qur'an. But all critics
were and still
remain vain. One polemic more or less [in this case yours] doesn't change
this simple fact.
>>>You ask the world to believe in this book, suggest how the
>>>world might test its (alleged) divine origin, but then the world finds
>>>that the ground rules of the test require 1) a native-speaker's knowledge
of
>>>Arabic,
>>Well, the book was in fact revealed in Arabic. If the world
>>is too lazy to learn another language - something always useful - then
>>you can't blame The Almighty for your shortcoming.
>Oh, come on. Now you're being silly. People learn second languages for a
>reason, and "Playing Quranic Challenge" isn't going to be at the top of the
>list.
Be patient. In the long term, peoples will worldwide do it, as Arabic was in
the middle
age the language of the medieval civilized world. Just be patient, it's a
matter of time .
<snip>
>>>God certainly likes to make it difficult to believe in His Word,
>>>doesn't He?
>>God provides you sufficiently food, gave you an intellect and two hands.
>>Don't expect Him to spoonfeed you!
>I don't. I also don't expect Him to set the bar so high that it can't be
>reached by 99% of the non-Muslim human race. Listen to yourself: "Learn
>Arabic, become an expert on pre-Islamic poetry, live with a bunch of
>Bedouins for a few months, and see if I'm not right."
> ROTFLMAO!
yeah...Jesus died again for our sins.LOL...
>>>Own up. This is weak. If you believe in that the Quran is divine, be a
>>>man and admit you do so on faith.
>>Wow!
>>Was your whole babbling all about this? To prove that Muslims have blind
>>faith?
>Knock it with the "blind faith", willya! No one said that.
>>Well be assured, that every Muslim child will belie you as I do.
>>Through out this thread to provide us your TRUTH about Jesus' (asws) and
>>his mother Mary (asws). Now you are just babbling about the Holy Qur'an
without
>>bringing forth the shred of evidence.
>>Either you meet the qur'anic challenge and disprove its claims of being
>>the divine word and we will give it up or you better shut up.
>I have no intention of shutting up. USENET, free speech, and all that. If
>the Quran is really the word of God, it can handle a little criticism;
won't
>hurt a soul.
Nah...if your babbling should be taken as textual criticism, then one has to
say Adieu to
the whole literature.
>I've requested proof, and you've instead set up a straw man
>argument that is no more "observable"and "verifiable" than "overshadowing."
>If that works for you, that's fine; it doesn't work for me.The burden of
>proof is on you, and something better than textual critcism is required.
The proof is there. it's upon you to verify its veracity and consistency.
Not me!
>Failing that, you still have faith, not blind faith, but still, faith.
BS. Don't take your ignorance for a virtue. That's not good.
>>>It's not a dirty word - the Old Testament is
>>>full of verses talking about how God respects those who believe without
>>>reason to believe. Genesis 15:6. If it was good enough for Abraham, it
>>ought to be good enough for everybody.
>>Indeed what is good for Abraham (asws) is good enough for us Muslims but
>>obviously not for you Tri-theists. Be rather a man and tell us your
unbelievable
>>story about Jesus'
>>and his birth stipulates that God's had a sexual intercourse with Mary!
>>But your lack of
>>intellectual honesty prevents you from telling it without feeling a shame.
>Well, this is the first time anyone brought up the notion of sexual
>intercourse between the Almightly and the Virgin. That's rather bawdy for
my
>tastes. I'll leave you to your own pornographic fantasy.
No, you're wrong again.
That's what we have been learned in our catholic seminary.
Sorry dude, barking around doesn't change this fact you feel ashamed
about. That's what you believe in. Not we Muslims!
>>As for Abraham (asws), here's a glimpse
>>his way as the Holy Qur'an describes it: A man of intellect and reason.
>>You should indeed follow your own advice, learn from him and obey Genesis
>>15:6.
<snip>
>>Use your head man!
>You call your stuff "using your head?"
Well, my stuff is more consistent than your balderash about
an eternal God "overshadowing" a blessed woman,
who further gave Him a son. The latter on the other hand is not less than
the
Godfather himself who finally finished his life nailed on a wooden cross.
One may ask what the third one[ the holy cuckoo]
was meanwhile doing: perhaps applauding the show? Who knows...
friend
"EPrem" <ep...@aol.com> wrote:...
> >Subject: Re: Do Muslims celebrate Christmas?
> >From: "Mike Craney" <mikec...@directvinternet.com>
> >Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2002 19:27 EST
> >Message-id: <3e0fa...@nopics.sjc>
>
> >I have no intention of shutting up. USENET, free speech, and all that. If
> >the Quran is really the word of God, it can handle a little criticism;
won't
> >hurt a soul. I've requested proof, and you've instead set up a straw man
> >argument that is no more "observable"and "verifiable" than
"overshadowing."
> >If that works for you, that's fine; it doesn't work for me.T he burden of
> >proof is on you, and something better than textual critcism is required.
>
> LOL Great job, Mike. Keep up the good work.
Woman go to bed, before his unholy spirit "oveshadows" you.
Mike Craney
> reproduction in the faun and flora kingdom was verifiable. We are
> not talking about the methods used for that purpose.
The methods are relevant to the discussion.
> >you've attempted to swap in an in vitro cloning example,
> >and an example from nondifferentiated plant life, and pass this off as a
> >valid observation regarding a human situation. Doesn't work.
>
> It's indeed a valid observation. Ask any expert in this field and he will
> belie you.
I'm no amateur in this field. I disagree that the verified observation of
asexual reproduction in plant life, or the manipulated in vitro asexual
reproduction of a differentiated species, is relevant to the possibility of
such occuring in vivo in a human being. If you've got an expert to trot up,
let's set up a conference call, and not play the "unidentified expert who's
not here" game.
> >Come on. The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an
explanation.
>
> Than explain what the tell this terminology does mean.
> How did this alleged power of the holy spirit overshadow Mary (as)?
> How did he get pregnant? Where was God the Almighty while He
> allegedly was hanging on Mary's (as) womb? How did the Almighty beget a
son?
We've already been here. Short memory? The only answer we have in Scripture
is "overshadowed." I am truly sorry (well, not) that this is insufficient
for you. The precise mechanism of these occurrences is irrelevant to
Christianity, and relevant only to its critics.
> >You know this. The explanation is that God intervened miraculously to
> create
> >the virginal event.
> Nah...now you appeal to the qur'anic version in order to get out of this
> dilemma. How convenient!
There's no dilemma. The Book says "overshadowed"; the above is simply a
paraphrase of the orthodox understanding. I assure you, it never occurred to
me to look at the Koran.
> Your scriptures does't support your claim. Your theology, neither. You
claim
> that God had begotten
> a son. Nothing is to be found about God "created Jesus" in your theology.
> John [1:4] claims Jesus [the Word, the Logos] was pre-existing with God.
> So you are dishonest.
>
> And BTW, my grandfather [who himself was a priest] and several members of
my
> families
> who happen to be Catholics and evangelists, would disagree with your
version
> of the event.
Excuse me. I said nothing about Christ being anything but uncreated and
pre-existent. Don't bend my words.
> >When science manages to create God in a laboratory, and
> >induce Him to create a virginal event, then I'll start looking for
another
> >explanation.
>
> This is absurd. Who is claiming that science would manage to create God?
> Come back to your senses, dude.
Of course it's absurd. Didn't you get the point?
>
> >>>>If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all
> >>>>Greeks followers should have been monotheist thousands of yours ago
and
> sending
> >>>>Prophets and Messengers were without any utility, while sectarian wars
> and heresies within
> >>>>Chistianity would have probably been less bloody.
>
> >>>Non Sequitur.
>
> >>No, it's not. Do you deny the fact that several christian sects fought
> >>bloody wars
> >>against each other through the ages because of the nature of Jesus (as).
> >>This was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or
disprove
> >>Jesus' (as) nature.
>
> >You think that theological disputes are due to syllogisms? You don't
> think
> >theological differences are enough? (ROTFL.)
>
>
> LOL...re-read my statement again. It seems that you didn't grasp it.
> Dude, your whole theological construct is built upon nothing but
syllogism.
I grasped it just fine -- I read it as it was written. You said: "This was
mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
Jesus' (as) nature." If you expressed yourself poorly, then clarify --
don't lay it on me.
> >>>The only point I am "selling" here is that the omnipotence of God
> >>>precludes us making
> >>>categorical statements denying His ability to do "something."
>
> >>I don't deny God's ability to do anything. What I am rather contesting
is
> >>the absurdity of the
> >>claim which makes Him dependent of space and time and therefore limited
> >>and reduced
> >>Him to a tiny, helpless foetus residing in a woman womb. This is indeed
> >>absurd.
> >>An all Powerful and Illimited Creator is not created. Either he's
> >>self-sufficient, eternally existing and
> >>thusly is the Creator - who needs neither to be born nor to be re-born
> >>again - or He's not.
> >>Everything else is the fruit of syllogism and its unverifiable premises.
>
> >Right. There is a 6th Century prayer about the Holy Virgin that contains
> an
> >anthem as follows:
> >"Rejoice, you who shows forth philosophers fools. Rejoice, you who proves
> >logicians illogical."
> >So, even the Christians understood that the notion lacks logic. (Perhaps
> >that was the intent.)
>
> Well, this is still no reply to my objections above.
Actually, it provides a possible reason the Almighty might have for
operating outside of human reason, which, if I recall from other threads, is
a notion that disturbs you greatly. The fact is, objections to the
Incarnation on rational grounds are valid; however, there are multiple
conclusions that can be drawn from that. There is more than simply "It
doesn't make sense so it cannot be."
>
> >>None of the prior conclusions is convincible, whether they represent
> >>the choice of an atheist or a theist or whomever. They are merely the
> >>result of your logical construct. Nothing more and nothing less.
>
> >>>Does one of these choices suit you, or would you add an additional
choice
> >>>to the question?
>
> >>Your conclusion is untenable because you seem to ignore a simple
axiomatic
> >>fact that a thing and its opposite doesn't exist at the same time.
> >>You cannot claim that you exist and don't exist at the same time,
> >>you cannot make at the same time a step forward and another backward,
> >>you cannot be at two spots at the same time. You cannot be a mortal and
> >>immortal at the same time. Hence your logic is to my taste inappropriate
> >>in order to prove or disprove the absurdity of a presumed God's
> >>incarnation.
>
> ><sigh> It is what it is. Works for me.
>
> Absolutely not.
No, it DOES work for me (my logic, that is.)
>
> >>>>>You do not see the similarity here between this position and
> >>>>>mine on the transmission of the Quran?
>
> >>>>No. Using your argumentation, you should have then hard times
believing
> >>>>in God talking to Moses (asws) or Gabriel (as) appearing before Mary
> >>>(as) etc... The issue, my friend, is not someone claiming to have met
an
> >>>Angel, it's much bigger than that.
>
> >>>Incorrect. The accounts of Moses and Mary are found in documents I
> >>>consider inspired.
>
> >>Which documents among the 20.000 Bibles? Which one is inspired
> >>and which is not? Why are the apocrypha not considered inspired?
> >>etc..etc...
> >>Which bible should we consider inspired: KJV, the Catholic' version,
> >>the Assyrian one, the Coptic one, the Ethiopian one and so forth....?
>
> >Please, no Islamic mythology. One Bible, one theology. You don't get to
> >count every punctuation error as a "new version." This position is wholly
> >untenable.
>
> Should I dig in my archives in order to prove you wrong?.
Prove me wrong? You won't. We'd have the mother of all cut and paste wars, I
suppose, since Biblical textual analysis is a subject I am well familiar
with. At the end, we'll both have not learned anything new, and our
positions will still be the same. But, we'll have bored the hell out of ARI.
That's something, I suppose. :-)
> >You'd have trouble finding anyone outside your religion who would buy off
> on
> >your syllogism. (That IS a syllogism, you know. Critical Textual
Uniqueness
> >= Divine Origin.)
>
> LOL...that's the reason why many non-Muslims who spend years on
> the book become Muslims.
I'm sure you can list them all, in a short post.
> The question is not a matter of syllogism, it's has rather to do with
> whether
> this book is the work of men or not. The answer is yes or no. Thus, we
have
> no
> use for silly logical constructs nor any room for them.
It was your syllogism. I just tossed it back at you.
> <snip>
OK. (That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said, but,
whatever.)
>
>
> Dude, more than 500 years of orientalism and western scholarship as well
as
> over
> thousand years christian polemics have already gone without the
> slightest try to disprove the veracity of the Holy Qur'an. But all critics
> were and still
> remain vain. One polemic more or less [in this case yours] doesn't change
> this simple fact.
Whatever. The Christian polemics I have read are rather persuasive, and the
refutation of those polemics appear rather banal. So, if you want to run
around with a big trumpet saying "it's never been done", well, that sounds a
bit like the people who claim that there is no real proof the world is
other than flat. My personal polemics are irrelevant, since the Koran is not
my field of study.
What is not irrelevant is my "review" of your arguments for its divine
origin, since assumedly you would like these arguments to get some traction
with nonMuslims, of which I am representative. (However, that assumption may
be incorrect; the purpose might actually just be to convince your kids that
the religion their parents are saddling them with has some merit.)
Just to summarize:
1) The "Quranic Challenge," under the pre-conditions you require, are such
that virtually no non-Muslim would ever have the opportunity refute it
credibly, according to the pre-conditions required. Therefore, to say that
"yadayadayada without the slightest try...." is meaningless.
2) The "Challenge" is a straw man, in that it assumes a quite debatable
hypothesis: that the only explanation for a work that is textually unique
and/or unusual is divine origin.
Now, not one word of the above addresses the truth or falsehood of Islam, or
the actual origin of the Quran. It only addresses logical construct you call
the "Quranic Challenge," and polemical material the nature of which you are
likely aware.
<wishful thinking about the whole world reading right-to-left someday
snipped>
> >>>God certainly likes to make it difficult to believe in His Word,
> >>>doesn't He?
>
> >>God provides you sufficiently food, gave you an intellect and two hands.
> >>Don't expect Him to spoonfeed you!
>
> >I don't. I also don't expect Him to set the bar so high that it can't be
> >reached by 99% of the non-Muslim human race. Listen to yourself: "Learn
> >Arabic, become an expert on pre-Islamic poetry, live with a bunch of
> >Bedouins for a few months, and see if I'm not right."
>
> > ROTFLMAO!
>
> yeah...Jesus died again for our sins.LOL...
Oh, quit changing the subject. Every time you get on weak grounds, it's back
to one of your diversionary one-liners. The point was that the test is
absurd due to the preconditions, and fully stacks the deck in favor of the
"divine origin" conclusion. There's better odds to be had in Vegas.
> >>Well be assured, that every Muslim child will belie you as I do.
You have?
> >>Through out this thread to provide us your TRUTH about Jesus' (asws) and
> >>his mother Mary (asws). Now you are just babbling about the Holy Qur'an
> without
> >>bringing forth the shred of evidence.
> >>Either you meet the qur'anic challenge and disprove its claims of being
> >>the divine word and we will give it up or you better shut up.
>
> >I have no intention of shutting up. USENET, free speech, and all that. If
> >the Quran is really the word of God, it can handle a little criticism;
> won't
> >hurt a soul.
>
> Nah...if your babbling should be taken as textual criticism, then one has
to
> say Adieu to
> the whole literature.
You're not paying attention. I never engaged in textual critcism. What I did
was scoff at the notion of textual criticism being linked to divine origin.
Big difference.
>
> >I've requested proof, and you've instead set up a straw man
> >argument that is no more "observable"and "verifiable" than
"overshadowing."
> >If that works for you, that's fine; it doesn't work for me.The burden of
> >proof is on you, and something better than textual critcism is required.
>
> The proof is there. it's upon you to verify its veracity and consistency.
> Not me!
A very safe position, that. Put what you cannot do onto somebody else. I'll
take that to mean that without the "quranic challenge" you've got nothing.
That's OK. You're better off without that sort of proof, believe me.
> >Failing that, you still have faith, not blind faith, but still, faith.
>
> BS. Don't take your ignorance for a virtue. That's not good.
Blind Faith is akin to ignorance. Faith is indeed a virtue, it is good, and
it's a shame you seem to have written it out of your understanding of your
religion, as it certainly seems to be present in the spiritual life of other
Muslims who talk about it. The Old Testament is full of references.
>
> No, you're wrong again.
> That's what we have been learned in our catholic seminary.
> Sorry dude, barking around doesn't change this fact you feel ashamed
> about. That's what you believe in. Not we Muslims!
Now, is that where you are, now? Assuming things about my feelings? That I
feel "ashamed" about something?
>
> >>As for Abraham (asws), here's a glimpse
> >>his way as the Holy Qur'an describes it: A man of intellect and reason.
> >>You should indeed follow your own advice, learn from him and obey
Genesis
> >>15:6.
And......intellect and reason negates faith? (You know, that is such a huge
disconnect between the OT, NT, and that book of yours that in and of iteself
negates any claim it has to divine origin. The replacement of faith with
reason is, in essence, the creation of an entirely new religion, only
cursorily related to its alleged predecessors. The faith thread running
through the Old and New Testaments, from Eden to Revelations, is so
pervasive that it could never be edited in or out as you claim, and still
maintain the integrity of the prose.)
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Use your head man!
>
> >You call your stuff "using your head?"
>
> Well, my stuff is more consistent than your balderash about
> an eternal God "overshadowing" a blessed woman,
> who further gave Him a son. The latter on the other hand is not less than
> the
> Godfather himself who finally finished his life nailed on a wooden cross.
> One may ask what the third one[ the holy cuckoo]
> was meanwhile doing: perhaps applauding the show? Who knows...
If you think your stuff makes more sense, that's fine for you. If it makes
you feel good to have a rationalization for every issue (regardless of
whether it is circular, straw man, or what) knock yourself out. I'd rather
have faith, and admit having it, then have to cover my butt with
intellelectually dishonest arguments.
Enjoyed it.
Mike
TR
woman. The "virgin birth" of a male would be impossible with this
method. The stupidity of british jounalists --- shaking my head!
TR
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
> "friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
> > Halt! No cheating please. I was talking thereabout, that asexual
> > reproduction in the faun and flora kingdom was verifiable. We are
> > not talking about the methods used for that purpose.
>The methods are relevant to the discussion.
No, they're irrelevant.
> > >you've attempted to swap in an in vitro cloning example,
> > >and an example from nondifferentiated plant life, and pass this off as
a
> > >valid observation regarding a human situation. Doesn't work.
> > It's indeed a valid observation. Ask any expert in this field and he
will
> > belie you.
>I'm no amateur in this field.
Give us then your credentials please!
>I disagree that the verified observation of
>asexual reproduction in plant life, or the manipulated in vitro asexual
>reproduction of a differentiated species, is relevant to the possibility of
>such occuring in vivo in a human being. If you've got an expert to trot up,
>let's set up a conference call, and not play the "unidentified expert who's
>not here" game.
None is playing any game here, except in your wild imagination.
If you paid some attention to what I initially wrote instead
of barking around and trying to defend the indefensible.
>>>Come on. The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an
>>>explanation.
>>Than explain what the hell this terminology does mean.
>>How did this alleged power of the holy spirit overshadow Mary (as)?
>>How did she get pregnant? Where was God the Almighty while He
>>allegedly was hanging on Mary's (as) womb? How did the Almighty beget a
>>son?
>We've already been here. Short memory?
No, sorry we haven't at all. All questions are still open to be debated
again and again.
Either you have a reasonable explanation that Jesus' (as) was God's
incarnate or you haven't. Either he's God in person or he isn't and
finally either he's God's begotten son and thus a differnt entity than God
Himself
and your holy cuckoo or he's not. What you so far presented is nothing but
endless
ratonalizations and no single reasonable argument to back up your bogus
with.
>The only answer we have in Scripture
>is "overshadowed."
Why then claiming a few line below, that "overshadowed" means God created
Jesus' miraculously, while your creed itself belies you. Are you impling
that God
creted himself? That's simply crap.
>I am truly sorry (well, not) that this is insufficient
>for you.
Good for me. Alhamdulillah!
>The precise mechanism of these occurrences is irrelevant to
>Christianity, and relevant only to its critics.
Then keep your bogus for yourself and leave Muslims alone.
>>>You know this. The explanation is that God intervened miraculously to
>>>create the virginal event.
>>Nah...now you appeal to the qur'anic version in order to get out of this
>>dilemma. How convenient!
>There's no dilemma. The Book says "overshadowed"; the above is simply a
>paraphrase of the orthodox understanding.
Your middle eastern (I guess nestorian) orthodox belief is not the belief
of the whole Christianity. The anthanasian creed belies you. So settle this
issue
with your latin brethren not with us.
\begin\quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic [apostolic or universal] faith, which
except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will
perish eternally.
Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there
is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One,
the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the
Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the
father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three
eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties
but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not
three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be
both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say,
there be three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the
Father alone, nod made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the
Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So
there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy
Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before
or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal
together and coequal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity
in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of
salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.
But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the
Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we
believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and
Man.
He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.
Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however
not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood
in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person.
For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one
Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the
dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all
men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own
works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who
indeed have done evil into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed
faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
\end\quote.
Oh...I'm still not finished. You previously stated wrt. to my question which
bible should be considered as
inspired, I cite:
"Please, no Islamic mythology. One Bible, one theology." [sic]
So either you are lying or just can't read your own crap. You claim that
there's "one bible
and one theology" and arrogantly dismiss other divergent creeds within
Christianity as a mere islamic
mythology.
Well the Catholics believe that Jesus Christus was not created (see the
quote above) and you claim
he was! Then explain us who is right and who is not regarting your TRUTH
about Jesus! Pleaaaaaaaaaase!
>I assure you, it never occurred to
>me to look at the Koran.
Well, you admitted having "read" it, didn't you? The sole existing revealed
book which
say Jesus (as) was CREATED by GOD is uniquely the Holy Qur'an, nothing else.
So please refrain from telling us fairy tales just in order to make a point.
>>Your scriptures does't support your claim. Your theology, neither. You
>>claim that God had begotten
>>a son. Nothing is to be found about God "created Jesus" in your theology.
>>John [1:4] claims Jesus [the Word, the Logos] was pre-existing with God.
>>So you are dishonest.
>>And BTW, my grandfather [who himself was a priest] and several members of
>>my families who happen to be Catholics and evangelists, would disagree
with your
>>version of the event.
>Excuse me. I said nothing about Christ being anything but uncreated and
>pre-existent. Don't bend my words.
You said: <<The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an
explanation.
You know this. The explanation is that God intervened miraculously to create
the virginal even>>[sic]
Hence, you are borowing a concept that Jesus' birth was in fact miraculous
from another source than the biblical accounts. And I'm pointing out that at
least the latin Christianity [i.e the Catholics] doesn't support your claim.
>>>When science manages to create God in a laboratory, and
>>>induce Him to create a virginal event, then I'll start looking for
>>>another explanation.
>>This is absurd. Who is claiming that science would manage to create God?
>>Come back to your senses, dude.
>Of course it's absurd. Didn't you get the point?
Sure I did. It seems to me, you are the one who didn't get my point yet.
The keyword is "create".
>>>>>>If it does, as you claim, the master of logic (Aristoteles) and all
>>>>>>Greeks followers should have been monotheist thousands of yours ago
>>>>>>and sending Prophets and Messengers were without any utility, while
sectarian wars
>>>>>and heresies within Chistianity would have probably been less bloody.
>>>>>Non Sequitur.
>>>>No, it's not. Do you deny the fact that several christian sects fought
>>>>bloody wars
>>>>against each other through the ages because of the nature of Jesus (as).
>>>>This was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or
>>>>disprove Jesus' (as) nature.
>>>You think that theological disputes are due to syllogisms? You don't
>>>think theological differences are enough? (ROTFL.)
>>LOL...re-read my statement again. It seems that you didn't grasp it.
>>Dude, your whole theological construct is built upon nothing but
>>syllogism.
>I grasped it just fine -- I read it as it was written. You said: "This was
>mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
> Jesus' (as) nature." If you expressed yourself poorly, then clarify --
>don't lay it on me.
Oh, now you're bragging about my "poor expression", well, if you can debate
be in my mother tongue, German, you are more than welcome to do.
I'm willing to debate you in French or Arabic too, all that for your
convenience.
But, I'm afraid, you aren't capable thereof.
No, it principally doesn't. Rather your notion of God's incarnation in a
limited
human body is more than disturbing, to say the least.
>The fact is, objections to the
>Incarnation on rational grounds are valid;
Good.
> however, there are multiple
>conclusions that can be drawn from that. There is more than simply "It
>doesn't make sense so it cannot be."
Good.
It cannot be, because of the reasons I counted over and over again.
There's for instance no such thing as being mortal and immortal at the same
breath!
There's no such thing as being limited and illimited at the same breath.
There's no such thing which creates and is itself created!
These are i.e simple axiomatic truths, you seem to ignore throughout this
thread
and try to dismiss them as atheists' arguments. In fact, they're not.
>>Absolutely not.
Good.
So don't claim all bibles' contents are equal! You know well
that at least the catholic bible contains more chapters than say the KJV.
>>>You'd have trouble finding anyone outside your religion who would buy off
>>>on your syllogism. (That IS a syllogism, you know. Critical Textual
>>>Uniqueness = Divine Origin.)
>>LOL...that's the reason why many non-Muslims who spend years on
>>the book become Muslims.
>I'm sure you can list them all, in a short post.
Mabe in an extra post. There are thousands and thousands.
>>The question is not a matter of syllogism, it's has rather to do with
>>whether this book is the work of men or not. The answer is yes or no.
Thus, we
>>have no use for silly logical constructs nor any room for them.
>It was your syllogism. I just tossed it back at you.
Nope, I still used no sort of syllogism nor did I build my "belief" on
unverifiable
premises as you do.
<snip>
>>>Nobody said anything about blind faith. Blind faith is way different than
>>>holy faith, and it's not popular in most Christian denominations, either,
>>>despite some anti-Christian apologetics to the contrary.
>>I think, I explained you at the very beginning of this therad that "Iman"
>>or "Aqueedah" have no equivalent in English and that the use of the noun
"faith"
>>is just for the convenience.
>>There's nothing such as holy or unholy faith.
>OK. (That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said, but,
>whatever.)
It has a lot to do with it. That you won't understand it is another matter.
>>Dude, more than 500 years of orientalism and western scholarship as well
>>as over thousand years christian polemics have already gone without the
>>slightest try to disprove the veracity of the Holy Qur'an. But all critics
>>were and still remain vain. One polemic more or less [in this case yours]
doesn't change
>>this simple fact.
>Whatever. The Christian polemics I have read are rather persuasive,
LOL...persuasive like those medieval Christian apologetics who believed
to prove that trinity (in the name of the father, the son and the holy
spirit)
is supported by the qur'anic "basmala".
>and the
>refutation of those polemics appear rather banal. So, if you want to run
>around with a big trumpet saying "it's never been done", well, that sounds
a
>bit like the people who claim that there is no real proof the world is
>other than flat. My personal polemics are irrelevant, since the Koran is
not
>my field of study.
> What is not irrelevant is my "review" of your arguments for its divine
> origin, since assumedly you would like these arguments to get some
traction
> with nonMuslims, of which I am representative. (However, that assumption
may
> be incorrect; the purpose might actually just be to convince your kids
that
> the religion their parents are saddling them with has some merit.)
> Just to summarize:
>1) The "Quranic Challenge," under the pre-conditions you require, are such
>that virtually no non-Muslim would ever have the opportunity refute it
>credibly, according to the pre-conditions required. Therefore, to say that
>"yadayadayada without the slightest try...." is meaningless.
Well Arabic speaking non-Muslims tried to meet that challenge and so far
failed.
Non-Arabic speaking non-Muslims are welcome to try. Simple, isn't it?
>2) The "Challenge" is a straw man, in that it assumes a quite debatable
>hypothesis: that the only explanation for a work that is textually unique
>and/or unusual is divine origin.
There's a no straw man there:
Either the qur'an is the work of Muhammad (as), or of any Arabic speaking
genius, or the common work of the arabic speaking folk.
If none of this three possibilities is true, then it must have come from
somewhere. Think a
little bit about it.
>Now, not one word of the above addresses the truth or falsehood of Islam,
or
> the actual origin of the Quran. It only addresses logical construct you
call
> the "Quranic Challenge," and polemical material the nature of which you
are
> likely aware.
<wishful thinking about the whole world reading right-to-left someday
Be patient, dude. Not so hasty.
> snipped>
>>>>>God certainly likes to make it difficult to believe in His Word,
>>>>>doesn't He?
>>>>God provides you sufficiently food, gave you an intellect and two hands.
>>>>Don't expect Him to spoonfeed you!
>>>I don't. I also don't expect Him to set the bar so high that it can't be
>>>reached by 99% of the non-Muslim human race. Listen to yourself: "Learn
>>>Arabic, become an expert on pre-Islamic poetry, live with a bunch of
>>>Bedouins for a few months, and see if I'm not right."
>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>yeah...Jesus died again for our sins.LOL...
>Oh, quit changing the subject.
No the least. I'm responding to your ridiculous statement. Mocking a claim
is itself
no proof therefor that the claim is not correct.
>Every time you get on weak grounds, it's back
>to one of your diversionary one-liners.
Oh...this one too. LOL
>The point was that the test is
>absurd due to the preconditions, and fully stacks the deck in favor of the
>"divine origin" conclusion. There's better odds to be had in Vegas.
The required conditions are simple, that none should pass a judement
on any literary work based on simple ignorance as you do, but rather based
on the knowledge of the corresponding language rules.
>>>>Well be assured, that every Muslim child will belie you as I do.
>You have?
I'm still proceeding.
>>>>Through out this thread to provide us your TRUTH about Jesus' (asws) and
>>>>his mother Mary (asws). Now you are just babbling about the Holy Qur'an
>>>without bringing forth the shred of evidence.
>>>>Either you meet the qur'anic challenge and disprove its claims of being
>>>>the divine word and we will give it up or you better shut up.
>>>I have no intention of shutting up. USENET, free speech, and all that. If
>>>the Quran is really the word of God, it can handle a little criticism;
>>>won't hurt a soul.
>>Nah...if your babbling should be taken as textual criticism, then one has
>>to say Adieu to the whole literature.
>You're not paying attention. I never engaged in textual critcism. What I
did
>was scoff at the notion of textual criticism being linked to divine origin.
>Big difference.
Sure, sure.
>>>I've requested proof, and you've instead set up a straw man
>>>argument that is no more "observable"and "verifiable" than
>>>"overshadowing."
>>>If that works for you, that's fine; it doesn't work for me.The burden of
>>>proof is on you, and something better than textual critcism is required.
>>The proof is there. it's upon you to verify its veracity and consistency.
>>Not me!
>A very safe position, that. Put what you cannot do onto somebody else. I'll
>take that to mean that without the "quranic challenge" you've got nothing.
>That's OK. You're better off without that sort of proof, believe me.
I think you're the one who is trying to take a safe position.
I'm suggesting that any critics towards the Holy Qur'an and its challenge is
subject to
learning Arabic and its rules before engaging in
any linguistic details.
You counter with the claim, that wify and dad in law with hi PhD can read
Arabic.
Is that a proof, that the qur'anic challenge is moot? I think not.
>>>Failing that, you still have faith, not blind faith, but still, faith.
>>BS. Don't take your ignorance for a virtue. That's not good.
>Blind Faith is akin to ignorance. Faith is indeed a virtue, it is good, and
>it's a shame you seem to have written it out of your understanding of your
>religion, as it certainly seems to be present in the spiritual life of
other
>Muslims who talk about it. The Old Testament is full of references.
>>No, you're wrong again.
>>That's what we have been learned in our catholic seminary.
>>Sorry dude, barking around doesn't change this fact you feel ashamed
>>about. That's what you believe in. Not we Muslims!
>Now, is that where you are, now? Assuming things about my feelings? That I
>feel "ashamed" about something?
Why did you snip the passage in question? Nah...
>>>>As for Abraham (asws), here's a glimpse
>>>>his way as the Holy Qur'an describes it: A man of intellect and reason.
>>>>You should indeed follow your own advice, learn from him and obey
>>>Genesis 15:6.
>And......intellect and reason negates faith? (You know, that is such a huge
>disconnect between the OT, NT, and that book of yours that in and of
iteself
>negates any claim it has to divine origin. The replacement of faith with
>reason is, in essence, the creation of an entirely new religion, only
>cursorily related to its alleged predecessors. The faith thread running
>through the Old and New Testaments, from Eden to Revelations, is so
>pervasive that it could never be edited in or out as you claim, and still
>maintain the integrity of the prose.)
Reason and "faith" as you call it (by Muslims it's rather 'Aqeedah" which is
more than a firm convicton) aren't mutually exclusive. Islam and reason are
twins.
<snip>
>>>>Use your head man!
>>>You call your stuff "using your head?"
>>Well, my stuff is more consistent than your balderash about
>>an eternal God "overshadowing" a blessed woman,
>>who further gave Him a son. The latter on the other hand is not less than
>>the Godfather himself who finally finished his life nailed on a wooden
cross.
>>One may ask what the third one[ the holy cuckoo]
>>was meanwhile doing: perhaps applauding the show? Who knows...
>If you think your stuff makes more sense, that's fine for you. If it makes
>you feel good to have a rationalization for every issue (regardless of
>whether it is circular, straw man, or what) knock yourself out. I'd rather
>have faith, and admit having it, then have to cover my butt with
>intellelectually dishonest arguments.
You say, intellectually dishonest arguments? Well, see the first paragraphs
of this
post to figure out who is intellectual honest and who is not.
> Enjoyed it.
bye.
friend
lyn...@webtv.net
T...@aol.com (TR)
lyn...@webtv.net
into anything that would be considered a viable being.
kev...@videotron.ca (Abdelkarim Benoit Evans)
In article <3e0f1...@nopics.sjc>,
"Mike Craney" <mikec...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
The fact is that highly differentiated life forms cannot reproduce
asexually.
Are you sure?
lyn...@webtv.net
rare medical condition where a mammal might possess both ovaries and
testes. Since nature will nearly always produce a female if something
goes wrong with the reproductive organs early in gestation. If this were
the case a virgin birth is then possible. As eveything in nature is
possible.
Mike Craney
> "Mike Craney" wrote:...
> > "friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:...
> > > Halt! No cheating please. I was talking thereabout, that asexual
> > > reproduction in the faun and flora kingdom was verifiable. We are
> > > not talking about the methods used for that purpose.
>
> >The methods are relevant to the discussion.
>
> No, they're irrelevant.
Your opinion, not mine. Enough.
<snip>
>
> >>>Come on. The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an
> >>>explanation.
>
> >>Than explain what the hell this terminology does mean.
> >>How did this alleged power of the holy spirit overshadow Mary (as)?
> >>How did she get pregnant? Where was God the Almighty while He
> >>allegedly was hanging on Mary's (as) womb? How did the Almighty beget a
> >>son?
>
> >We've already been here. Short memory?
>
> No, sorry we haven't at all. All questions are still open to be debated
> again and again.
OK, we'll end it here. The "overshadows" terminology is the explanation.
That's it. From this point, the precise details are unknown. The relevant
Christology is this: Fully God, Fully Human, hypostatically linked. The
divine is uncreated, the human begotten. That IS orthodox Christology. If
you were under the impression I said something else, the impression was
incorrect.
>
<remainder of repetitive stuff to the above snipped>
>
> >>LOL...re-read my statement again. It seems that you didn't grasp it.
> >>Dude, your whole theological construct is built upon nothing but
> >>syllogism.
>
> >I grasped it just fine -- I read it as it was written. You said: "This
was
> >mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
> > Jesus' (as) nature." If you expressed yourself poorly, then clarify --
> >don't lay it on me.
>
> Oh, now you're bragging about my "poor expression", well, if you can
debate
> be in my mother tongue, German, you are more than welcome to do.
> I'm willing to debate you in French or Arabic too, all that for your
> convenience.
> But, I'm afraid, you aren't capable thereof.
Incredible. Two paragraphs up, you lay on the reading comprehension ad
hominem; then, you scream foul when I do the same immediately after. This is
quite the game to you, isn't it? (Oh, congratulations on the language
skills. Must be nice for you, being able to feel all superior and all.)
<snip. Didn't seem to be anything here new other that two words of
concurrence.>
>
> So don't claim all bibles' contents are equal! You know well
> that at least the catholic bible contains more chapters than say the KJV.
Chapter headings aren't relevant. What is relevant is theology. My objection
is to those critics that hyperscrutize the mss for punctuation, article
usage, and the like, and draw conclusions from that type of specious
evidence. That wouldn't be you, I know, because it wouldn't be a rational
approach.
>
> >>>You'd have trouble finding anyone outside your religion who would buy
off
> >>>on your syllogism. (That IS a syllogism, you know. Critical Textual
> >>>Uniqueness = Divine Origin.)
>
> >>LOL...that's the reason why many non-Muslims who spend years on
> >>the book become Muslims.
>
> >I'm sure you can list them all, in a short post.
>
> Mabe in an extra post. There are thousands and thousands.
No shortage of movement towards Christianity from Islam, either. Think that
means anything, one way or another?
>
> >>The question is not a matter of syllogism, it's has rather to do with
> >>whether this book is the work of men or not. The answer is yes or no.
> Thus, we
> >>have no use for silly logical constructs nor any room for them.
>
> >It was your syllogism. I just tossed it back at you.
>
> Nope, I still used no sort of syllogism nor did I build my "belief" on
> unverifiable premises as you do.
>
Right, I forget. Being faithless is an asset, in your book. BTW, from the
dictionary, a definition of syllogism is "a subtle or specious piece of
reasoning" just so you know how I used the word.
>
>
> Well Arabic speaking non-Muslims tried to meet that challenge and so far
> failed.
> Non-Arabic speaking non-Muslims are welcome to try. Simple, isn't it?
Sure. Except if you fail, it still proves nothing. Straw man.
>
> >2) The "Challenge" is a straw man, in that it assumes a quite debatable
> >hypothesis: that the only explanation for a work that is textually unique
> >and/or unusual is divine origin.
>
> There's a no straw man there:
> Either the qur'an is the work of Muhammad (as), or of any Arabic speaking
> genius, or the common work of the arabic speaking folk.
> If none of this three possibilities is true, then it must have come from
> somewhere. Think a
> little bit about it.
I have. Multiple possibilities exist. The Syrian Orthodox Church has some
very old documents concerning an "alternative", and I've been after my
father in law to get copies and translate them. There are other postulates.
Suffice to say that divine origin is the least probable, and will require
something more.
>
> >Now, not one word of the above addresses the truth or falsehood of
Islam,
> or
> > the actual origin of the Quran. It only addresses logical construct you
> call
> > the "Quranic Challenge," and polemical material the nature of which you
> are
> > likely aware.
>
>
> >>>I don't. I also don't expect Him to set the bar so high that it can't
be
> >>>reached by 99% of the non-Muslim human race. Listen to yourself: "Learn
> >>>Arabic, become an expert on pre-Islamic poetry, live with a bunch of
> >>>Bedouins for a few months, and see if I'm not right."
> >>> ROTFLMAO!
>
> >>yeah...Jesus died again for our sins.LOL...
>
> >Oh, quit changing the subject.
>
> No the least. I'm responding to your ridiculous statement. Mocking a claim
> is itself
> no proof therefor that the claim is not correct.
True. Except, I didn't mock it. I laid it out in all its glory, for all to
read, then had a personal chuckle about it. :-)
>
>
> I think you're the one who is trying to take a safe position.
> I'm suggesting that any critics towards the Holy Qur'an and its challenge
is
> subject to
> learning Arabic and its rules before engaging in
> any linguistic details.
> You counter with the claim, that wify and dad in law with hi PhD can read
> Arabic.
> Is that a proof, that the qur'anic challenge is moot? I think not.
Never said that. Said that my wife and father were Arabic speakers, my
father in law is highly educated, both had read that book of yours, and
neither had a very high opinion of it. This point was made (check the
thread) PRIOR to your laying out this "Quranic Challenge", and thus, the
first had nothing to do with the other. (It's been a long thread, hard to
keep track of stuff, I know.)
>
> Reason and "faith" as you call it (by Muslims it's rather 'Aqeedah" which
is
> more than a firm convicton) aren't mutually exclusive. Islam and reason
are
> twins.
Actually, the two are linked to create true belief. They are indeed not
exclusive. On this we agree. But, balance, dude, balance. A little heavier
on the faith, a little lighter on the reason. Less stress, less mess.
>
Mike
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:..
>"friend" wrote:...
>>"Mike Craney" wrote:...
>>>"friend" wrote:..
.
> > > > Halt! No cheating please. I was talking thereabout, that asexual
> > > > reproduction in the faun and flora kingdom was verifiable. We are
> > > > not talking about the methods used for that purpose.
> > >The methods are relevant to the discussion.
> > No, they're irrelevant.
> Your opinion, not mine. Enough.
Good.
> <snip>
>> >>>Come on. The "overshadows" terminiology is a metaphor, not an
>>>>>explanation.
>>>>Than explain what the hell this terminology does mean.
>>>>How did this alleged power of the holy spirit overshadow Mary (as)?
>>>>How did she get pregnant? Where was God the Almighty while He
>>>>allegedly was hanging on Mary's (as) womb? How did the Almighty beget a
>>>>son?
>> > >We've already been here. Short memory?
>>No, sorry we haven't at all. All questions are still open to be debated
>>again and again.
>OK, we'll end it here. The "overshadows" terminology is the explanation.
>That's it. From this point, the precise details are unknown. The relevant
>Christology is this: Fully God, Fully Human, hypostatically linked. The
>divine is uncreated, the human begotten. That IS orthodox Christology. If
>you were under the impression I said something else, the impression was
>incorrect.
Good. You should have simply stated your orthodox belief as you just did
above and further lesser wasted my time with your far fetched
rationalizations
about the indefensible.
> <remainder of repetitive stuff to the above snipped>
>>>>LOL...re-read my statement again. It seems that you didn't grasp it.
>>>>Dude, your whole theological construct is built upon nothing but
>>>>syllogism.
>>>I grasped it just fine -- I read it as it was written. You said: "This
>>>was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
>>>Jesus' (as) nature." If you expressed yourself poorly, then clarify --
>>>don't lay it on me.
> >Oh, now you're bragging about my "poor expression", well, if you can
>>debate be in my mother tongue, German, you are more than welcome to do.
>>I'm willing to debate you in French or Arabic too, all that for your
>>convenience.
>>But, I'm afraid, you aren't capable thereof.
>Incredible. Two paragraphs up, you lay on the reading comprehension ad
>hominem; then, you scream foul when I do the same immediately after. This
is
>quite the game to you, isn't it?
Incredible? Not the least. I'm dead serious and in no way in mood to play
any game with your nor with anyone else. Verstanden?
>(Oh, congratulations on the language
>skills.
Thank you.
>Must be nice for you, being able to feel all superior and all.)
Oh...no, dear, I don't feel any kind of superiorty. What I really despise is
the fact
that people brag about their english skills when they face someone whose
first language is not the same as theirs and believe, they could put him
down.
Not with me!
>>>>LOL...that's the reason why many non-Muslims who spend years on
>>>>the book become Muslims.
>>>I'm sure you can list them all, in a short post.
>>Mabe in an extra post. There are thousands and thousands.
>No shortage of movement towards Christianity from Islam, either.
There's a conversion movement from Islam into Christianity. I never denied
this.
Were however the Muslims generally in a better ideological and intellectual
shape, I can
assure you that you would scarly find such a move towards Christianity.
>Think that means anything, one way or another?
>>>>The question is not a matter of syllogism, it's has rather to do with
>>>>whether this book is the work of men or not. The answer is yes or no.
>>>>Thus, we have no use for silly logical constructs nor any room for them.
>>>It was your syllogism. I just tossed it back at you.
>>Nope, I still used no sort of syllogism nor did I build my "belief" on
>>unverifiable premises as you do.
>Right, I forget. Being faithless is an asset, in your book. BTW, from the
>dictionary, a definition of syllogism is "a subtle or specious piece of
>reasoning" just so you know how I used the word.
Well as you say, it's just "a" definition among others. So feel free
to check your Merriam Webster or your Oxford Advanced Dictionary in order
to see that I always pointed out the syllogism and in the sense of its 1.
and 3.definition which a bit preciser than yours.
>>Well Arabic speaking non-Muslims tried to meet that challenge and so far
>>failed.
>>Non-Arabic speaking non-Muslims are welcome to try. Simple, isn't it?
>Sure. Except if you fail, it still proves nothing. Straw man.
Not at all. According to your logic, If people weren't capable
of reviving the deads or splitting the sea, would this mean that Jesus' (as)
or Moses (as) had set a straw man. Of ourse not. Those miraculous
actions in defiance of the nature laws are proofs for their truthfulness
among
their followers. That Muhammad (as) brought a book with a clear challenge
to all people of the world through the ages to produce at least some
verses similar to it, is not a straw man.
>>>2) The "Challenge" is a straw man, in that it assumes a quite debatable
>>>hypothesis: that the only explanation for a work that is textually unique
>>>and/or unusual is divine origin.
>>There's a no straw man there:
>>Either the qur'an is the work of Muhammad (as), or of any Arabic speaking
>>genius, or the common work of the arabic speaking folk.
>>If none of this three possibilities is true, then it must have come from
>>somewhere. Think a little bit about it.
>I have. Multiple possibilities exist. The Syrian Orthodox Church has some
>very old documents concerning an "alternative", and I've been after my
>father in law to get copies and translate them.
So please, just cite those possibilities. Just to vagely assert their
existence, is not
a proof for therefor.
>There are other postulates.
>Suffice to say that divine origin is the least probable, and will require
>something more.
Care to be more specific?
>>>Now, not one word of the above addresses the truth or falsehood of
>>>Islam, or the actual origin of the Quran. It only addresses logical
construct you
>>call the "Quranic Challenge," and polemical material the nature of which
you
>>are likely aware.
>>>>>I don't. I also don't expect Him to set the bar so high that it can't
>>>>>be
>>>>>reached by 99% of the non-Muslim human race. Listen to yourself: "Learn
>>>>>Arabic, become an expert on pre-Islamic poetry, live with a bunch of
> > >>>Bedouins for a few months, and see if I'm not right."
> > >>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>yeah...Jesus died again for our sins.LOL...
>>>Oh, quit changing the subject.
>>No the least. I'm responding to your ridiculous statement. Mocking a claim
>>is itself no proof therefor that the claim is not correct.
>True. Except, I didn't mock it. I laid it out in all its glory, for all to
>read, then had a personal chuckle about it. :-)
>>I think you're the one who is trying to take a safe position.
>>I'm suggesting that any critics towards the Holy Qur'an and its challenge
>>is subject to learning Arabic and its rules before engaging in
>>any linguistic details.
>>You counter with the claim, that wify and dad in law with his PhD can read
>>Arabic. Is that a proof, that the qur'anic challenge is moot? I think not.
>Never said that. Said that my wife and father were Arabic speakers, my
>father in law is highly educated, both had read that book of yours, and
>neither had a very high opinion of it.
Correct. And I pointed that Abu Jahl and Al Waleed ibn al Mughirah
were more versed in Arabic than your wife and father in law and didn't
belive in the Prophet. Guess why?
>This point was made (check the
>thread) PRIOR to your laying out this "Quranic Challenge", and thus, the
>first had nothing to do with the other. (It's been a long thread, hard to
>keep track of stuff, I know.)
>>Reason and "faith" as you call it (by Muslims it's rather 'Aqeedah" which
>>is more than a firm convicton) aren't mutually exclusive. Islam and reason
>>are twins.
>Actually, the two are linked to create true belief. They are indeed not
>exclusive. On this we agree. But, balance, dude, balance. A little heavier
>on the faith, a little lighter on the reason. Less stress, less mess.
Haha...nice try.
bye.
Mike Craney
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >OK, we'll end it here. The "overshadows" terminology is the explanation.
> >That's it. From this point, the precise details are unknown. The relevant
> >Christology is this: Fully God, Fully Human, hypostatically linked. The
> >divine is uncreated, the human begotten. That IS orthodox Christology. If
> >you were under the impression I said something else, the impression was
> >incorrect.
>
> Good. You should have simply stated your orthodox belief as you just did
> above and further lesser wasted my time with your far fetched
> rationalizations
> about the indefensible.
Dude. The way I stated it was always the way it was stated. If you want to
think otherwise, fine.
> >>>>LOL...re-read my statement again. It seems that you didn't grasp it.
> >>>>Dude, your whole theological construct is built upon nothing but
> >>>>syllogism.
>
> >>>I grasped it just fine -- I read it as it was written. You said: "This
> >>>was mainly due to the excessive use of syllogism to prove or disprove
> >>>Jesus' (as) nature." If you expressed yourself poorly, then clarify --
> >>>don't lay it on me.
>
> > >Oh, now you're bragging about my "poor expression", well, if you can
> >>debate be in my mother tongue, German, you are more than welcome to do.
> >>I'm willing to debate you in French or Arabic too, all that for your
> >>convenience.
> >>But, I'm afraid, you aren't capable thereof.
>
> >Incredible. Two paragraphs up, you lay on the reading comprehension ad
> >hominem; then, you scream foul when I do the same immediately after. This
> is quite the game to you, isn't it?
>
> Incredible? Not the least. I'm dead serious and in no way in mood to play
> any game with your nor with anyone else. Verstanden?
Nontheless, it is gamesmanship, your "mood" nonwithstanding. You are an
annoying debate adversary, certainly not based on content, but because of
this sort of inconsistency, (adding ad hominems into virtually every
paragraph, screaming foul when the same are used again you, creating
inappropriate analogies based on your adversaries statements "Well, you said
this, so you must also think this.....", etc.) and semantics chosen
specifically to draw an emotional reaction from your opponent (the
reference, for example, below to the very intelligent, well read, and
high-principled woman in my life as "wifey", for example. Did I insult any
of your family, although you did bring them into the equation?) Care for me
to go the archives and retrieve any one of dozens of posts you made to
women, where every paragraph contains a "darling," (knowing full well that
it is read as a condesending perjorative), if not a specfic derogatory
reference?
<Congratulations on the language skills.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >Must be nice for you, being able to feel all superior and all.)
>
> Oh...no, dear, I don't feel any kind of superiorty.
Then why did you brag? You're in print. See above.
> >>Well Arabic speaking non-Muslims tried to meet that challenge and so far
> >>failed.
> >>Non-Arabic speaking non-Muslims are welcome to try. Simple, isn't it?
>
> >Sure. Except if you fail, it still proves nothing. Straw man.
>
> Not at all. According to your logic, If people weren't capable
> of reviving the deads or splitting the sea, would this mean that Jesus'
(as)
> or Moses (as) had set a straw man. Of ourse not. Those miraculous
> actions in defiance of the nature laws are proofs for their truthfulness
> among
> their followers. That Muhammad (as) brought a book with a clear challenge
> to all people of the world through the ages to produce at least some
> verses similar to it, is not a straw man.
There is no logical correlary to my contention regarding the Quranic
Challenge to the incidents you mention. The contention is simple: The
existence of the book (or any book) is not a miracle. It breaks no laws of
physics, as the creation of a book happens every day. You contend that it's
CONTENT is a miracle, and that's quite nice for you. That, in and of itself,
is a proposterous contention -- but you may feel free to prove it if you
can. By attemtping to turn the table around, and saying "prove that it's
not" you are cleverly placing the burden of proof for this proposterous
contention elsewhere. If you do not have the means to positively prove your
contentions about the book, then simply assert it and move on.
> >>>2) The "Challenge" is a straw man, in that it assumes a quite debatable
> >>>hypothesis: that the only explanation for a work that is textually
unique
> >>>and/or unusual is divine origin.
>
> >>There's a no straw man there:
> >>Either the qur'an is the work of Muhammad (as), or of any Arabic
speaking
> >>genius, or the common work of the arabic speaking folk.
> >>If none of this three possibilities is true, then it must have come from
> >>somewhere. Think a little bit about it.
>
> >I have. Multiple possibilities exist. The Syrian Orthodox Church has some
> >very old documents concerning an "alternative", and I've been after my
> >father in law to get copies and translate them.
>
> So please, just cite those possibilities. Just to vagely assert their
> existence, is not
> a proof for therefor.
And no proof is intended. You simply said "think a little about it." I'm
just relating to you the fact that I have, and what direction my "thought"
is taking. So, any "theories" will have to wait until I see the data. Until
I have the documents, I do not think it apropos to relate hearsay regarding
their contents. I dislike stating what something is "supposed" to say, then
find out later that I've misrepresented.
> >There are other postulates.
> >Suffice to say that divine origin is the least probable, and will require
> >something more.
>
> Care to be more specific?
About what? The postulates, or divine origin being the least probable? If
referring to the postulates, see above. If referring to the probability of
divine origin, I'm just looking at the Quranic claims with the same critical
eye that you look at Christian Scripture with. Fair is fair.
> >>I think you're the one who is trying to take a safe position.
Perhaps all the positions around this topic *are* "safe". You have a
"challenge" which, in general, people are unable to undertake, and my
"challenge," that you provide positive assertive proof -- really can't
happen either. This is not a bad thing, and it is not an unusual situation
for theological debates.
> >>I'm suggesting that any critics towards the Holy Qur'an and its
challenge
> >>is subject to learning Arabic and its rules before engaging in
> >>any linguistic details.
> >>You counter with the claim, that wify and dad in law with his PhD can
read
> >>Arabic. Is that a proof, that the qur'anic challenge is moot? I think
not.
>
> >Never said that. Said that my wife and father were Arabic speakers, my
> >father in law is highly educated, both had read that book of yours, and
> >neither had a very high opinion of it.
>
> Correct. And I pointed that Abu Jahl and Al Waleed ibn al Mughirah
> were more versed in Arabic than your wife and father in law and didn't
> belive in the Prophet. Guess why?
Don't have to guess; I'll give you my interpretation. Like my wife and
father in law, they didn't buy off on Muhammad's fantasy. Was that what you
were thinking?
Mike
friend
"Mike Craney" wrote:...
> "friend" <hur...@my-deja.com> wrote:..
>>>OK, we'll end it here. The "overshadows" terminology is the explanation.
>>>That's it. From this point, the precise details are unknown. The relevant
>>>Christology is this: Fully God, Fully Human, hypostatically linked. The
>>>divine is uncreated, the human begotten. That IS orthodox Christology. If
>>>you were under the impression I said something else, the impression was
>>>incorrect.
>>Good. You should have simply stated your orthodox belief as you just did
>>above and further lesser wasted my time with your far fetched
>>rationalizations about the indefensible.
>Dude. The way I stated it was always the way it was stated. If you want to
>think otherwise, fine.
Aren't you supposed to clarify for us - the misguided ones -
your "Truth" about Jesus (as) ? So why do you have
to whine every time I ask you for specifics?
<Mikey's valley of tears and ad hominems snipped>
>>>Congratulations on the language skills.
>>Thank you.
>>>Must be nice for you, being able to feel all superior and all.)
>>Oh...no, dear, I don't feel any kind of superiorty.
>Then why did you brag?
No, I didn't. Since you complained about my "poor expression",
I simply pointed out that you're welcome to debate me in any of
the aforementioned languages for your conveniance.
>You're in print. See above.
Seen and snipped it for the sake of brevity.
>>>>Well Arabic speaking non-Muslims tried to meet that challenge and so far
>>>>failed. Non-Arabic speaking non-Muslims are welcome to try. Simple,
isn't it?
>>>Sure. Except if you fail, it still proves nothing. Straw man.
>>Not at all. According to your logic, If people weren't capable
>>of reviving the deads or splitting the sea, would this mean that Jesus'
>>(as) or Moses (as) had set a straw man. Of ourse not. Those miraculous
>>actions in defiance of the nature laws are proofs for their truthfulness
>>among their followers. That Muhammad (as) brought a book with a clear
challenge
>>to all people of the world through the ages to produce at least some
>>verses similar to it, is not a straw man.
>There is no logical correlary to my contention regarding the Quranic
>Challenge to the incidents you mention. The contention is simple: The
>existence of the book (or any book) is not a miracle.
First off, we are not talking about whether an existing book is
itself is no miracle.
>It breaks no laws of physics, as the creation of a book happens every day.
Second we are not talking about the "creation" of any book, be it now the
Holy Qur'an or otherwise.
>You contend that it's CONTENT is a miracle, and that's quite nice for you.
>That, in and of itself, is a proposterous contention -- but you may
>feel free to prove it if you can.
Third, you have been continuously and throughout this thread
shifting the related subject from your "truth" about Jesus (as) -
for which you of course provided no single evidence - to a throughly
questioning the veracity of the Qur'an and its challenge to humankind,
that you polemically qualify as preposterous.
Not to mention that you hitherto did not support your contention
with any tangible counterargument.
Now that you are asking for a proof, I should notice that I gave you
a solid evidence, that the Holy Qur'an is indeed a miracle because
of its unique and inimitable style. You, OTOH, reject this proof outright
and
instead of providing the slightest substantial argument, you incessantly try
to belittle it using your wifey and her daddy as references for
your counterevidence.
As a side note: I must notice that since the renowned John of Damascus'
polemics against The Prophet of Islam, the arrogance and haughtiness
of his heir has not changed yet.
>By attemtping to turn the table around, and saying "prove that it's
>not" you are cleverly placing the burden of proof for this proposterous
>contention elsewhere. If you do not have the means to positively prove your
>contentions about the book, then simply assert it and move on.
LOL...I gave my evidence that my claim is not a simple assertion as you are
alluding to.
I firmly said and reiterate, that the miracle of the Holy Qur'an lies firmly
in its style (neither prosa nor poetry, but rather a unique speech
unparalleled in the history of Arabic literature, while any arabic
linguist can check my claim) and its and expressiveness,
which actually is unlike that of any work produced by a human being.
Without rationalizing too much about its contents, which cover a large
spectrum of life aspects, if not all aspects, to say the least, I would
content
myself solely with the stylistic aspect because - as previously said -
of its uniqueness and inimaginable eloquence.
To get a glimpse of the "might of this spoken" word, it's inconceivable to
do it without the knowledge of the language (rules, poetry, clasical
literature,
grammar etc...) the Holy Qur'an was revealed in.
The lack of the said knowledge, would cause any outsider not
to feel and to sense and thusly not to immediately
perceive the might and beauty of the divine word. Subsequently,
he will not be able to verify the qur'anic claim nor to meet the challenge
wrt. to its inimitability.
Then speaking Arabic alone without a deep knowledge thereof is
not a sufficient requirement in order to meet it nor to .
In order to back up my claim and to remain brief,
I would like to quote here just some excerpts, from
a thread a Muslim posted some times ago, and which
illustrate pretty much my aforementioned points:
[Note that we have here a translation which in no way
reflects the beauty of th original language and the
unbelievable precise choice of the words!]
<<Example 1:
Allah (swt) says:
"And it was said: O Earth! Swallow thy water and, O sky! Be cleared of
clouds! And the water was made to subside. And the commandment
was fulfilled. And it [the ship] came to rest upon
[the mount] Al-Judi and it was said: A far removal
for wrongdoing people. (11:44)
This verse (ayah) is talking about the time of Noah . It consists of only 17
words, yet in it, Allah has related to us the entire events of the flood and
its aftermath. It tells us that the earth was filled with water and the
clouds
were overhead, then Allah ordered the Earth to drain the water from the land
and the sky to be clear of clouds. Then, the Earth and the Sky complied with
this order such that the land was no longer flooded, and the ship of Noah
came
to rest on a mountain. Then, Allah informs us that Noah's people were saved
from their oppressors as well as the fact that those people were destroyed.
All of these ideas are expressed in just one verse with very short sentences
using conjective letters six times and still not being repetitive or without
any
faltering in the exceptional eloquence or style of the Quran. In fact, it is
reported that when Ibn Muqaffah, a person commissioned by some Arabs to
produce something like the Quran, heard this ayah being recited by a person,
he gave up his effort and submitted to the superiority of the Quran's
eloquence
(balagha).
Example 2:
It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. However, when it
comes to the Quran, with the use of very few words, Allah provides us with
vivid descriptions of complex events such as that of a battle in one of its
chapters (surahs). In this Surah, Allah describes the scene of a battle in
such a manner that the reader would be able to visualize not just a
snapshot of it, but rather the entire course of the battle. He (SWT) says,
By the steeds that run, with panting (breath), Striking sparks of fire (by
their hooves), And scouring to the raid at dawn. And raise the dust in
clouds the while, Penetrating forthwith as one onto the midst (of the foe);
[Al-Adiyat 100: 1-5]
Here, Allah details for us the energy of the horses as they snort in
anticipation and the sparks arising from the clashing of their hoofs against
stones on the ground in their fierce charge towards the enemy. The backdrop
is the first light of dawn, and the tactic is to surprise the enemy. The
dust
is collecting behind them as a large troop rages across the desert
sands, and the horses show full obedience to their masters as they
ride into the ranks of the enemy, fearless and disciplined.
The eloquence with which the Quran relates
this is extraordinary. There are only ten words used to describe this entire
scene in the Quran, but a comprehensive explanation of their meaning, in
Arabic or any other language, would require pages.
These are just a few examples of the miraculous style of the Quran and its
ability to express many meanings in very few words without compromising its
eloquence. Thus, it is no wonder that every Arab poet, Muslim and non-Muslim
would memorize or keep reading the Quran. In addition, the eloquence of the
Quran is such that, even if one does not comprehend its meaning or know
arabic language, one would, upon hearing it, realize that it is a unique
text and
would appreciate its beauty.
Investigating the Possible Sources of the Quran
Another means by which to affirm that the Quran is from Allah is to
investigate the potential sources of the Quran and determine
which of those sources could have produced such a speech.
Muhammad claimed that the Quran is from Allah .
Thus, this presents us with two possibilities. Either Muhammad is, a liar,
and therefore the Quran is either from himself or from one of the Arabs, or
truthful, and the Quran is from Allah and we have to believe in him as a
Prophet.
Those who claim that Muhammad or one of the Arabs produced
the Quran have no evidence to support their claim. First of all,
if an Arab other than Muhammad produced the Quran then, who is he?
Why is it that there is no record in history of his or her name?
How did that person communicate with Muhammad ?
It is well documented that the revelation came to Muhammad in many
situations.
It would descend on him in his home, in the battlefield or the Masjid (place
of
worship), while he is traveling, and at other times and places. How would
someone who is until today not known to anyone have communicated with
Muhammad at all those times without anyone being a witness to such a thing.
Thus, the
proponents of the idea that an Arab produced the Quran and gave it to
Muhammad have nothing to stand on but false accusations without even a hint
of
evidence to substantiate them. In addition to this, we know that no
Arab was able to meet the challenge of the Quran to produce
something like it.
Allah (swt) says,
"And if you are in doubt concerning that which We (Allah ) have sent down
(i.e.
Quran) to our slave (Muhammad), then produce a Surah of the like thereof and
call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are
truthful" (2:23).
If an Arab did produce something of the level of the Quran, then one would
expect that he would have been famous among the people already. People would
have been familiar with his style. Others would have been expected to study
with him or to have taught him. At least those teachers or students should
have
been able to recognize the style of the Quran as being his. They should even
have been able to produce something similar to it as all human efforts can
be
surpassed by others later or at least imitated. This, however, has not been
the
case. In addition, it is an established historical fact that the Quran was
revealed over 23 years. Many of its Surahs were revealed, not as complete
Surahs, but rather over the course of many months and even years. In fact,
some
Surahs would have ayahs which were revealed at completely different times
from
the rest of the Surah interlaced into them in many different places without
interrupting the flow of the Surah or the eloquence of the Surah. This would
be
equivalent to someone writing a masterpiece novel by writing a page or
paragraph here and there, an impossible feat for a human being. In addition,
human speech and writing has the characteristic that it improves with time,
one's style gets better, more eloquent. However, we see that the Quran
maintains the same level of superb style throughout the Quran. Though the
tone
of the speech may vary from one Surah to another, no one can say that the
last
complete Surah revealed, Surah Nasr, has a better or worse style or is more
or
less eloquent than the first few ayahs revealed of Surah Alaq, the first
Surah.
Thus, the Quran cannot be from any of the Arabs or any other human being.
The Quran also cannot be the work of Muhammad because he too is one of the
Arabs. He was also known to be illiterate. He had never been taught how to
read
or write. Thus, he could not have produced a speech which surpasses that of
all
the intellectuals from the Arabs, past and present. Other evidence to
support
this conclusion is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of hadith
which record the speech of Muhammad . However the hadith are not miraculous
in
their speech. They are of the style of human speech, such that one would not
be
able to tell if a specific statement is from Muhammad or from a Sahabah
except
by the chain of narrators who would indicate the source of the statement. It
is
impossible that Muhammad would be able to maintain this difference between
his
speech and the revelation of the Quran.
In addition, if the Quran was produced by Muhammad , then why would he
produce
ayahs which actually threatened him, such as the ayah in which Allah says,
"And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us, We surely
should
have seized him with power and might, And then certainly should have cut off
his life artery (Aorta)." (69:44-46)
Also, why would Muhammad purposefully put himself in a position which could
have threatened his credibility, such as the incident related to Surah of
the
Cave. Muhammad in response to a challenge from the Pagans had told them he
would give them the answer tomorrow, assuming that Allah would send the
revelation to him by then. However, he was forced to wait three days, after
which Allah revealed the ayahs addressing the disbelievers' challenge along
with an ayah reminding the Prophet,
"And say not of anything: Indeed, I shall do that tomorrow. Except [that you
say] if Allah wills. And remember your Lord when you forget, and say: It may
be
that my Lord guides me to a nearer way of truth than this" (18:23-24)
Allah also blamed the Prophet for other things such as turning away from the
blind man and for swearing to leave some permissible things to please his
wives. None of those things would serve any purpose to him if he had been
producing the Quran all along and deceiving the people.
Regarding the coming of the revelation, Allah says,
"We (angel of revelation, Gibreel) come not down save by commandment of your
Lord. To Him belongs all that is before us and all that is behind us and all
that is between those two, and your Lord was never forgetful." (19:64).
This ayah was revealed in response to Muhammad's question to Gibreel as to
why
he hadn't come to him in some time. If Muhammad were to produce the Quran on
his own, for what purpose would he think of such an ayah as well as
fabricate
the incident surrounding it.
The Quran also made many statements, which would have been foolish for
Muhammad
to make as they could have undermined his entire message. As an example, in
Surah Masad, Allah condemned Abu Lahab and his wife to Jahannam (Hellfire),
"The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and
gains
will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, and his wife, the
wood
carrier, will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre" (111:1-5).
Here, the Quran makes a promise that Abu Lahab and his wife will never
accept
Islam. How would Muhammad know this. How would he know that Abu Lahab would
not
declare his belief in the Islamic doctrine hypocritically such that all the
people would think the Quran was wrong. In addition, if Muhammad were to
produce such an ayah he would have been expected to produce them about other
enemies just as staunch in their hatred during the Meccan period, such as
Abu
Jahl and Abu Sufyan. However, Allah did not reveal such ayahs because Allah
knows that Abu Sufyan would become Muslim and perhaps because Abu Jahl may
have taken the shahadah hypocritically. Only Allah could have known for sure
that Abu Lahab would be too arrogant to do this.
Similarly, the Quran made many other predictions such as the defeat of the
Byzantines by the Romans and the return of Muhammad back to Mecca as its
ruler.
It is impossible that Muhammad could have known that the Romans and Persians
would even have a war within the 10 year period specified by the ayah, let
alone know that the Romans would be successful. Also, how would Muhammad
even
know that he would live long enough to return to Mecca. How would he know
that
he would be successful enough to defeat the power of the Quraish. If any of
those prophecies were not to come true, the entire message of Islam would
have
become unraveled.
Thus, these evidences reaffirm that the Quran could not have been produced
by
Muhammad . It is full of knowledge and wisdom which is beyond the capacity
of
any nation or human being to produce. Therefore, Muhammad cannot be deemed a
liar and must be believed in as a Messenger from Allah. >>
\end\quote
<snip>
>>>There are other postulates.
>>>Suffice to say that divine origin is the least probable, and will require
>>>something more.
>>Care to be more specific?
>About what? The postulates, or divine origin being the least probable? If
>referring to the postulates, see above. If referring to the probability of
>divine origin, I'm just looking at the Quranic claims with the same
critical
>eye that you look at Christian Scripture with. Fair is fair.
Dude. A scripture which ascribes to God's Prophets and Messengers adultery,
accuse them of womanizing, though they are all sinless, disqualifies itself
and belongs
rather in a trash can than on one's bookshelves.
<snip>
>>And I pointed that Abu Jahl and Al Waleed ibn al Mughirah
>>were more versed in Arabic than your wife and father in law and didn't
>>belive in the Prophet. Guess why?
>Don't have to guess; I'll give you my interpretation. Like my wife and
>father in law, they didn't buy off on Muhammad's fantasy.
>Was that what you were thinking?
Missed the point as usual....so far nothin' new.
Mike Craney
Happy New Year.
Mike