Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 228076 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#163340 Feb 13, 2013
Shamma wrote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX ....
I. Freedom and Responsibility
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. the choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31
An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.
1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.
1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. the right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32
Neither a word from God in it, nor a word from Jesus.

Men doing the talking. Nothing redeeming in it.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#163341 Feb 13, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
On his own, Jesus could do nothing. It was God Almighty, who showed the miracles through Jesus.
It was God's power or force that was working behind him. Most of the time, when he was not showing miracles, the so-called divinity was zero.
Consider Jesus as a staff or a rod.
"At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves,‘This fellow is blaspheming!’" Matthew 9:3

The accusation of blasphemy by the religious leaders conclusively shows that Jesus was ascribing to himself divine prerogatives belonging to God alone.

Since Jesus’ claims raised conflicting responses we need to therefore read this passage within the context of the entirety of Matthew in order to see whether the Evangelist sought to portray Christ as God in the flesh or as a Spirit-empowered prophet. In other words, we need to read Matthew’s Gospel to discover Matthew’s perspective of Jesus.

Here is how Matthew begins his Gospel:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’(which means, God with us [Meth’ hemon ho Theos])." Matthew 1:18-23

According to the angel, Joseph was to give the child the name Jesus because he will save his own people from their sins. An English reader may not see the significance in the name and how this relates to his role as Savior. The name Jesus in Hebrew is Yashua/Yeshua and literally means "Yahweh saves":

18 sn The Greek form of the name Ihsous, which was translated into Latin as Jesus, is the same as the Hebrew Yeshua (Joshua), which means "Yahweh saves" (Yahweh is typically rendered as "Lord" in the OT). It was a fairly common name among Jews in 1st century Palestine, as references to a number of people by this name in the LXX and Josephus indicate.(Source)

What this demonstrates is that Jesus is Yahweh who has come to redeem people from their iniquities, doing the very thing that the OT says God does for his people Israel:

"If thou, O LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared… O Israel, hope in the LORD! For with the LORD there is steadfast love, and with him is plenteous redemption. And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Psalm 130:3-4, 7-8
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#163342 Feb 13, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorant Fool!
You, just like the silly and idiotic writers of the New Testament, went totally off-topic, the Christian Evangelist's way.
If you wish to discuss your nonsense about the allegations against Muhammad, discuss that separately with me, but at least read my post about the unholy Horse Shit, which you churned out:
This is what I wrote:
"That is really all bullshit. That is why we call Paul, the self-loathing sinner and liar. How can you believe in his crap and lies, when Jesus is on record for saying this?
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” "
This verse demolishes and bursts all the crap from Paul.
Please read and study the gospels yourself. And truth will set you free. Paul never set any one free."
Jesus says one thing and the conman Paul says another.
So, either Jesus was wrong or Paul was right? You choose the Liar. Jesus or Paul? Choose one now!
The Catholic Church sees no conflict between the teachings of Jesus and St Paul. So the problem is with you if you think there is a difference. I would take what Spirit filled people teach over what a heathen thinks. I like it how you muslims think you know more than what God's Church knows. Only the feeble minded would fall for your arguments; you don't even fall for your logic when it is applied to the koran and mohammad. As you know the koran has been changed since the original, with the satanic verses being removed, and how, someone decades after mohammad died, re-wrote the koran and had all other version burned.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#163343 Feb 13, 2013
Shamma wrote:
Muslims False teachings of God:

01. Islam teaches that shari'a, as God’s revealed law, perfect and eternal, is binding on individuals, society and state in all its details. By logical extension, any criticism of shari'a is heresy.

02. The mandates of shari'a are extremely harsh compared to modern Western standards. They infringe on many modern principles of human rights, religious freedom, and equality of all before the law. For example:

03. Hudud punishments are the severe penalities prescribed by shari'a for offenses defined as being against God himself.
Ans.

You have chosen the role of Prosecutor, Jury and Judge on the issue of Islamic Shriah, is that right or logical?

Let me put some information regarding Islamic Shariah based on my limited knowledge:

A. What is Islamic Shariah?

Islamic Shariah is the set of rules and guidelines that has been by our Creator.

These are based on Direct revelation from God (which is recorded in Quran) and sayings of Our Prophet (which are recorded in the Books of Hadith and tradition) and codification of these by Learned Islamic Scholars.

God is the Creator of everything in this Universe, so He is above any national, linguistic, ethnic, sexual bias.

Prophet is also sent for Entire Humanity and every nation of the world, so his teachings and rulings are also free from these types of bias,

B. What is its scope?

Shariah shows the way in which we should lead our lives and covers both religious and secular aspects of our lives.

There is no distinction of so called Church and State in Shariah. Since both are integral part of our lives, how can we be a part time followers of Shariah.

Shariah gives guidelines about religious issues as well as social, economic, criminal and International law.

There is no field of human life which is not under Shariah' scope.

And this is not scary part, by no means!!

C. Is it discriminatory?

Shariah rules are mostly for Muslims, and A Muslim is one, who has already volunteered to follow Shariah laws!!

For Non Muslims, Islam gives them freedom to choose their own courts and their own legal systems, except when there be some dispute between a Muslim and a Non Muslim, or matters governing public peace and law and order in the land.

D. Criminal Justice system:

There are basically two types of Justice system in the world

1. Modern Western Approach:

Which we can is based on "Corrective approach". In this system it is "assumed" that if Criminals are treated on "Humanitarian basis and their crimes taken as their foolhardiness" there is strong chance that they might get cured and leave their criminal activities.

In this approach, the criminal has got all the defenses and sympathies of public, there is no regard for the persons against whom the crime was committed.

On the face of it, it looks "very humanitarian approach" and best way to deal with erring members of human society.

(Contd.)
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#163344 Feb 13, 2013
2. Shariah Approach:

In Shariah' approach, the importance is given to the person against which the crime is committed.

Punishment given to the criminal is severe, so that it might serve as a deterrent to other would be criminals.

On the face of it, this looks like a Barbaric way to treat your own brother", but in reality it is the best way to deal with the crime situation.

In a very short time, the crimes almost disappear from the society and every one lives in peace.

3. Effectiveness of the two systems.

The so called Western Corrective System is in operation in Most of Western countries and every one can see its effectiveness.

The jails are full with criminals and the society has to pay for their upkeep and feed these "ever increasing erring members" of the society.

Shariah justice system is enforced in only one or two countries in the world and these countries are virtually "crime Free".

Effectiveness of any system is based on its success and every one can see that there is no comparison between Shariah and Western system.

Let people choose whether they want to live in a crime infested society or a crime free society.

E. Who should be afraid of Shariah?

In special reference to the Criminal Justice system the people who should worry about punishment should be the Criminals and not Normal Law abiding people!!

In every society, the law breakers are very few and law abiding people are in great majority.

Is it not strange that in this case "overwhelming majority" of people are "scared shit" as to what should be done to those who broke the law and caused so much pain to other people.

F. Is Shariah ONLY Punishment of Criminals?

Detractors of Islamic Shariah, try to present as if it is ONLY concerned with punishment and not with the welfare of people.

On the contrary, Shariah solves the Root cause of the problem, so that there is less incentive for any one to commit these crimes, I will give a few examples:

a. Theft: This is very often quoted as "extreme punishment" by chopping off the hand of thief man or woman, but look at the "precautions":

1. Islam has the system of Zakat in which 2.5 % of wealth is distributed to poor and weaker members of the society.

2. Then it is State which has to provide special funds for these poor people and feed them.

3. But if someone still steals something , then he has to face a punishment.

4. And one hardly sees people with one hand chopped off in any Muslim country.

b. Adultery: The punishment for adultery is 100 lashes if the parties are un married and death by stoning if any party is married. This is the same punishment as mentioned in Torah. But no one speaks about Torah and speaks as if “Islam invented this punishment”!!

This is very harsh punishment, but look at the safety precuations:

1. There must be at least “four eye witness” who have seen the act with their own eyes. I do not know which type of man and woman will do this illicit relationship in front of so many people unless they be in a “Live show”!!

2. The marriage in Islam is made easy and so is divorce, so there is no “forced relationship”.

3.. Polygamy is permitted for men, so that they can satisfy their sexual desires in a rightful way.

4. Islam bans, alcohol, free mixing of males and females and these drinks and dance parties. It is evident that chances are greatly reduced for such crimes especially if the parties are married.



(Contd.)
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#163345 Feb 13, 2013
c. Forced Rapes and Kidnapping:

The punishment is death and the recent demonstrations in India in the case of Gang Rape, proved that Islamic solution is what people want.

d. Murder and Armed struggle against Law full Govt.:

I doubt there would be any rational person who shall admit that Islamic solutions are right and help reduce such crimes to their lowest levels.

e. Apostasy:

Islamic punishemnt is death for this action and this is the biggest “Argument against Islamic Shariah” by Non Muslims, educated or uneducated.

They insuinate as if bulk of Muslims are “forced” to remain in the bondage of Islam, only because of threat of death penalty.

1. In thoery this might be correct but eevry one knows that no religion can hold majority of its population bonded because of threat of death penalty.

2. If that was the case, how come Muslims living in Western Countries still stick to Islam when no one is threatening them with death penalty?

3. Not only that Muslims in most Western countries are demanding that they be allowed to practice Islamic Shariah laws!!

4. And in history there are only hand counted cases of Muslims being killed on the charge of Apostasy.

5. And the Church despite killing millions of people on the charges of apostasy and heresey, was unable to restrict

6. The reality is that Overwhelming majority of Muslim want to live under Islamic Shariah. And wherever they get a chance to “cast their vote freely and fairly” they always choose Islam.

At least that is what we saw in elections in:

- Turkey

- Egypt

- Tunis

- Algeria

- Iran

- Libya

And any other Muslim country.

When asked to choose between Islam and non Islamic laws, most Muslims shall select Islam.

Whereas in Most Western Countires, they will prefer Non Christian laws over Christian laws!!

G. Shariah and Non Muslims:

This is another issue on which there is misunderstaing that Islam does restrict Non Muslims to live freely and interferes in their freedom.

This is another false charge, since in almost every Muslim countries, Non Muslims are living along side Muslims since generations.

Islam gives freedom to Non Muslims and allows them to practice their religions and even allows them to have their own courts and laws to settle their disputes.

Such a thing even in “Most Civilized and Modern Western Countries” would be called as “rebellion against the country and sediction”!!

So these Modern and Civilized countries have still to learn from Islamic Shariah

Allah Knows Best

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#163346 Feb 13, 2013
Catechism book of the Catholic Church.
Want answers? read the book from this link.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX....

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#163347 Feb 13, 2013
Article 1

THE REVELATION OF GOD

I. God Reveals His "Plan of Loving Goodness"

51 "It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature."2

52 God, who "dwells in unapproachable light", wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.3 By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

53 The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously "by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other"4 and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons repeatedly speaks of this divine pedagogy using the image of God and man becoming accustomed to one another: the Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man in order to accustom man to perceive God and to accustom God to dwell in man, according to the Father's pleasure.5

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#163349 Feb 13, 2013
MUQ wrote:
2. Shariah Approach:
In Shariah' approach, the importance is given to the person against which the crime is committed.
Punishment given to the criminal is severe, so that it might serve as a deterrent to other would be criminals.
On the face of it, this looks like a Barbaric way to treat your own brother", but in reality it is the best way to deal with the crime situation.
In a very short time, the crimes almost disappear from the society and every one lives in peace.
3. Effectiveness of the two systems.
The so called Western Corrective System is in operation in Most of Western countries and every one can see its effectiveness.
The jails are full with criminals and the society has to pay for their upkeep and feed these "ever increasing erring members" of the society.
Shariah justice system is enforced in only one or two countries in the world and these countries are virtually "crime Free".
Effectiveness of any system is based on its success and every one can see that there is no comparison between Shariah and Western system.
Let people choose whether they want to live in a crime infested society or a crime free society.
E. Who should be afraid of Shariah?
In special reference to the Criminal Justice system the people who should worry about punishment should be the Criminals and not Normal Law abiding people!!
In every society, the law breakers are very few and law abiding people are in great majority.
Is it not strange that in this case "overwhelming majority" of people are "scared shit" as to what should be done to those who broke the law and caused so much pain to other people.
F. Is Shariah ONLY Punishment of Criminals?
Detractors of Islamic Shariah, try to present as if it is ONLY concerned with punishment and not with the welfare of people.
On the contrary, Shariah solves the Root cause of the problem, so that there is less incentive for any one to commit these crimes, I will give a few examples:
a. Theft: This is very often quoted as "extreme punishment" by chopping off the hand of thief man or woman, but look at the "precautions":
1. Islam has the system of Zakat in which 2.5 % of wealth is distributed to poor and weaker members of the society.
2. Then it is State which has to provide special funds for these poor people and feed them.
3. But if someone still steals something , then he has to face a punishment.
4. And one hardly sees people with one hand chopped off in any Muslim country.
b. Adultery: The punishment for adultery is 100 lashes if the parties are un married and death by stoning if any party is married. This is the same punishment as mentioned in Torah. But no one speaks about Torah and speaks as if “Islam invented this punishment”!!
This is very harsh punishment, but look at the safety precuations:
1. There must be at least “four eye witness” who have seen the act with their own eyes. I do not know which type of man and woman will do this illicit relationship in front of so many people unless they be in a “Live show”!!
2. The marriage in Islam is made easy and so is divorce, so there is no “forced relationship”.
3.. Polygamy is permitted for men, so that they can satisfy their sexual desires in a rightful way.
4. Islam bans, alcohol, free mixing of males and females and these drinks and dance parties. It is evident that chances are greatly reduced for such crimes especially if the parties are married.
(Contd.)
But it don't stop Muslim men from raping women and young girls.
http://markhumphrys.com/egypt.html#human.righ...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#163350 Feb 13, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I had written:
God is holy.
You cannot say that God has a holy spirit.
When your own Jesus said that God is spirit, why do you need to give God something so absurd as the so-called Holy Spirit?
And look at your silly reply. Where does God say, "I have a Holy Spirit"?
God always declared through the messengers: "I am the LORD". By the way this not the Christian "Lord".
Always remember to write LORD for God Almighty. You can call Jesus 'Lord', which I Am to my car drivers in the ME.
If you write "Lord" for God Almighty, then make "lord", so that we can differentiate.
Anyway, the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit of Christianity does not exist. If it had existed, then Christianity would not have taken centuries of fraud, forgery and misinformation to evolve to what it is now.
I'm sometimes thinking that people are just throwing words around.

Holy:
Old English halig "holy, consecrated, sacred, godly," from Proto-Germanic *hailaga-(cf. Old Norse heilagr, Old Frisian helich "holy," Old Saxon helag, Middle Dutch helich, Old High German heilag, German heilig, Gothic hailags "holy"). Adopted at conversion for Latin sanctus.

Primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not possible to determine, but probably it was "that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated," and connected with Old English hal (see health) and Old High German heil "health, happiness, good luck" (source of the German salutation Heil). Holy water was in Old English. Holy has been used as an intensifying word from 1837; used in expletives since 1880s (e.g. holy smoke, 1883, holy mackerel, 1876, holy cow, 1914, holy moly etc.), most of them euphemisms for holy Christ or holy Moses.
---
Well you can determine it as indeed: that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot betransgressed of violated.
And that is what revelation as lifting the veil, seeing the bigger picture is about.
Strife to make the world heal. Whole, leave it intact.
That would be milord-mylord (adonai) teaching.

It's not an abstraction of setting g-d on a pedestal, but 'milord' would be precedent, an sustained analogy and reminder.

The outline would indeed be for bible translations( not all though) to use versions of 'lord'.
I consider it needless obfuscation, because the appellation originally given have meaning all by themselves.
And exactly that goes lost in translation.
El or Al would allready imply mighty.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#163351 Feb 13, 2013
As if you would replace all the appelation of Allah with 'lord'.
I will never understand why they could not have added.'read the word as is but when pronouncing it say milord.'

“warning angel of Allah”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#163352 Feb 13, 2013
jimmie c boswell wrote:
well it is true, that calling HaShem G-D anything other than what is given in TheTorah, is the forbidden art of witchraft of altering TheTorah. and there is no allah name mentioned in TheTorah. and you cannot even call YHVH, yaweh cause that is not how YeHOO VHee (Redemption is HE And SHE is pronounced. this according to TheOUR IMAGE of G-D, always given to Adam in the first comming of Adam. and not revealed unto always the second of adam here in always TheTorah, from TheG-D of Only and Always TheTorah is unceasingly now. and TheG-D of Only TheTorah does not give the koran to Moshe. shalomcha vshalomech???,?...
Who made these rules ? God never denied anyone the opportunity to call on his name. It is witchcraft to supress the name of God. God has many different names as recorded in the various holy scriptures. The reason why people do not want God's name called upon, is because in that name is power and freedom from slavery. Once a people know who they trully are, and know who their God trully is, then such a people will be able to call upon that God for help and assistance, and recieve it ! The irony, is that those who make such rules, are not even the true custodians of the holy scriptures anyway.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#163353 Feb 13, 2013
Qoute
53 The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously "by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other"4 and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

end quote

This is an extreme misunderstanding of how revelation-setting free, be safe intact and perceiving the way to accomplish that, is twisted. Continue in history and you find the church=incarnate word, as the revelation and it's religious rituals and it theology (perceptions of what the god means to them) becoming a tool for control.
The same goes for islam.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#163354 Feb 13, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Rabbee,
The Christian scripture was written by men. Almost half is filled by Paul, who did not teach and preach, what Jesus taught and preached.
This Paul, not in your theTorah, was a liar. G-d never lied and neither did his obedient Slave Jesus.
Paul wants every Christian to feel miserable, self-loathe, feel sick and he wants them to suffer for Jesus and that is Horse shit, Rabbee.
Jesus never wanted that. Now tell me, if G-d wanted you to suffer and self-loathe like Paul, who perverted theChrist's teaching, theChrist which was never promised in-theTorah ?
rabbee: and you hypoctite! the quran was written by what or whom? there is no claim, it was written by G-D or Angel. and muhammed allegedly, could not even write.

so how does your text written by other critters, make it better than theirs allegedly altered by critters? when you even claim that G-D is not, or does not consist of TheHOLY SPIRIT. that only leaves the unholy spirit of critters alleged as men, to write your quran text. comparing one erred text against another errant text, won't get to the truth. two diverse ways of lying, does not cancel out each other out for one or the other to become the truth.

what ever even the christians have today, is not what Paool or Pheter, or Yaachov wrote then. if it has been altered its, no longer Paool's, Pehter's, or Yaacov's writtings or Yeshooah's sayings. they can't even, get their names right and neither can muslems. j names never even existed, untill well after 1054. did not even become popular, untill after the 15th century. which makes them all suspicious, at the very least.

i do not trust, any of you whether your muslem, christian, jews, or other pagan today. i only trust TheG-D WHO came to visit with me. and there is no way, i am smart enough to know what is true with G-D, without any actual visit from G-D. i wasted 41 years, proving that, prior to the second visit with G-D. so don't even try to convince me, that any of you know what is right or wrong according to G-D, without an actual audience with HIM. as far as i am concerned, any scripture that is not verified as in TheTorah, is all political vain territorial bs.

“warning angel of Allah”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#163355 Feb 13, 2013
This has to be a trick question, because no man can define Allah.

“warning angel of Allah”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#163356 Feb 13, 2013
rabbee yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: and you hypoctite! the quran was written by what or whom? there is no claim, it was written by G-D or Angel. and muhammed allegedly, could not even write.
so how does your text written by other critters, make it better than theirs allegedly altered by critters? when you even claim that G-D is not, or does not consist of TheHOLY SPIRIT. that only leaves the unholy spirit of critters alleged as men, to write your quran text. comparing one erred text against another errant text, won't get to the truth. two diverse ways of lying, does not cancel out each other out for one or the other to become the truth.
what ever even the christians have today, is not what Paool or Pheter, or Yaachov wrote then. if it has been altered its, no longer Paool's, Pehter's, or Yaacov's writtings or Yeshooah's sayings. they can't even, get their names right and neither can muslems. j names never even existed, untill well after 1054. did not even become popular, untill after the 15th century. which makes them all suspicious, at the very least.
i do not trust, any of you whether your muslem, christian, jews, or other pagan today. i only trust TheG-D WHO came to visit with me. and there is no way, i am smart enough to know what is true with G-D, without any actual visit from G-D. i wasted 41 years, proving that, prior to the second visit with G-D. so don't even try to convince me, that any of you know what is right or wrong according to G-D, without an actual audience with HIM. as far as i am concerned, any scripture that is not verified as in TheTorah, is all political vain territorial bs.
The Quran was written after the death of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad recited the text throughout his life to scribes who recorded it. Koran mean "to recite".
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#163357 Feb 13, 2013
Suhayl Hadar wrote:
<quoted text>Who made these rules ? God never denied anyone the opportunity to call on his name. It is witchcraft to supress the name of God. God has many different names as recorded in the various holy scriptures. The reason why people do not want God's name called upon, is because in that name is power and freedom from slavery. Once a people know who they trully are, and know who their God trully is, then such a people will be able to call upon that God for help and assistance, and recieve it ! The irony, is that those who make such rules, are not even the true custodians of the holy scriptures anyway.
rabbee: so do you believe essencially, that 'hey you!' is an acceptable name and shows respect for G-D? or bob, bud, billie, or sob, or ahole are also correct to use? or any other name you, or any one else damn well pleases? then you will fit right in, with the rest of the gravy sucking clowns on this message board.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#163358 Feb 13, 2013
Suhayl Hadar wrote:
<quoted text>The Quran was written after the death of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad recited the text throughout his life to scribes who recorded it. Koran mean "to recite".
Where are these original texts recited by mohammad?
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#163359 Feb 13, 2013
Suhayl Hadar wrote:
This has to be a trick question, because no man can define Allah.
rabbee: well i am sure, that baal hamolech is definable. and much worse than hasatan, who is also definable. neither which is as bad off as halooseefer, who is also definable. so no matter what the case is, these make the all-h of today definable.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#163360 Feb 13, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are these original texts recited by mohammad?
rabbee: well that was the problem, since only muhammed could speak modern english and modern arabic at that time. so no body else, understood what in the hell he was saying. so they wrote, whatever in the hell they wanted anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Sun Shizle 40
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Jul 24 skylar 108
Shadows and sounds Jul 23 Dizy 1
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Jul 6 TC_Tia 14,656
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Jul 4 Pam 11
News What is Asatru? (Dec '10) Jul 3 ex pagan 2
News Sorry Witches, You Won't Be Able to Buy Spells ... Jun '15 Drake_Burrwood 1
More from around the web