Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 253429 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

#194712 Nov 8, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: well that is not what it says, in TheTorah Scroll.
let me refresh, your non-existent memory: "(and G-D said, "let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS, They shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. so G-D created Adam in HIS IMAGE, in The Image of G-D HE created HIM; Male and Female HE created Them.)"
now please notice that this indicates, G-D is BOTH Male And Female. as so does, all TheNames of G-D reflect this. so obviously you missed that part on purpose, in favor of your own vanity.
"so G-D created Adam in HIS IMAGE"
It does not say in THEIR image, it says HIS image, singular.

"let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS"

This is majestic plural and is not supposed to represent actual plurality at all. As proof, it goes on to say
"so G-D created Adam in HIS IMAGE,". It says HIS image, not THEIR image. Again, singular, masculine.

"in The Image of G-D HE created HIM;"
Here this is speaking of Adam only, hence the word HIM, not created THEM

And the NEXT part says:
"Male and Female HE created Them"

Again, the word HE. Singular, masculine. THEM. This is speaking of all of humanity, hence the word THEM. First HIM,(Adam) then THEM (the rest of humanity). You are very confused.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#194713 Nov 8, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: well then let me refresh, your failing memory. that indicates, that G-D does not like all of you.
I-AM HaShem*, your G-D, WHO has taken you out of the land of egypt, from the house of slavery.
you shall not recognize the g-ds of others in MY Presence. you shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of that which is in heavens above the earth or below or in the water beneath the earth. you shall not prostrate yourself to them nor worship them, for I-AM HaShem*, your G-D - a jealous G-D, WHO visits the sins of fathers upon children to the third and fourth generation, for my enemies; but WHO knows kindness for thousands [of generations] to those who love ME and observe MY commandments.
you shall not take TheName of YHVH* in vain, for HaShem* will not absolve anyone who takes His Name in vain.
rabbee: this even though i realize, there will always be those who accuse me of never quoting any scripture.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#194714 Nov 8, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Why didn't they expect the Son of God?
Although this list is not exhaustive, you'll find 44 messianic predictions clearly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, along with supporting references from the Old and New Testament.

1 Messiah would be born of a woman. Genesis 3:15

22 Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Psalm 110:4 Hebrews 5:5-6

25 Messiah would be betrayed. Psalm 41:9 Zechariah 11:12-13
Luke 22:47-48 Matthew 26:14-16
26 Messiah's price money would be used to buy a potter's field.
Zechariah 11:12-13 Matthew 27:9-10
27 Messiah would be falsely accused. Psalm 35:11 Mark 14:57-58
28 Messiah would be silent before his accusers. Isaiah 53:7
Mark 15:4-5
29 Messiah would be spat upon and struck. Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67
30 Messiah would be hated without cause. Psalm 35:19 Psalm 69:4
John 15:24-25
31 Messiah would be crucified with criminals. Isaiah 53:12
Matthew 27:38 Mark 15:27-28
32 Messiah would be given vinegar to drink. Psalm 69:21
Matthew 27:34 John 19:28-30
33 Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced. Psalm 22:16
Zechariah 12:10 John 20:25-27
34 Messiah would be mocked and ridiculed. Psalm 22:7-8
Luke 23:35
35 Soldiers would gamble for Messiah's garments. Psalm 22:18
Luke 23:34 Matthew 27:35-36
36 Messiah's bones would not be broken. Exodus 12:46 Psalm 34:20
John 19:33-36
37 Messiah would be forsaken by God. Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46
38 Messiah would pray for his enemies. Psalm 109:4 Luke 23:34
39 Soldiers would pierce Messiah's side. Zechariah 12:10
John 19:34
40 Messiah would be buried with the rich. Isaiah 53:9
Matthew 27:57-60
41 Messiah would resurrect from the dead. Psalm 16:10
Psalm 49:15 Matthew 28:2-7 Acts 2:22-32
42 Messiah would ascend to heaven. Psalm 24:7-10 Mark 16:19
Luke 24:51
43 Messiah would be seated at God's right hand. Psalm 68:18
Psalm 110:1 Mark 16:19 Matthew 22:44
44 Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin. Isaiah 53:5-12
Romans 5:6-8
What a criminal waste of precious bandwidth! Removed lots of junk for brevity!

The question was: Why did he not answer the question and remained silent, when he was accused by two men?

Isaiah 53 does not talk about any Messiah. It is ridiculous and absurd to show Jesus in Isaiah 53.

I will tell you why? Read the following along with me and answer the questions!

"And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

Did they make Jesus' grave with the wicked?

Did Jesus suffer any disease that crushed him? Or did the LORD crush him with disease? Do you think some Jews or Jewesses poisoned him? lol!

V 11 clearly calls him a servant. Where do you see a son of God in here?

Did Jesus fight battles and did he share the spoils or booty?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194715 Nov 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
That is irrelevant!
So you ask why he remained silent, and i show you a prophecy that I think he believed he was fulfilling which explains why, and you call that irrelevant. Of course it is, because you want it to be.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
After all his disciples had deserted him and had fled, this is what went on:
Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
Jesus Before the Sanhedrin
57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.
59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61 and declared,“This fellow said,‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus,“Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him,“I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied.“But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[a]
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said,“He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
He did not answer the question. Your scripture does not tell us why did he keep quiet?
Verse 7 which you quoted is not at all applicable, for he did not keep his mouth shut but did open his mouth and uttered verse 64. He was not dumb like a sheep.
So you made a very poor case by quoting verse 7.
Case dismissed.
But he did not answer their question, he told them that they have said so. So when it is convenient for you, you use these verses to claim that Jesus DID answer them and call himself Son of God and the Messiah. But other times, when convenient for you, you claim he never did really answer them and call himself Messiah and Son of God. So the meaning always seems to change based on the point you want to make.

And when a scripture says a prophecy, and says he will remain silent, that could mean many things, and does not necessarily mean that he will remain totally silent in a completely literal fashion, it can mean that he will not answer their questions as they demand and justify his past claims, and instead merely let them do whatever they want to do. You take EVERYTHING 100% literally, and you do that all of the time. And anybody who does this, will be completely crippled when it comes to trying to understand the Bible.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194716 Nov 8, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: i am sorry, but once TheTorah has been given to Moshe. there is nothing any of you, can do to prevent it all from TheHappening.
Jimmie, I asked you the difference between the words "ever", "never" and "never AGAIN", and as usual, you completely sidestepped it. Again, I'm not going around in a stupid circle with you. I asked you a very simply question multiple times, and your refusal to answer it is all the answer that I will ever need. As far as I am concerned, you have answered my question, even in your lack of an answer. Thank you. Sometimes a lack of answer or refusal to answer speaks even louder than an actual answer, and your lack of an answer will have to be taken as your clear answer.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#194717 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Muhammad actually asked Allah to curse people in the Quran itself. I don't know how the Quran could have Muhammad asking Allah to curse them when it is supposed to be Allah himself talking, not Muhammad, but we DO find the following curious verses in the Quran where it does seem to appear that it is Muhammad talking and asking Allah to curse people. Now, I'm sure that many Muslims will work very hard to remove words or change them, but the vast majority of translations does clearly bear out what I am saying.
9:30
The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
For a huge listing of translations, see here:
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/9/30/defau...
For the word for word translation, see here.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp...
I don't know why Allah is asking himself to destroy them, but I could see Muhammad asking Allah to destroy them.
63:4
And when you see them, their persons will please you, and If they speak, you will listen to their speech; (they are) as if they were big pieces of wood clad with garments; they think every cry to be against them. They are the enemy, therefore beware of them; may Allah destroy them, whence are they turned back?
For a huge list of translations, see here
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/63/4/defau...
For a word for word translation, see here.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp...
Very, very curious verses.
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,"

Here it is neither God nor Muhammad. That is from the angels, mainly Gabriel.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#194718 Nov 8, 2013
BMZ, you might not agree with all of these similarities,

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Isaiah%...

but there are many similarities. So much so, that whether Jesus was the fulfillment of these prophecies or not, he was clearly trying to represent himself as as such. And if we say that Jesus never said or did any of the things in the story of Jesus, then we could at least say that whoever wrote the Gospels was clearly trying to represent Jesus as a fulfillment of these prophecies.

So even if one says that he is not a fulfillment of these, there should be no confusion about the clear intention to be a fulfillment of these prophecies. There are many many more similarities than are not even listed in this link. He quotes Psalms when being crucified. He rides on a donkey into the East gate of Jerusalem. Many many more as well.

So if you reject my quote from Isaiah to explain why he didn't answer their questions, then why don't we do the following. I gave you a reason why I think he remained silent, whether that silence means a 100% literal silence or not, and that was the question that you asked. So, if my reason is wrong, then let me ask you, why do YOU think he remained silent? I gave you my answer, so what is yours?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#194719 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So you ask why he remained silent, and i show you a prophecy that I think he believed he was fulfilling which explains why, and you call that irrelevant. Of course it is, because you want it to be.
<quoted text>
But he did not answer their question, he told them that they have said so. So when it is convenient for you, you use these verses to claim that Jesus DID answer them and call himself Son of God and the Messiah. But other times, when convenient for you, you claim he never did really answer them and call himself Messiah and Son of God. So the meaning always seems to change based on the point you want to make.
And when a scripture says a prophecy, and says he will remain silent, that could mean many things, and does not necessarily mean that he will remain totally silent in a completely literal fashion, it can mean that he will not answer their questions as they demand and justify his past claims, and instead merely let them do whatever they want to do. You take EVERYTHING 100% literally, and you do that all of the time. And anybody who does this, will be completely crippled when it comes to trying to understand the Bible.
No, he did not answer the question, when he was asked about the men's accusation.

The next question was a different matter, which I already considered dumb. The point is that he did keep quiet like a sheep. I do not see any prophecy coming true in that.

And when a scripture talks about a prophecy, which says he will remain silent, means that he would not open his mouth. Period!
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#194720 Nov 8, 2013
HughBe wrote:
These "Christian" fellows demonstrate the importance on being LOYAL to God above obedience to men and loyalty to denomination.

I have been on this forum for years and every half-witted person knows that I am a Christian.

Yet because I stand up for TRUTH these instruments of Satan seek to turn against me.

Tell me, if I said something like this I have an unwavering conviction that Jesus was crucified, what does it tell you?

Now, Islam teaches otherwise so outside of demonic possession what would possess a person to ask me, why I do not convert to Islam?

Could it be sheer EVIL or is it MADNESS?
Great post, dear HughBe

Your question: Could it be sheer EVIL or is it MADNESS?

Answer: Both

Salaams
BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#194721 Nov 8, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Why didn't they expect the Son of God?

Although this list is not exhaustive, you'll find 44 messianic predictions clearly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, along with supporting references from the Old and New Testament.
44 Prophecies Jesus Christ Fulfilled
Old Testament Scripture & New Testament Fulfillment

1 Messiah would be born of a woman. Genesis 3:15
Of course. Nobody expected the Messiah to be born of a cow or a goat or of an animal.

Salaams, Shamma
BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#194722 Nov 8, 2013
Seeker wrote:
BMZ, you might not agree with all of these similarities,

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Isaiah%...

but there are many similarities. So much so, that whether Jesus was the fulfillment of these prophecies or not, he was clearly trying to represent himself as as such. And if we say that Jesus never said or did any of the things in the story of Jesus, then we could at least say that whoever wrote the Gospels was clearly trying to represent Jesus as a fulfillment of these prophecies.

So even if one says that he is not a fulfillment of these, there should be no confusion about the clear intention to be a fulfillment of these prophecies. There are many many more similarities than are not even listed in this link. He quotes Psalms when being crucified. He rides on a donkey into the East gate of Jerusalem. Many many more as well.

So if you reject my quote from Isaiah to explain why he didn't answer their questions, then why don't we do the following. I gave you a reason why I think he remained silent, whether that silence means a 100% literal silence or not, and that was the question that you asked. So, if my reason is wrong, then let me ask you, why do YOU think he remained silent? I gave you my answer, so what is yours?
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.

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.

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".

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.

To me, Jesus was simply a Messenger of God to the Children of Israel, sent to guide them well.

Good night from Singapore
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.

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 The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 7 hr emperorjohn 4,627
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) Jul 21 thetruth 782
Convert me from Agnostic to Atheist Jul 14 ATHEOI 2
Astrology and Paganism Jun 30 Wolf 1
SHADOW PEOPLE... i need help (May '07) Jun 28 Friendly User17 348
News Ancient Spirituality and Commerce Clash in Mari El (Aug '10) Jun 25 yav1112 13
News Pastor: Church sign on Ramadan drew angry call,... Jun '16 The Prophet MO LIES 9
More from around the web