Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256604 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.

HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#193777 Oct 27, 2013
Best of luck, Seeker. You will need it.
warner

London, UK

#193778 Oct 27, 2013
HughBe wrote:
Best of luck, Seeker. You will need it.
To look at God's face would be similar to looking at the Sun in the sky without sunglasses, after looking at the brightness you are left blind! We can imagine what God looks like but even Moses was not allowed to see His face! The scripture is clear, but to ask Seeker to explain it when it is clear what it says, is ridiculous! Seeker knows God has a face and the nearest she/he can get to how God looks is, He will look like Jesus, but Jesus did not have a portrait drawn/painted, so who really knows? I know someone who knows what Jesus looks like, but l won't tell you his name! Muslims/ Mohammadians will probably think God looks like Mohammad but again there is no portrait, so it's your imagination!

I think that you want to ask Seeker what God looks like, but is Seeker a Prophet greater than Moses? Sometimes, you ask Christians ridiculous things!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193779 Oct 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I could pick this apart in many ways, but conversation with you is already too complex and your stances keep changing, so I don't even want to get into this with you right now.
But I will bring up one point. Yes, the Hebrew scriptures say young woman rather than virgin, but would you care to explain to me how a birth would be seen as a "sign" unless there was something very unusual about that birth? Why would a "young" woman giving birth be a sign in of itself unless there was something very unique about that birth that made it different than all of the other young women giving birth at that time? Is everybody just supposed to ignore that a birth in of itself is being called a sign? What sign would a normal birth in of itself be giving? What is the sign behind a young woman merely doing what many other young woman did?
See, a virgin woman who gives birth a child couldn't be a sign for the simple reason that no one can prove she was virgin. All the people can think she did it with someone without telling to her parents and then told us she gave birth to a child by being virgin.

In that age as now if a young girl, say a teenager, gives birth to a child and she claims to anyone she is virgin,(no sex with anyone) then would you or any one else believes to her or would you think she lied, she did it with someone and deny it?

Furthermore the virginity of a person is something intime and it cannot be verified by people, therefore virginity as a sign doesn't make much sense. A sign should be something that anyone can see and verify without a doubt.

What the 7th chapter of Isa says is that after the birth of that child, born from a young woman, will happen what was supposed to happen.

An important note, when Yeshua was born the two countries that were against king Ahaz were destroyed?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193780 Oct 28, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
See, a virgin woman who gives birth a child couldn't be a sign for the simple reason that no one can prove she was virgin. All the people can think she did it with someone without telling to her parents and then told us she gave birth to a child by being virgin.
In that age as now if a young girl, say a teenager, gives birth to a child and she claims to anyone she is virgin,(no sex with anyone) then would you or any one else believes to her or would you think she lied, she did it with someone and deny it?
Furthermore the virginity of a person is something intime and it cannot be verified by people, therefore virginity as a sign doesn't make much sense. A sign should be something that anyone can see and verify without a doubt.
What the 7th chapter of Isa says is that after the birth of that child, born from a young woman, will happen what was supposed to happen.
Well since this woman was never identified, how would anybody be able to know a birth as a sign when so many women gave birth? Also, I believe that a woman could be identified as a virgin if she still is one by checking if the hymen is still present.
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
An important note, when Yeshua was born the two countries that were against king Ahaz were destroyed?
16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

All that it says is that this will happen before the child knows to refuse evil and choose good. There's no time frame really given at all as to when this child will be born. None of it is conclusive as Isaiah was very cryptic. He probably should have at least said who this child would be born to or said something like the daughter of a King or whatever. Otherwise, the birth cannot be a sign because using your same logic, nobody could recognize it as a sign and nobody could know which child is the sign.

But at least according to the story of Jesus, some immediately recognized his birth as a sign of the coming Messiah. At least according to the story.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193781 Oct 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey the man asks and speaks...about winged angeloi.
I told you before : do not bother.
Greek or not, it's a point we can never get confirmed unless we could travel back in time.
Well then you can't do anything with your theories except invent them. But they don't seem to have a lot of common sense to them and instead appear to be spurious and creative and weakly substantiated. While you appear like you read a great deal, I am not impressed by your deductive reasoning abilities and you come up with ideas that are very questionable and not particularly plausible when examined properly. You don't seem to ask yourself the question of what people would reasonably do given a situation.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
If we include the question on the women the message is essentially that in heaven no dead people can be found, all are alive.
Well no kidding. Who would ever say there are dead people in heaven? Again, you lack common sense. The question had to do with the logical problems one faces if there is an afterlife, and that was what the Saduccees were getting at. But if they knew that Jesus would answer the way he did, they wouldn't have brought the question up. If you want to prove someone wrong, as they were clearly trying to do, you don't ask them a question that you know they can answer. So clearly they didn't think of Jesus' answer and instead thought he would have no workable answer and would be stumped or else they wouldn't have asked it. It's plain common sense. It's obvious. Think about it.

I can't continue on with you. You don't use common sense logic and reasoning, and if one is not willing to apply that to ideas, one can invent any angle they want and keep doing that forever. The question isn't just if something is possible, you have to apply questions like how would people would be expected to behave in that situation and what would be their motives for doing xyz, to the question as well, and you don't seem to spend much time thinking about that part.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
(easy interpretation, and i shows that the sadducees were allready aware of the arguement and prepared to have a good laugh,
That's not an easy interpretation at all and instead is a very unlikely one. Nowhere does it say they laughed, it says they were muffled. They were muffled because they didn't expect Jesus to be able to give an answer and instead expected him to be logically stumped by their question, and when he wasn't, they didn't know what to do. The meaning behind these verses is not difficult to see nor was it even intended to be that way and I have no idea why you keep trying to make it that way.

But I just can't continue on with you, because you will make up whatever you want forever, and as long as there is the tiny chance that your idea "could" be true, you will introduce it as something that is likely true without putting it through the rigors of common sense.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193782 Oct 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I should make it clearer, something like winged angels is foreign to them.
Jesus did not say winged Angels. YOU are adding that. Again, you logical reasoning abilities are flawed. You keep inserting things in there that are never said at all.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
messengers in heaven...??? None know what that is like, apart from not having to marry, nor be forced into marriage, even though those men are as real as even with unchanged nature.(different use of the word)
But i maintain that it might have been a dispute, it became ever more intangible as there was no possibility of an actual heir of the house of David, male nor female having the option of giving birth.
But again sticking to the NT as is, there is no reason to walk away. Later plenty are provided.
So far so good.
Who thinks so far so good? You? There was no possibility of a female being considered an heir to the House of David? If a child was born of a virgin birth, there is no earthly man that could be considered the heir, and the child himself would be considered the heir via his mother's lineage. All of these things are very difficult to ascertain one way or the other, so I have no idea how you could act so assured about anything when it comes to things like this. It's all very vague.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
well in the greek text this would not be an option.
Then we use logos f.i. as Heraclitus meant it, and read that the old god is dead because he lacks spunk.
There's that "if" again. But why are we supposed to use it as Heraclitus meant it except to make your idea work? You don't explain.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
A real mess, not making sense at all, untill you notice the verses that are connected resurrection and salvation and the new god with his ahmad./advocate.
The only person who said Ahmad was Muhammad. You don't think it was possible that he was putting words into the mouth of Jesus for self serving purposes? Especially since we can find no such quote from Jesus in any scripture except the Quran? That possibility never occurs to you? And the Advocate was not supposed to be a new God at all. The advocate was a Spirit sent to Jesus' apostles and it is found plastered all over the book of Acts.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems to be the only message.
Seems that way according to who? Just you or ANY reasonable person? Again, while you are very well read and creative, I don't have much confidence in your deductive reasoning abilities. You don't seem to be very willing to question your own ideas before you present them and ask yourself about what people would be expected to do in a situation and what their motives might be. Any good Prosecutor doesn't just say that they think that someone did something, they also provide reasons WHY the person would do it and what a reasonable person would do given a situation. A reasonable person would buy life insurance for his wife before he blows her away. There is the reasonable, but greedy and wrong behavior, and there is the motive.

Now, if we believe that Jesus was a pious Jew, as he was at least supposed to be, the last thing he would want to do is to introduce Greek ideas and instead would be trying to introduce what he believes to be his correct interpretation of Hebrew ideas. And if they were Greek ideas and he was using Greek sources and references to substantiate them, he wouldn't even get the time of day from his fellow Jews. Notice, he wasn't out preaching to the Greeks, he was preaching to the Jews. This is common sense, which apparently isn't always that common.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193783 Oct 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are all later texts. And most have vague references to a year that was specific for them, but not to us.
You keep qouting things that were writtne much later, that can not be authoritative.
All I did was to quote a reliable source that did indeed say that there most certainly is a concept of an afterlife in Judaism. Otherwise it would have stated that there is no such concept and that everything is about the here and now, as you originally contended. Look at even modern day Jews in Israel. When someone suicide bombs, you watch the paramedic do an extensive search for even tiny things of the body like fingers and collect them. Why would they be doing that?

But Jesus was reminding them that there is an afterlife by saying that the Hebrew God is the God of the living, not the dead, meaning life continues on after this life is over if one follows God. That is ALL that he was trying to say. The twists you are trying to add to it are bizarre.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193784 Oct 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good questions, Seeker. They are useful to those who desire truth. I have not been following the exchanges but I believe that I know the word in dispute. So, ask her if the word has been applied to virgins. The answer is YES and so it does not exclude virgins.
I have had the same debate with her fellows and it is the same nonsense.
The word almah meant a young woman of childbearing age who had not yet given birth and who might or might not be a virgin.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Take the words KNOW or KNEW they do not mean SEX but the bible uses them to mean sex.[/QAUOTE]

Because they do in that context.

[QUOTE who="HughBe"]<quo ted text>
Here is one such example, "And Adam KNEW Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."
That is one of many examples.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193785 Oct 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Also when it exposes their false doctrines they will call you a literalist.
Ask her if she accepts that God has a FACE, BACK etc?
Compare her answer to her approach on the matter that you are discussing with her. Also compare her beliefs to what is plainly stated in the scriptures.
I don't think I am going to be asking her much more, because any time she finds herself painted into a logic corner, she's just going to say "that's besides the point" and change the focus or even change her initial claim, and she has already done things like that. So it really becomes a pointless exercise if one is going to merely move the bar if they find themselves in a pickle. You can't get anywhere with someone who is willing to do that, and I think that she has already displayed that she is more than willing to do that. Not to mention that her writing style is very difficult to follow and very disheveled. Sometimes almost bordering on incoherent, although I won't go that far. I save that one for Jimmie Boswell.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193786 Oct 28, 2013
warner wrote:
<quoted text>To look at God's face would be similar to looking at the Sun in the sky without sunglasses, after looking at the brightness you are left blind! We can imagine what God looks like but even Moses was not allowed to see His face! The scripture is clear, but to ask Seeker to explain it when it is clear what it says, is ridiculous! Seeker knows God has a face and the nearest she/he can get to how God looks is, He will look like Jesus, but Jesus did not have a portrait drawn/painted, so who really knows? I know someone who knows what Jesus looks like, but l won't tell you his name! Muslims/ Mohammadians will probably think God looks like Mohammad but again there is no portrait, so it's your imagination!
I think that you want to ask Seeker what God looks like, but is Seeker a Prophet greater than Moses? Sometimes, you ask Christians ridiculous things!
I don't think he was asking me to explain what God looks like, and of course I never could, nor would I ever do such a thing. I leave that up to Jimmie Boswell. LOL!!!

As far as I am concerned, God is something that is simply beyond the ability of the conceptualizing mind to ever be able to fully comprehend using the limitations of the conceptualizing mind. It is something beyond the concept of reasoning itself. You cannot apply the concept of reasoning to the origin of the concept of reasoning itself. One cannot even do that with life itself, although plenty of people pretend that they can and pretend that they understand what life is. But that is actually impossible to do through the reasoning and conceptualizing mind. If God exists, it has to be something much more than our limited ideas and concepts. If it is the origin of the ability to reason and create concepts, then it has to be something beyond those things and necessarily has to involve qualities that are beyond our ability to ever understand.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193787 Oct 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Also when it exposes their false doctrines they will call you a literalist.
Well aside from whether doctrines are false or not, I find this to be very interesting. There is nothing conclusive about it, it just causes me to question why it happens.

Here in KJV, we see this
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Now, when I go here
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1009.htm

I see this:
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar -shalom;

Now there could be a very good reason why the last part is not translated into English. But, if you look at the rest of the chapter, the entire thing is translated into English, It is ONLY that one part of that one verse that is not. Not only that one verse, as the first part is translated into English, but only the last part of that one verse.

Now I am sure the explanation is that the true translation of that part is under question and is disputed, so the website just leaves it untranslated. But why would only that one part of that one verse have a disputed translation? And then one has to begin to ask about the question of motives and what it would mean if the KJV version was essentially correct.

So given the significance that this would have, people are going to work really hard to make the translation unclear and disputed. But for some reason, it is only that one part that is deemed difficult to translate correctly, and all of the rest of it seems quite translatable, at at least according to this website. This is classic human behavior. Things often only seem to be questionable when the possible meaning of something can be disturbing. That is classic human behavior, aside from any religious discussions, and it really applies to everything across the board.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193788 Oct 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
BMZ

That is not from the Scripture. What does the Tanakh say?

MAAT

it's an unholy muddle.

maybe understood by the era they were living in...to by all means not forget to mention christian sources.

Which had been the norm since 1090 CE.

MAAT as long as you continually criticize the NT without applying the same logic to the Quran, this guy is going to praise you and feed your ego to the end of the earth. But don't dare to start being analytical about the Quran, or you will find out what is really going on behind all of this ego feeding praise he is giving you. He is playing you like a fiddle.

And I am still waiting to find out who the author of much of the Torah is, given the format in which it was written, but you don't seem to be willing to apply the same rules and analytical glasses to that as you are more than willing, or even bent on applying to the NT. That;s no big deal. You are allowed to do whatever you feel like here, but it is duly noted.
Wish I had not read this post, Seeker.

Was this rant, a vain attempt to sow discord, really necessary?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193789 Oct 28, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Wish I had not read this post, Seeker.
Was this rant, a vain attempt to sow discord, really necessary?
What discord? You will praise anybody no matter what they say as long as they don't touch the Quran. I could come on here pretending I am someone else and make up false stories and claims about the NT that you would never even question or double check them and you would buy them hook line and sinker and you would praise me. And then, the moment I decide to do the same thing with the Quran, your praise would immediately evaporate. Muslims here are all about building "teams" and "alliances", no matter who they might be with, as long as they don't touch the Quran. It's obvious. And as long as the Quran never gets touched and as long as the NT is trashed, you won't even question a single claim that the person makes. If I were dishonest, I would register as a member here so that I could hide my location, and I would be able to prove what I say to you by doing what I said and then later telling you who I was the whole time. It would be very easy to do.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193790 Oct 28, 2013
BMZ, if you will notice, sometimes people have said things that aren't true or found in the Quran and I have corrected them. For example, Islam "encourages", raping young girls. I said that I don't think it does, but as far as having sex with them, someone could possibly use the exampleof Muhammad as a justification. But other than that, nowhere do i see where Islam of the Quran actually "encourages" one to do that. At best, it "may" offer a justification for one to do that if that is what one wants to do.

There have also been other claims made elsewhere that say that Islam demands that everybody be a Muslim. That is clearly not true and I have corrected them. While it might be true that Islam demands that everyone be ruled by Muslims and God's law, it does not demand that everyone be a Muslim.

But if someone makes up an untrue claim about Christianity that trashes it, and you know it is not true, you won't offer one single correction. You do not care about accuracy, you only care about Islam being made out to look good and Christianity being made out to look bad.

And as long as there is a Jew on the forum bent on trashing the NT, whether what they say is actually accurate or not does not matter to you and you won't even question their claims or even double check them or think about them. And then suddenly, you claim that Islam does not think badly about the Jews to appease this person and strengthen the alliance and keep this person going. Because if you said the truth about Islam and the Quran's feelings for the Jews, this person would not be your buddy anymore. So I had to quote a ton of verses that clearly prove that the Quran does not like the Jews.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#193791 Oct 28, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
See, a virgin woman who gives birth a child couldn't be a sign for the simple reason that no one can prove she was virgin. All the people can think she did it with someone without telling to her parents and then told us she gave birth to a child by being virgin.
In that age as now if a young girl, say a teenager, gives birth to a child and she claims to anyone she is virgin,(no sex with anyone) then would you or any one else believes to her or would you think she lied, she did it with someone and deny it?
Furthermore the virginity of a person is something intime and it cannot be verified by people, therefore virginity as a sign doesn't make much sense. A sign should be something that anyone can see and verify without a doubt.
What the 7th chapter of Isa says is that after the birth of that child, born from a young woman, will happen what was supposed to happen.
An important note, when Yeshua was born the two countries that were against king Ahaz were destroyed?
rabbee: yes i know, how helpless the really busy G-D has been for the past 5+ days. and that TheG-D, WHO has made all of history happen not happen. and how much more powerful, you think your lying mental magic is. and that TheG-D WHO has done everything right, can't do anything right according to you. because your soooo, mentally special, superior and unique. or that TheG-D, WHO only promised to give TheWhole Torah, has not been giving according to your way of not seeing it all happen again. and that TheG-D WHO always gives birth to Adam and adam and chaooah, is incapable of doing this any more here in TheTorah. cause your mental magic refuses to see, where you got it all wrong. in spite of the fact that HaShem G-D, has done an excellent job of getting it all right again. no matter how wrong this whole mentally decrepit world, has refused to see it all here in TheTorah again. because your, mentally lying false wittness opinion says so.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#193792 Oct 28, 2013
if this whole world of jews, christians, and not so likely muslims, think it is you who are keeping G-D alive. you just might want to, guess wrong again. when the facts are, all your keeping alive is your corrupt ways of thinking against G-D here in Only TheTorah from THEM.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193793 Oct 28, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: yes i know, how helpless the really busy G-D has been for the past 5+ days. and that TheG-D, WHO has made all of history happen not happen. and how much more powerful, you think your lying mental magic is. and that TheG-D WHO has done everything right, can't do anything right according to you. because your soooo, mentally special, superior and unique. or that TheG-D, WHO only promised to give TheWhole Torah, has not been giving according to your way of not seeing it all happen again. and that TheG-D WHO always gives birth to Adam and adam and chaooah, is incapable of doing this any more here in TheTorah. cause your mental magic refuses to see, where you got it all wrong. in spite of the fact that HaShem G-D, has done an excellent job of getting it all right again. no matter how wrong this whole mentally decrepit world, has refused to see it all here in TheTorah again. because your, mentally lying false wittness opinion says so.
WTF?? LOL!!! That didn't even relate to anything he said one iota. LOL!!!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193794 Oct 28, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
if this whole world of jews, christians, and not so likely muslims, think it is you who are keeping G-D alive.
LOL!!! And where the heck did anybody say THAT???? OMG, you are just too much sometimes. LOL!!!
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#193796 Oct 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?? LOL!!! That didn't even relate to anything he said one iota. LOL!!!
rabbee: oh yes it, did! he imp-lied that G-D, cannot create life. and rates for some well deserved sarcasm, in regards to such a silly inept statement. as he disregards, why G-D did this in such an unusual manner. but is in total alignment, with the way G-D gives birth to Their OUR Son Adam. no matter what kind of jesus excuse, the world makes to keep them from seeing this in TheTorah.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#193797 Oct 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! And where the heck did anybody say THAT???? OMG, you are just too much sometimes. LOL!!!
rabbee: well maybe that is, your problem. your not enough, here in TheTorah again.

ever wonder why, there is never anybody here in TheTorah when adam and his mate arrive. take a look around at all you, nobodies here in IT actually again. if you do not marry within your own critter specie, your liable to give birth to rattle mouth water cotton tail moccasins.

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 Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe (Jun '14) Feb 28 guest 119
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Feb 27 Not a modern Chri... 15
News Man wins OK to wear goat horns in driver's lice... Feb 26 stalk this 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb '17 Eagle 12 4,947
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Feb '17 Nicole Orsak 117
ecoven on Facebook. secret group free classes a... (Apr '14) Feb '17 Kcreoke 2
News 'Everyone will be Muslim because of our stupidi... Jan '17 Rabbeen Al Jihad 20
More from around the web