Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 228202 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

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

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

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

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#195691 Nov 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
And he said that your posts and stories are even more bizarre than any of the 4 Gospels. Didn't you read what he said? He's not defending the Gospels, he's an Atheist. He's saying that your stories and ideas are even more ridiculous and illogical than the one's found in the Gospels. And he's right. They are. You just pull any lump of poo out of your pocket that you can find and throw it against the wall in hopes that some of it or even any of it sticks. You don't seem to be capable of logically thinking through the implications and repercussions of your inventions. What you should do is to ask yourself if there could be any logical holes in your idea and try to find them before you even offer them. But you don't seem to be capable of doing that.

For example, look at what you did with that one chapter of Paul. You claimed the whole thing is invented, and then you claimed that there was a logical problem in the beginning, and then the purpose of the rest of the chapter was to cover for that logical problem. But it never even occurred to you, that if someone was just making the whole chapter up anyway, all they needed to do was to remove the logical problem in the beginning and replace it with something else, and they wouldn't even need to cover for the logical error in the rest of the chapter. Why wouldn't any "inventor" simply do that? Is it because you assume they would be as illogical as you?
You just can't seem to reason properly, or else this would have occurred to you right away and you never would have suggested what you did. Nobody has taught you what is called "deductive reasoning", and that's a shame. There is more to an education than just the Quran. Books on logic and philosophy have their value as well and they teach people how to reason and analyze things properly. The Quran is far from a complete education, even if one thinks it should be part of anybody's education at all.
I know what Stefano wrote and I have already replied him. He is weird and clueless. Although he claims to be an atheist, he defends the Christian Bible, which he is not supposed to. I find him weird.

The New Testament and Christianity do not contain any philosophy and logic. It is a collections of stories, letters and opinions of men. Such things do not form a Scripture, Seeker.

Deductive reasoning does not apply to Scripture. It is as it is. And moreover, you know well that the deductive reasoning of Christianity has led to many absurdities, such as the man-made doctrines and a triune God, which Jesus NEVER taught.

Even the foundation of Christianity is based on the sea sand at the beach and gets eroded, when we send waves to demolish it. It is sooooo shaky, Seeker. I don't know how someone with your intelligence keeps on defending it?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#195692 Nov 25, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>You're a liar.
http://quran.com/4/157
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
No, I am not. You are mistaken.

That is a very poor translation.

Email and ask them this:

Where is the following written in Qur'aan's Arabic verse?

"but [another] was made to resemble him to them. "

The folks at Saheeh International are the liars for they have inserted their opinion within the translation of the verse.

Go and read other translations of repute.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#195693 Nov 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just one translation where he is translating it by adding the meanings that he found in tafsir to it. I still thhink the translator was pretty much correct in taking the liberties that he did, but here are the actual Arabic words.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp...
And you can click on the transliterated word to the left to see it's actual definition, and you can see the Arabic characters that are actually used. BMZ tries to downplay this source because it prevents him from making the verses whatever he wants them to mean, and from adding or subtracting or changing words in it, like he loves to do. But do you honestly believe that BMZ knows Arabic better than the publishers of this authoritative site? He hopes you will, but it's a ridiculous claim. This guy just is not very honest, and if you use this source regularly, you will begin to discover just how dishonest he is willing to be.
What he needs to do is to write his own Quran so that he can make it into whatever he needs it to be at any given situation. But if he did that, he would still even end up contradicting himself. If one aspect of a verse is being discussed, the verse will mean what he wants it to mean to answer that one aspect. But if another aspect of the same verse is discussed, he will even change the meaning of the verse from what he said it meant when discussing the previous aspect, to what he needs it to mean when this other aspect is being discussed, if that's what he thinks he needs to do to make his point. So the same exact verse can now even have two different meanings, if that's what he thinks he needs to do to defend his point.
It's pretty twisted when you think about it, but he doesn't see any problems with this logic and behavior at all. Or if he does, deep down inside, then this behavior merely stems from desperation and he thinks he has no other choice. I'm not sure which is the case and I don't think it matters anyway. I think the most appropriate word for this sort of behavior is "shifty". Are you familiar with the specific meaning of that term? If you look it up in the dictionary, it will have his picture next to it. LOL!!!
I still can't quite be sure if he practices willful deception or non willful deception where he honestly doesn't think he is being deceptive, he is just that inconsistent in the way he thinks and can't see the flaw in thinking inconsistently like he does. Or maybe it's a little of both. It's hard for me to tell. I can only see the problem, but the actual cause is much more difficult to figure out for sure.
I judged you Clueless, Funny and disagreed, Seeker

Why are you talking to Buford, another clueless fool?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#195694 Nov 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
I guess people eat very late dinners in Singapore. It must be about 8:45 PM when you wrote this.
Do not guess and do not assume.

Singaporeans usually take their dinner between 6:30 and 7:30 pm at the latest.

When you go out for company or other dinners, that is a different story. Do you finish such dinners in your country by 6:00 pm? lol!

Have you ever been to a 10-course Chinese dinner, which takes about three hours of eating?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#195695 Nov 25, 2013
HughBe wrote:
Are you saying that in your hole, no one eats dinner at 8:45 p.m.?

So, if went to a restaurant at 9:00 p.m. in your hole, what meal would the people be eating? Is it breakfast or lunch?

I have held jobs that resulted in me reaching home much later than 8:45 pm and by extension I ate my dinners at very late hours of the NIGHT. In fact, I have had dinners as late as 11:00 p.m. or even later.
lol!

Seeker thinks that the whole world follows his dinner time.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195696 Nov 25, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: are you trying to be, dense on purpose? what is so hard to understand, about G-D is still giving TheTorah and we are all here in IT? your physically here in it anyway, it is just a matter of mental adjustment of being here in IT.
What mental adjustment does someone have to make to be here in IT? And after they make that mental adjustment, what do they have to do or believe next? You seem to be able to tell everybody how they are wrong over and over and over again, so here is your chance to explain how they can be right.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195697 Nov 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I judged you Clueless, Funny and disagreed, Seeker
Why are you talking to Buford, another clueless fool?
You mean that you object to me giving him a reference to the actual words in 4:157?
Truth Seeker

New Delhi, India

#195698 Nov 25, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Reaching God is different from differentiating between True God and false objects whom people worship in place of True God.
Unless you be on "Right Road" , you will never reach your destination , that is why Islam is names as "Straight way", which is always the "shortest way" to reach any destination.
People can get closer and closer to God based on their faith and their good deeds and their sincerity..... every one gets his or her rewards from God based on these criterion.
No one can make claim or boast that they have reached to God, no one else except prophets of God are "confirmed" to have reached closest to God, because God chose them and made them His messengers and prophets.
You cannot trip Muslims with these type of arguments and talks.
Unless you come to the starting point and shun worship of all false gods and goddesses and demi-gods and human gods, you are somewhere in darkness and groping here and there.
Ha HA HA..MUQ, you seen really worried man....In your tone, I can sense tinge of doubt in your own faith...

I am not surprised, any ways a false fabrication can not stand a scrutiny...for long...I will further expose your so called Book & it's author and your defenses are very weak my friend....
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195699 Nov 25, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What is this "Jewish Messiah being God incarnate"?
This is your own home grown philosophy and linked with Hindu concept of God taking human form.
She's Jewish.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#195700 Nov 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
I would like you to tell me what that has to do with the speciic post I made. All that I did was to accurately state what his disciples called him and accurately state that he never told them not to call him that.
Nobody called him LORD.

They called him lord with L not in caps.

In semitic languages, the difference between LORD and lord is found by reading the text properly.

For example, in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic it would be something like "The LORD said to my lord" or, "The Lord said said to my lord". In these cases, the LORD or the Lord, would mean God.

And Jesus or another prophet would simply be lord, which is something like 'Sir'.

Jesus did not object because he knew they were calling him lord respectfully. He knew that they were not calling him LORD or Lord.

For example, Zechariah 4:4 "And I answered and spoke to the angel that spoke with me, saying:'What are these, my lord?' "

You do not see 'my Lord'.

Psalms 110:1 "The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." (No Lord in there)

One has to throw away the Greek and English lenses, when one is reading the Scripture.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195701 Nov 25, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know fundamentals, you need not be expert on other religions.
Does that include Islam as well?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>

Quran says "What is after Truth?(nothing) but falsehood"
Solved the whole complex problem, with One Verse !!
Sure, assuming that Islam is the truth and Muhammad was not a false prophet. So blatantly assume that Islam and Muhammad are true, and don't question that claim, and the problem is solved. LOL!!!

I'll have to remember to tell people the same thing after I get done writing my book that tells everyone that I am a prophet. What is after the truth I have written?(nothing) but falsehood.

I'm going to make sure that my book is very clear and very simple to understand so that everybody can understand it and believe it. That seems to be a very important quality that an invention seems to need in order to be believable, so i better make sure I do that.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#195702 Nov 25, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
God is a woman?
Another Brain wave? Then who made men?
You are confused and speaking as if some one in delirium.
There is a lot of scripture that proves God is female. In heaven, she is neither male nor female but on earth, she will inhabit the body of a woman. Adam was created as the antithesis of God, which means many things, one being female to male. God was also Adams mother. When I first started reading scripture thirty years ago I was confused but everything makes sense to me now.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195703 Nov 25, 2013
It just boggles my mind to see Muslims such as BMZ and Alex say that on the one hand, Jesus was a true prophet of God, but on the other hand, he was dumb and he botched the mission.

Maybe they can ask Allah when they are in paradise why he picked such an incompetent person such as Jesus to carry out his plans. And Allah would say:

"I know, I know, don't remind me of that mistake. If only I thought more properly like you do. But, at least I learned from my mistake, and I finally picked the right person when I picked Muhammad".

And I guess they would say in response:

"That's okay Allah, everybody makes mistakes and can just simply pick the wrong guy for the job. Any time you need some advice, feel free to ask us".

And then they would see Jesus, and they would say:

"How come you didn't have more and better dialog with the Jewish authorities? That would have made your mission succeed".

And Jesus would say:

"I know, I know. What was I thinking? I was so stupid. I sure wish I had you guys around when I was on earth. Fortunately, Allah cleaned up the mess by picking Muhammad as the right person for the mission next time around. Allah might not always pick the right person, but fortunately, at least he learns from his mistakes".

Now before anybody laughs at this fake dialog, as they should, is the fake dialog any more ridiculous than BMZ and Alex suggesting that Jesus' mission failed, and therefore God's mission failed because he picked the wrong guy?

If there is something to truly laugh at, it's not this fake dialog, it is their inability to be able to think about the implications of what they are saying before they say it.

THAT'S the part that is truly laughable because it is real, and you have real people making these logical errors that any simpleton wouldn't make. I don't know whether someone should laugh or cry about someone's utter inability to think about what they are really saying. It is as alarming and disturbing to see this as it is funny. It is alarming and disturbing because these are not cartoon characters saying things like this, they are real people who were supposed to be born with a brain, and therefore be capable of the most basic abilities of reasoning and questioning.
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#195704 Nov 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am not. You are mistaken.
That is a very poor translation.
Email and ask them this:
Where is the following written in Qur'aan's Arabic verse?
"but [another] was made to resemble him to them. "
The folks at Saheeh International are the liars for they have inserted their opinion within the translation of the verse.
Go and read other translations of repute.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp...

Sahih International: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Shakir: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Muhammad Sarwar: and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Mohsin Khan: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e.'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]:

Arberry: and for their saying,'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'-- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;
Truth Seeker

New Delhi, India

#195705 Nov 25, 2013
Dear Listeners,

Please see the following two examples of Time dependent modification in Quranic Revelations on the same subject matter -

"Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah. It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each People according to what they have earned" (Sura 45:14)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth,(even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"(Sura 9:29)

The above can be easily explained, if only one reads the Quran in Chronological Fashion. Sura 45 was a late Meccan Sura when Mohammed was at his most vulnerable in Mecca, hence this softer attitude. And Sura 9 was one of the late Medinan Sura after recapture of Mecca...

At times, it becomes difficult to understand, whether Mohammed was Allah's servant or, vice versa...

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#195706 Nov 25, 2013
Muhammad lied!
God did not ordain Polygamy.

What does Scripture say about Polygamy?

In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.''For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.

Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother.

It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives”(Gen.4:19, 23).

The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm.

This was to be a permanent union between man and woman that they might be helpful to one another (Genesis 2:18). Marriage represents a relationship of both spiritual and physical unity.

Hebrews 13:3-4:“Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.

In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.)

Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#195707 Nov 25, 2013
Muhammad lied!
God did not ordain Polygamy.
Continued:

What does Scripture say about Polygamy?

God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17:“I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,'“you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you,'You shall not return that way again.'“Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it.

1 Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines violating the principle of monogamy that he was given through the law of Moses. Consider that Solomon at one time was the wisest man in the world. In I Kings 11:4:“For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Notice Solomon became a polytheist because he was influenced in polygamy. In his case many wives, became many gods. Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9).

The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Matt. 5:31-32:“Furthermore it has been said,“Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.

There are some stipulations in the law that are connected to this subject. Matt. 22:24:“Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.” This is based on the commandment found in Deut. 25:5-6:“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.“And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.”

Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.

The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges. Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin.

Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#195708 Nov 25, 2013
Muhammad lied!
God did not ordain Polygamy.
Continued:

What does Scripture say about Polygamy?

The New Testament teaches that,“Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband”(1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.

How many wives did Adam have in Gen.2:24? One, God did not take two wives out from his side. Monogamy has always been God's standard for the human race. From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriage relationship -one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:21-25). It cannot be interpreted he became one with “each wife”; then this would mean he would be a husband to each, committing adultery. God certainly could have made two or more wives for Adam, this would have endorse the idea of polygamy, but he made only one.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195709 Nov 25, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Sickness---I said I corrected it in the post right afterwards.
HughBe--- Moron, you were instructed to give the post number as well as to quote your words that support your new claim. Given that you are a STUPID load of waste you now try to DECEIVE your own brainless self.
Instead of giving the post number, I gave you an actual link to the post itself.

Here it is again.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8...

Why do you need the post number when you can click on it to see it for yourself? But that's okay, let's appease the dummy. The post number is 195454 and it is on page 9214.

And here is the exact quote
"So you are saying that people should think. Is that so they are just like you?"

And then, on the very next post, 195455, here is an exact quote of what I said.

"Whoops, have to correct this one to HughBe
So you are saying that people shouldn't think. Is that so they are just like you?".

Is this now crystal clear for your super simple mind?
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Was I not generous to you and said that at best you had 80% of my intelligence.
Obviously not. But you were being extraordinarily generous to yourself. Why is it always the stupidest ones that are their own best cheerleaders and proclaim themselves to be smart? I don't proclaim myself to be smart, I just sometimes proclaim others to be stupid. There's a difference. And HughBe stupid.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had 1/10 of my intelligence this task should not be giving you the challenge that you are now experiencing.
Oh, how dare me be efficient and give you an actual link to the exact post itself rather than writing a post number and quoting what you could have clearly read for yourself on the original post if you merely clicked on the link I gave you. I'll try harder next time to realize what kind of mind I am dealing with.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#195710 Nov 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody called him LORD.
They called him lord with L not in caps.
In semitic languages, the difference between LORD and lord is found by reading the text properly.
For example, in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic it would be something like "The LORD said to my lord" or, "The Lord said said to my lord". In these cases, the LORD or the Lord, would mean God.
And Jesus or another prophet would simply be lord, which is something like 'Sir'.
So earlier, was it you or Alex that said if the Jewish authorities heard the disciples call Jesus Lord, they would have arrested them? I can't remember for sure. But if it was Alex, then perhaps you two need to have a conversation. But remember something, Alex actually worked as an official researcher and used to be a Priest, so he probably knows a lot more than you do about the Bible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

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

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Jul 26 Shizle 40
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Jul 24 skylar 108
Shadows and sounds Jul 23 Dizy 1
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Jul 6 TC_Tia 14,656
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Jul 4 Pam 11
News What is Asatru? (Dec '10) Jul 3 ex pagan 2
News Sorry Witches, You Won't Be Able to Buy Spells ... Jun '15 Drake_Burrwood 1
More from around the web