Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256599 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.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194723 Nov 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker,
Of course, I do not agree with the similarities presented. These were presented long, long after Jesus was gone.
There is nothing from Jesus himself on any of these similarities.
I only see him telling the woman at the well, "I am he", when she told him that she and her people were waiting for the Messiah.
I'll just give you two examples of many. Why did he purposefully request a donkey to ride into Jerusalem on? Why did he quote Psalms when he was on the cross and say My God, why have you forsaken me. Whether one thinks he was the fulfillment of the prophecies or not, he clearly thought he was and was clearly trying to represent himself as such, more so in deed than mere words.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, when asked by the Jews not to keep them in suspense and to tell them if he were the Messiah, he told them he had already did but he had not. If he had, they would not have mentioned suspense.
I think that he was trying to say that he has already been doing things to fulfill the prophecies. He didn't seem to have much time for doubters and he was not going to explain what he thinks they should have already seen if their hearts were open.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Next, when asked if he were the Messiah, the Son of God, he did not say yes, because he never claimed to be the Son of God in addition to being the Messiah. That is why he used the word son of man, which simply means "This man".[/QUOTE}

First of all, Son of Man does not mean "this man", and it was never intended to mean that anywhere in the Bible. Secondly, have you ever asked yourself why he didn't deny being what they were asking him about? you ask why he didn't come out and say it, but you never ask why he didn't come out and deny it. So for the fact that he did not deny it either, fits with what I said where he wasn't even going to give them the satisfaction of any direct answers one way or another to any of their questions, and that could be that he thought that they did not even deserve an answer and that he was purposefully behaving the way the prophecy says.

[QUOTE who="bmz"]<quoted text>
I have no problem with Jesus being called the Messiah by Christians but a Messiah was never promised by God at all. The Jews expected a Messiah and he did not fit the bill.
So God never promised a Messiah and yet the Jews expect a Messiah. sometimes you just make zero sense.
Alex WM

London, UK

#194724 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Alex, all you have to do is to state what denomination you were a Priest in, other than denominations that consider everyone a Priest anyway and you would be all set. And you can explain why you bothered to make the qualification of Catholic Priest, and then change your challenge to be proving that you said you were a ROMAN Catholic priest. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is actually going on, but it does take a genius to catch a pathological liar because they will attempt any technicality that they can possibly imagine, and if one is willing to do that, then the sky is the limit, as long as there is one little hole or technicality that the liar can escape out with. And the liar will always use any technicality that is available, no matter what the situation is.
Look, bottom line is that if anybody asked me about my past or even current beliefs or denominations that I follow, I would simply answer them with no problem at all. But you can never seem to do that. That is because the liar always wants to leave himself some leeway room, in case he says something wrong that could later come back and bite him on the azz. So what does that say to any thinking or rational person? That alone, is the proof in the pudding, For anybody to hesitate or refuse to answer any reasonable question, means that there is something funny going on right there.
Seeker, you are a twisted little fool.
You waste almost all your productive talent on chasing your own tail!
Stop being a suspicious cynical little fool.
You are full of self doubt & insecurity that make you doubt others.

I have given you a basic definition of "Priest" or even a Priest from a Christian denomination from OXFORD DICTIONARY online.

Here it is AGAIN..
PRIEST..noun:
1 an ordained minister of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Church, authorized to perform certain rites and administer certain sacraments: the priest celebrated mass at a small altar off the north transept
a person who performs religious ceremonies and duties in a non-Christian religion: the plays were performed within the sacred area of Dionysus, in the presence of his priest

- You are chasing your own tail looking for semantics!
- I know who I am, but you don't know who I am or even who you are!
- I will NOT give my identity to anybody here.
- Did you know what happens to those who were in possession of very private and confidential details when they switch sides? You are a lightweight who has never been anywhere near "power". That I can see from your line of questioning.
- I must emphasize that I have NEVER given information here that has never been meant for public consumption
- I have given some "vague" pointers but you fail to take a hint.
- I have deliberately kept it vague and you will NEVER guess my ex connections.

Go chase other parked cars.
Alex WM

London, UK

#194725 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, isn't it funny that when i said I was Irish, you knew what I was talking about? HughBe thinks that could include, African Irish, Indian Irish etc....I hardly think that an African Irish person would be offended by that joke or think that it relates to them. But somehow, you feel that it relates to me, because you knew what I meant right away, but he did not.
This shows how ignorant and BIGOTED you are!
Clearly "Christianity" is providing shelter for horrible creatures like you.

It's time you are kicked out of Christianity.

A Yorkshireman can be black white yellow brown or even green!
Similarly a Scotsman can be black white yellow brown or even green.

HughBe is right AGAIN when he asked about your Irish connection.

You clearly don't know what Caucasian means!!

Here is a starter for a lengthy discussion.....
"The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785). In Meiners's unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found JEWS and Native Americans less attractive, and thus MONGOLIAN."

"Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western, Central and South Asia. Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194726 Nov 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello, Seeker
You do not know because you have always been unable to understand Qur'aan. You are not alone in this. Many other clueless Christian polemic fools are also unaware of this.
There are only two speakers in Qur'aan. The LORD Almighty God Allah and the other speaker is Gabriel.
The curse "May Allah destroy them" that you talk about was uttered by the angel Gabriel.
For example, 19:64 says:
"We never descend except at your Lord´s command. He owns whatever is in front of us and whatever is behind us, and whatever lies in between. Your Lord is not forgetful,"
19:64 says "we". Is Gabriel talking and mentioning both he and Allah? Doesn't look like it. Can Gabriel refer to himself as "we" meaning majestic plural? I don't think so. So at best, you can say that it is the Angels speaking, and that is why Yusuf Ali adds (the Angels say) when it is not in the Arabic. When we read the verses without that addition, it seems bizarrely disconcerted and almost schizophrenic where it changes from Allah, to the Angels and then back to Allah with no clear delimiter of when it is doing that. Same thing happens in Al Jinn, so you forgot to mention a third speaker in the Quran, the Jinn. That does the same thing where it keeps switching back and forth between Allah and the Jinn in an almost schizophrenic fashion.

And, maybe there is even a forth speaker in the Quran, Muhammad. In the verse you raised, many translators add (the Angels say). But they did no such thing in 9:30 and 63:4. and if it is the Angels in 63:4 or 9:30, or just Gabriel, you have Gabriel all of the sudden speaking right at the end of a verse where it is supposed to be Allah speaking, with no indication given at all that the speaker has changed. Again, it becomes almost psychotic or schizophrenic
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is neither God nor Muhammad. That is from the angels, mainly Gabriel.
Oh, MAINLY Gabriel. Do you have any other verses where Gabriel or the Angels speak? This is all new to me.

So is 11:1-7 Gabriel speaking and then it quickly switches to Allah on verse 8? This seems to be the same weird stuff that happens with the Jinn in 72, where it's them speaking, then Allah speaking, then them speaking and then Allah speaking without any clear indication that the speaker is changing. Really odd stuff.

But I learned something new that Muslims never say when they claim that the entire Quran is all Allah speaking. There are actually multiple speakers, Allah, Gabriel, the Angels, The Jinn and maybe even Muhammad as well. We might as well throw him in there as well since there are multiple speakers anyway.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194727 Nov 8, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker, you are a twisted little fool.
You waste almost all your productive talent on chasing your own tail!
Stop being a suspicious cynical little fool.
You are full of self doubt & insecurity that make you doubt others.
I have given you a basic definition of "Priest" or even a Priest from a Christian denomination from OXFORD DICTIONARY online.
Here it is AGAIN..
PRIEST..noun:
1 an ordained minister of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Church, authorized to perform certain rites and administer certain sacraments: the priest celebrated mass at a small altar off the north transept
a person who performs religious ceremonies and duties in a non-Christian religion: the plays were performed within the sacred area of Dionysus, in the presence of his priest
- You are chasing your own tail looking for semantics!
- I know who I am, but you don't know who I am or even who you are!
- I will NOT give my identity to anybody here.
- Did you know what happens to those who were in possession of very private and confidential details when they switch sides? You are a lightweight who has never been anywhere near "power". That I can see from your line of questioning.
- I must emphasize that I have NEVER given information here that has never been meant for public consumption
- I have given some "vague" pointers but you fail to take a hint.
- I have deliberately kept it vague and you will NEVER guess my ex connections.
Go chase other parked cars.
And you just keep repeating what I have already countered. If you mean priests in the sense that Protestants use it, then everybody is a priest, and you didn't even need to mention that you were, and in fact, you would still be considered a priest. No, you didn't mean it in that sense at all. And nobody says you have to give your identity by merely saying what denomination you used to be in, so that is a bogus excuse. Saying what denomination you used to be in will make you no less anonymous than you currently are at all. Nobody is asking you to give your name. You just won't mention it because you need to keep your story as flexible as possible, so that you can changes things as needed to correct any errors you make.

Don't worry, I'm going to drop the issue. I got all of the answers that I need. Sometimes a lack of a clear answer is a very clear answer in of itself the only answer one needs.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194728 Nov 8, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
This shows how ignorant and BIGOTED you are!
Clearly "Christianity" is providing shelter for horrible creatures like you.
It's time you are kicked out of Christianity.
A Yorkshireman can be black white yellow brown or even green!
Similarly a Scotsman can be black white yellow brown or even green.
HughBe is right AGAIN when he asked about your Irish connection.
You clearly don't know what Caucasian means!!
Yes, black Irish are named Paddy. It's pretty clear what you were doing when you told me those jokes. you knew what I meant right away, and so would anybody else with basic common sense. He probably even knew it as well, but he wanted to nitpick for the sake of nitpicking. But either way, if he wanted to pretend that he didn't know what I meant, then that's fine. I clarified for him right away. So it's all clear now. No evasiveness from me. I think he might have been hoping that I had some ethnic connection to Jews in some way, since he has said that I act like members of Judaism here. But nope. Nothing like that. Never was. So it's all very crystal clear. If someone doesn't think i have answered a question sufficiently the first time, I will always gladly clarify, rather than dance around the request. No evasiveness from me. And no fear from me that if I give away the fact that I am Irish of descent, that I will somehow become less anonymous, like you claim if you tell us what denomination you used to be.
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a starter for a lengthy discussion.....
"The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785). In Meiners's unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found JEWS and Native Americans less attractive, and thus MONGOLIAN."
"Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western, Central and South Asia. Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.
Are you saying that I should not call myself caucasian? If not that, then what should I call myself? You tell me the right answer and I will call myself that. Doesn't matter much to me, I'm not the one concerned about the issue of ethnicity. And I not only said caucasian, I even gave a specific type of caucasian. So how much more specific can one be? What's the problem? From what you quoted, if I merely called myself causasian, that could be too general and misleading. So by saying Irish, that was actually a good answer the first time. So again, what's the problem? Apparently, if I say caucasian, that is not a good answer, and if I say Irish, that is not a good answer. Maybe Martian is an acceptable answer? you just let me know the right answer and that is what I will call myself next time somebody asks.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194729 Nov 8, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker, you are a twisted little fool.
You waste almost all your productive talent on chasing your own tail!
Did you just say that I had any talent at all?
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
- I have given some "vague" pointers but you fail to take a hint.
Which pointers are those? The ones that tell me to stop delving into this because you don't want anybody to see where your original claims actually lead?
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
- I have deliberately kept it vague and you will NEVER guess my ex connections.
So why would anybody deliberately keep things vague? I think that the only thing that I would keep vague is my actual name, and certainly my actual address, even though people even know the actual town that I even post from, as I do not use proxies, nor would I ever. Other than that, anybody could ask me anything, and I would gladly answer them. And I would actually offer those things as well such as actual name and address, except for the fact that Muslims have a habit of committing violence against anybody who would ever even suggest that Muhammad was actually a fraud. So they threaten, intimidate and even harm people who disagree with them.

But in your case, you could have no concern at all if Christians knew who you were and where you live. At worst, they would merely shake their head at you in disgust of you for the dumb or even weird stories that you tell, and the better ones would actually pray for you.

So Muslims who can tell lies about Jesus getting oral sex at the well, are safe, while Christians who actually, accurately quote from Muslim sources themselves, are not.

That is the actual reality. And yet you are more hesitant about telling people about minor details about yourself, such as your past denomination, than I am. You can't even say your past denomination, while I can say exactly what religious denomination I was brought up as, and tell people that I am of Irish descent Hmmmmmmm......... Okay, I get it.

When a "reasonable" person does the math, what is the obvious answer? What would any "reasonable" person think is going on?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#194730 Nov 8, 2013
HughBe---What do you call a BLACK person who was born in Ireland?

Seeker---AFRICAN Irish, and I'm NOT even sure if they refer to themselves that way. Go ask them.

HughBe--- YOU as an Irishman are NOT sure what the BLACKS of Ireland call themselves. Credible "Christian" you are.

Why do call the BLACKS in your native country AFRICAN Irish?

Why the FOCUS on their RACE as opposed to their nationality. Is it because you are a RACIST?

What you do other whites call them?

I could not digest any more of your BS and so the rest of your post has not been read. Never underestimate your betters.

----------

1.Seeker wrote ---"Ethinicity: Irish
Raised as a Catholic
Would not consider myself a Catholic"

2.HughBe---What does he mean by Irish ethnicity?
Is he a black Irish man?
Is he a white Irish man?
Is he a Jewish Irish man?
Is he an India Irish man?

3.Seeker--How could you possible even ask that question?

4.HughBe--- My questions were for clarification and understanding. Are there no BLACK Irish people? Are there no Chinese who are Irish? Are there any Jews which are Irish?
I believe so without research and that is my reason for my questions.

5.Seeker---I'm pretty sure that anybody with common sense knew exactly what I was saying.

6. HughBe---I did not know.

7.Seeker--- Not only was I giving my ethnicity, which is Caucasian, I was even being more SPECIFIC and telling you which specific type of Caucasian I am by telling you my descent.

8. HughBe--- Go back to your original words in #1 above. Copy and paste the words there that support your claim about being Caucasian and demonstrate by quoting the specificity that you now speak of. I find the word Irish to me non-specific in terms of ethnicity.

9179
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#194731 Nov 8, 2013
Sicker---Gee, isn't it funny that when i said I was Irish, you knew what I was talking about? HughBe THINKS that could include, African Irish, Indian Irish etc....I hardly think

HughBe---1. "I hardly think.." is a rare moment of honesty from you.

"HughBe THINKS" is also TRUE. What is happening? That is 2 TRUTHS in one post. I don't expect another one for many moons.

2. As an Irishman YOU are " NOT even sure if they(BLACKS) refer to themselves" as African Irish and yet YOU expect me a Jamaican living in the Caribbean to know an expression like "AFRICAN Irish"?

Recall, YOU do NOT even know if they call themselves that. Suppose they don't call themselves your AFRICAN Irish?

As you have said, you hardly THINK.

3. When someone who I have not seen says to me that s/he is an American, what colour or RACE should I assign to him or her?

You are a waste, of time.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194732 Nov 8, 2013
HughBe wrote:
HughBe---What do you call a BLACK person who was born in Ireland?
Seeker---AFRICAN Irish, and I'm NOT even sure if they refer to themselves that way. Go ask them.
HughBe--- YOU as an Irishman are NOT sure what the BLACKS of Ireland call themselves. Credible "Christian" you are.
What does being a Christian have to do with Ireland? And check my posting address. I am an Irish American, which means I am an American and my descendants came from Ireland. So what picture do you have of me now, since you desperately need a picture? What do you think my ethnicity is? Do the math.
HughBe wrote:
Why do call the BLACKS in your native country AFRICAN Irish? Why the FOCUS on their RACE as opposed to their nationality. Is it because you are a RACIST?
I didn't say that I know how they refer to themselves. Didn't I clearly tell you to ask THEM? But as a person born in America, and note my posting location, with Irish descent, I refer to myself as an Irish American, just like Italians born in America refer to themselves as Italian Americans. Just like Africans people born in America refer to themselves as African Americans. Do we really need to continue to even have this conversation?

If you don't have a clear picture of me at this point, I have no idea what else to tell you and you are merely a simple moron. Would you stop raising nitpicking technicalities for the sake of raising nitpicking technicalities? Any person with an ounce of common sense can clearly understand what I have represented myself as at this point, and I'm sure they understood it long ago as soon as I said it, and didn't have to stay after school for additional tutoring.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194733 Nov 8, 2013
HughBe wrote:
Sicker---Gee, isn't it funny that when i said I was Irish, you knew what I was talking about? HughBe THINKS that could include, African Irish, Indian Irish etc....I hardly think
HughBe---1. "I hardly think.." is a rare moment of honesty from you.
"HughBe THINKS" is also TRUE. What is happening? That is 2 TRUTHS in one post. I don't expect another one for many moons.
2. As an Irishman YOU are " NOT even sure if they(BLACKS) refer to themselves" as African Irish and yet YOU expect me a Jamaican living in the Caribbean to know an expression like "AFRICAN Irish"?
I really don't expect you to know very much at all at this point, and that fact has bared itself out in the conversation.
HughBe wrote:
Recall, YOU do NOT even know if they call themselves that. Suppose they don't call themselves your AFRICAN Irish?
Yes, suppose they don't. So what dummy? Didn't I tell you to ask THEM how they refer to themselves as?
HughBe wrote:
As you have said, you hardly THINK.
Hmmmm...yes. LOL!! If I said that is like the pot calling the kettle black, would you take that as a racist statement? LOL!!! Just too much.
HughBe wrote:
3. When someone who I have not seen says to me that s/he is an American, what colour or RACE should I assign to him or her?
You are a waste, of time.
Gee, let's see. I have an American address, and I said I am Irish. Do the math, OK? I don't think that many else here had any problems doing the math. sorry if I was not SUPER explicit for you and assumed you would just get it like others do. I'll remember my mistake and try harder next time.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#194734 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't expect you to know very much at all at this point, and that fact has bared itself out in the conversation.
<quoted text>
Yes, suppose they don't. So what dummy? Didn't I tell you to ask THEM how they refer to themselves as?
<quoted text>
Hmmmm...yes. LOL!! If I said that is like the pot calling the kettle black, would you take that as a racist statement? LOL!!! Just too much.
<quoted text>
Gee, let's see. I have an American address, and I said I am Irish. Do the math, OK? I don't think that many else here had any problems doing the math. sorry if I was not SUPER explicit for you and assumed you would just get it like others do. I'll remember my mistake and try harder next time.
You are a comic.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#194735 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
What does being a Christian have to do with Ireland? And check my posting address. I am an Irish American, which means I am an American and my descendants came from Ireland. So what picture do you have of me now, since you desperately need a picture? What do you think my ethnicity is? Do the math.
<quoted text>
I didn't say that I know how they refer to themselves. Didn't I clearly tell you to ask THEM? But as a person born in America, and note my posting location, with Irish descent, I refer to myself as an Irish American, just like Italians born in America refer to themselves as Italian Americans. Just like Africans people born in America refer to themselves as African Americans. Do we really need to continue to even have this conversation?
If you don't have a clear picture of me at this point, I have no idea what else to tell you and you are merely a simple moron. Would you stop raising nitpicking technicalities for the sake of raising nitpicking technicalities? Any person with an ounce of common sense can clearly understand what I have represented myself as at this point, and I'm sure they understood it long ago as soon as I said it, and didn't have to stay after school for additional tutoring.
Waster.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#194736 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
What does being a Christian have to do with Ireland? And check my posting address. I am an Irish American, which means I am an American and my descendants came from Ireland. So what picture do you have of me now, since you desperately need a picture? What do you think my ethnicity is? Do the math.
<quoted text>
I didn't say that I know how they refer to themselves. Didn't I clearly tell you to ask THEM? But as a person born in America, and note my posting location, with Irish descent, I refer to myself as an Irish American, just like Italians born in America refer to themselves as Italian Americans. Just like Africans people born in America refer to themselves as African Americans. Do we really need to continue to even have this conversation?
If you don't have a clear picture of me at this point, I have no idea what else to tell you and you are merely a simple moron. Would you stop raising nitpicking technicalities for the sake of raising nitpicking technicalities? Any person with an ounce of common sense can clearly understand what I have represented myself as at this point, and I'm sure they understood it long ago as soon as I said it, and didn't have to stay after school for additional tutoring.
HughBe--- YOU as an Irishman are NOT sure what the BLACKS of Ireland call themselves.

Sicker---I didn't say that I know how they refer to themselves.

HughBe--- The above is a typical example of the low level and DISHONEST way that you write. It is a waste of my valuable time and energy to read and respond to your CS.
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#194737 Nov 8, 2013
Truth Seeker wrote:
Dear MUQ,
When we are conclusively proving taking references from your own muslim scriptures and history books that your Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) was probably not a true prophet, why you are wasting your time in these futile efforts.
This way you are proving that probably you have more faith in other religion's scriptures than your own. Please stop this non sense.
Do you KNOW what are the qualities of a True Prophet of God?

I am sure that you people have no idea about how to distinguish a true prophet of God from an imposter.

So I would like you to please list down the qualities of a true prophet of God, and then let us analyze if our prophet meets them.

If the prophethood of our prophet cannot be established, then you cannot establish prophethood of ANY prophet, this is my challenge.

We have had a discussion on that topic, and as usual, our correspondent left the discussion in the middle "loosing all interest" as our friend Mr. Seeker did when discussing what Bible prophesies about our prophet!!

Will you take the challenge and start this discussion and will not "rue" the day and time when you agreed to hold this discussion?

But remember, any discussion with me will be a slow process, one point at a time and not move to next point unless we have had our say on that.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#194738 Nov 9, 2013
Seeker wrote:
I'll just give you two examples of many.

Why did he purposefully request a donkey to ride into Jerusalem on?

Why did he quote Psalms when he was on the cross and say My God, why have you forsaken me.

Whether one thinks he was the fulfillment of the prophecies or not, he clearly thought he was and was clearly trying to represent himself as such, more so in deed than mere words.

I think that he was trying to say that he has already been doing things to fulfill the prophecies. He didn't seem to have much time for doubters and he was not going to explain what he thinks they should have already seen if their hearts were open.

So God never promised a Messiah and yet the Jews expect a Messiah. sometimes you just make zero sense.
Very bad and poor examples, Seeker!

Kings rode horses. Not every one can ride a horse. I think Jesus never rode a horse. So, he rode a donkey. What is the big deal here? The King of Israel riding a donkey?

Any man of God would have said, "Elahi, Elahi! Lama sabachthani" in times of great distress. Even today many folks say exactly the same, when they are in a great distress.

Yes, God never promised the Jews a Messiah. Please show me by quoting a clear verse, if God did.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#194739 Nov 9, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
19:64 says "we". Is Gabriel talking and mentioning both he and Allah? Doesn't look like it. Can Gabriel refer to himself as "we" meaning majestic plural? I don't think so. So at best, you can say that it is the Angels speaking, and that is why Yusuf Ali adds (the Angels say) when it is not in the Arabic. When we read the verses without that addition, it seems bizarrely disconcerted and almost schizophrenic where it changes from Allah, to the Angels and then back to Allah with no clear delimiter of when it is doing that. Same thing happens in Al Jinn, so you forgot to mention a third speaker in the Quran, the Jinn. That does the same thing where it keeps switching back and forth between Allah and the Jinn in an almost schizophrenic fashion.
And, maybe there is even a forth speaker in the Quran, Muhammad. In the verse you raised, many translators add (the Angels say). But they did no such thing in 9:30 and 63:4. and if it is the Angels in 63:4 or 9:30, or just Gabriel, you have Gabriel all of the sudden speaking right at the end of a verse where it is supposed to be Allah speaking, with no indication given at all that the speaker has changed. Again, it becomes almost psychotic or schizophrenic

<quoted text>
Oh, MAINLY Gabriel. Do you have any other verses where Gabriel or the Angels speak? This is all new to me.

So is 11:1-7 Gabriel speaking and then it quickly switches to Allah on verse 8? This seems to be the same weird stuff that happens with the Jinn in 72, where it's them speaking, then Allah speaking, then them speaking and then Allah speaking without any clear indication that the speaker is changing. Really odd stuff.

But I learned something new that Muslims never say when they claim that the entire Quran is all Allah speaking. There are actually multiple speakers, Allah, Gabriel, the Angels, The Jinn and maybe even Muhammad as well. We might as well throw him in there as well since there are multiple speakers anyway.
Of course, this is new to you because you were not aware of that.

There is nothing majestic about the use of 'We' in Arabic and other Oriental languages. You are used to English and the scripturally unfit and poor language Greek, where I comes first.

You don't find 'we' in the scripturally poor and scripturally unfit Greek language.

Well, you learned from me that there are mainly two speakers in Qur'aan, the LORD Almighty God Allah and Gabriel.
Alex WM

London, UK

#194740 Nov 9, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a comic.
Greetings dar HughBe.
I like that simple and yet effective response to sicker.

I also wrote to him about his Irishness. He didn't even understand that! The jokes were not because he is claiming he is Irish but because he is a silly comic!

This is what I said...
"It's time you are kicked out of Christianity.

A Yorkshireman can be black white yellow brown or even green!
Similarly a Scotsman can be black white yellow brown or even green.

HughBe is right AGAIN when he asked about your Irish connection.

You clearly don't know what Caucasian means!!

Here is a starter for a lengthy discussion.....
"The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785). In Meiners's unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found JEWS and Native Americans less attractive, and thus MONGOLIAN."

"Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western, Central and South Asia. Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone. "

Peace
Alex WM

London, UK

#194741 Nov 9, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Very bad and poor examples, Seeker!
Kings rode horses. Not every one can ride a horse. I think Jesus never rode a horse. So, he rode a donkey. What is the big deal here? The King of Israel riding a donkey?
Any man of God would have said, "Elahi, Elahi! Lama sabachthani" in times of great distress. Even today many folks say exactly the same, when they are in a great distress.
Yes, God never promised the Jews a Messiah. Please show me by quoting a clear verse, if God did.
LOL!!!
The donkey riding episode is quite interesting besides the writers of Matt getting it confused in terms of the number of animals in question while copying from Mark!

Surely we can see what the writers (who were NOT the original disciples)are doing here.

Their thought process looks as absurd as this:
1. ok, let's see what's prophesied. Ah we need to say he rode a donkey. ok, let's insert a story about that.

----So they insert the story.
----Then they open the books...and look surprised!!!

2. Ah...the book says he rode a donkey...then he must have fulfilled the prophecy!!!

This is worse than Mr. bean sending himself Christmas cards and then looking surprised to receive them!!!

A case of drawing a circle AFTER the arrow hit the tree to make it look like it hit Bulls-eye!!

Lies upon lies.
Alex WM

London, UK

#194742 Nov 9, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>Phallus,
Take your meds.
You are a liar. Put up or shut up you buttlicker.
According to lying scribes/churchmen "BJ" was a sex starved 33 year old man who has never been near a woman, while Jesus was a normal healthy man of God.

Pagan "BJ" on a phallus is embodiment of lucifer seducing worship away from G-d into cannibalism, human sacrifice and sexual perversion wanting his RAW meat chewed and his FRESH bodily juices sucked off dry.

READ these (from people from "Judeo-Christian" background!!!):
When such actors take the role of Christ – that is, when he is seen gain in the flesh – only the most myopic spectator could miss the erotic potential of a narrative in which a beautiful young man allows himself to be mocked, flogged, crowned with thorns, stripped naked, and left to die, publicly, in lasting agony on a phallic pole. Logan’s concentration on the hidden genitals is central to his purpose. As he askes later,“Ah God, if Christ has not a body…And all of that, what good is he to u?” Sexuality is a necessary party of the myth of a deity who becomes wholly human, and the myth is severely impaired by its excision. The Sacred Heart must be given the full benefit of its PHALLIC associations, as symbol of the loving GLANS PENIS of the LORD.
Leo Steinberg has shown the importance of the OSTENTATIO GENITALIUM in Renaissance representations of the Christ child. The GENITALS are PROOF both of incarnation and of Christ’s restoration of sinlessness to humanity. Christ’s MANHOOD (maleness) is the sign of his MANHOOD (humanity). His CIRCUMCISION foreshadows his crucifixion.
Now, just as SEXUAL INTERCOURSE may be reduced to an obsessive conjunction of GENITALIA, so the idea of a SEXUALLY VIABLE CHRIST may be FETISHISED to the point where, as MANHOOD incarnate, he ENTERS the worshipper as a PHALLUS. Pisanus Fraxi’s Bibliography of Prohibited Books lists An Essay on Woman, by ‘Pego Borewell, Esq’ which contains a parodic prayer to the PHALLUS as creator, and an illustration of a PHALLUS, entitled (in Greek)‘The Saviour of the World”.
Felicien Rops made two etchings of a NAKED MAGDALENE, MASTURBATING at the FOOT of the CROSS, to which is NAILED a GIANT PHALLUS.
Harold Norse’s poem “Allegro Vivace” celebrates John Allegro’s book.

The SACRED MUSHROOM and the CROSS, which ESTABLISHES CONVINCING ASSOCIATIONS between the MUSHROOM, the CROSS, the PHALLUS, and CHRIST!

Norse comments:“BJ was a pr*ck./Let all gay men proclaim their holiness./
THEY have WORSHIPPED the SACRED MUSHROOM for millennia. The cock is holy!!

If “BJ” is a PHALLUS, ofcourse, the logical conclusion must be that the EUCHARIST is an act of FELLATIO.

Norman O. Brown writes: The EUCHARIST is a MARRIAGE FEAST; the UNION of bridegroom and bride. He gives himself to his bride with the bread!

EAT your FILL, lovers; DRINK, sweethearts, and DRINK DEEP! The two become one flesh, incorporating each other, by EATING.

The transubstantiation is the unification; is in the EATING.
The Manicheans and the Albigenses are said to have SPRINKLED SEMEN on their Eucharist BREAD.

….. A MORE OUTSPOKEN variation on the same theme appears in Antler’s poem about SEMEN.
“ To the SEED of the Male of my species”. The poem ends:“Not till boyCOME is SERVED at COMMUN?ION will I believe the father of BJ is god of love. In “son of man”, Will Inman writes, of BJ:“He ENTERED the bodies and souls of men and women with words of self. He touched them, and more VIRGINAL that ever they gave BIRTH to themselves.

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 22 Eagle 12 4,947
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Feb 22 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