Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 254782 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.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#202258 Mar 3, 2014
KRISHNA - A LIAR

The Gita is a big lie since its teachings are concoctions of that expert liar Krishna who sought to project himself as God.

In Hinduism, the Personal God/Ishwar is relegated to a lower status than the absolute and any worshipper can choose for worship any god - Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Agni, Varuna, Indra or any other - as his Personal God.

However, the most authoritative texts of Hinduism which are the 4 Vedas and the Upanishads make it clear that the source of creation is the absolute which is called Brahman.

Ishwar or the Personal God is a creation of Brahman like the rest of the cosmos.

So, how can any Personal God/Ishwar be the Brahman which is described in the Vedas and in the Upanishads as THAT and as neti neti (not this, not that but something other than this or that)?

The idea of an anthropomorphic, anthropopathic Personal God being equated with the Brahman (absolute) is ridiculous and the concoctions of liars like sexy Krishna.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#202259 Mar 3, 2014
Ya Ma. ROFL.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#202260 Mar 3, 2014
Dear ex-father Alex,

What's your pronouncement on the sexy lunatic, Krishna?

Should Krishna be whipped, burnt alive, admitted to a mental hospital, paraded naked in public with a baton shoved in his blue bum or trained to be a pole dancer?

Please, ex-father, hasten to answer me.

(smiles)
Truth Seeker

New Delhi, India

#202261 Mar 3, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
KRISHNA - A LIAR
The Gita is a big lie since its teachings are concoctions of that expert liar Krishna who sought to project himself as God.
In Hinduism, the Personal God/Ishwar is relegated to a lower status than the absolute and any worshipper can choose for worship any god - Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Agni, Varuna, Indra or any other - as his Personal God.
However, the most authoritative texts of Hinduism which are the 4 Vedas and the Upanishads make it clear that the source of creation is the absolute which is called Brahman.
Ishwar or the Personal God is a creation of Brahman like the rest of the cosmos.
So, how can any Personal God/Ishwar be the Brahman which is described in the Vedas and in the Upanishads as THAT and as neti neti (not this, not that but something other than this or that)?
The idea of an anthropomorphic, anthropopathic Personal God being equated with the Brahman (absolute) is ridiculous and the concoctions of liars like sexy Krishna.
Hey now I got you ...... You are a Muslim in disguise ...... You are just acting as an Atheist, but your real agenda is to Blaspheme against "Krsna" and "Christ" ........

Bhagavd Gita & Veda is quite clear that, there is only one God and that is Para Brahman (Supreme Purusha). And that Supreme Purusha is "Krsna". Vedas do not mention about "Krsna" because he did not choose to reveal himself to humanity in his personal form at that period. He revealed himself as "Narayana" or, "Visnu" (Working Form) in Vedas.

The creation theory is quite clearly depicted in Vedas & Bhagavad Gita ..... All living beings are born with the three modes (Goodness, Passion & Ignorance) in different Degrees. Now there are very few who are in pure Goodness. Most of us are a mix of different degrees of Passion & Ignorance.

To keep the major portion of the mass close to God, advent of different Demigods was necessary. Only people in pure mode of goodness can become complete devotee of "Bhagavan" in one birth. For others, worship of Demigod is a must to prepare themselves for higher spiritual reality. That is what is elaborately explained in Bhagavad Gita.

"Krsna" being the only God, knew it very well that all are only worshiping him, but he did not want to force any one to become pure devotee. No one can become a true follower by force and it is a proven fact in other material aspects as well even in modern times.

Please see the following verses from Gita -

ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta
yajante sraddhayanvitah
te 'pi mam eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-purvakam (Gita 9:23)

Meaning: Those who worship other DemiGods(Devata), O son of Kunti, are actually worshiping Me alone, but they are doing it without true understanding.

Purport : This verse further affirms the futility of Polytheism, it confirms that there is only one God and all Devatas are just created to satisfy the False Ego of humans in different modes of material nature. But, Krsna being compassionate, does not want to force any one to worship him. He wants the true followers to come to him and dwell with him in Kingdom Of God.

But at the same time, he affirms it quite clearly that, to get suitable reward, one needs to completely submit to Him alone in full knowledge of him -

ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah (Gita 4:11)

Meaning: All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.

Go to hell with your blatant lies .......... You are a closet Muslim and there is no doubt about it. Period.
LiLyknows

Quitman, TX

#202262 Mar 3, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Lily,
Two readers have judged you soooooo well. Taht is impressive!
Kitaab in Arabic does not only mean a book. It also means scripture or revelations.
Only the Jews had revelations. Christians received no revelations, no scripture and even Jesus did not receive any revelations, which shows that he came with no book, brought no book, left no book and no scripture.
Christianity glued on a forged copy of the Jewish Holy Scriptures and called it the Old Testament.
Jesus believed only in the Jewish Holy Scriptures, mainly the Torah. Injeel means the knowledge and wisdom that was granted to the man Jesus.
Depending on what translation you are reading, some the translators are challenged at trying to make the English word "Scripture" to work but it's obviously awkward. The words aren't interchangeable, not all books are scripture or contain any true 'revelations'(take the koran for instance).

The Christians didn't receive any revelations? You mean besides THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS?

Which is likely where moh got the idea to try to mimic the concept and call what he was fabricating 'revelations'(but they weren't). You continue to shoot yourself in the foot, no scripture in the Christian teachings? Still the same translators that use 'scripture' in the translation for Yahya (John), so do you want to reevaluate your argument? Your koran claims that your pagan idol taught the Messiah the wisdom of the Torah and Injeel, which is total bs of course (it was even ignorant of the identity of the "God" of the Torah and what it contained) but still it is implied to be available at the time of Christ INTACT. The 'injeel' or the arabic of the greek "euaggeliz&#333; " that translated as 'Gospels' in English was also already circulated. Moh's half-blind cousin-in-law used to translate the Gospels into arabic (probably for moh) remember?

The Gospels were written to record the teachings of Christ as witnessed by his apostles, one of which was referred to in the koran as a chosen from birth prophet (Yahya) and witness testimony of the nature of Christ. And in addition to that moh took from it to fabricate what it called scripture while calling all the sources he took from the furqan, complete, truthful (but only knew bits and pieces of what was said and couldn't keep people, names, places, books, or times straight).

Again you continue to claim that your 'allah' is an incompetent idiot since IT allegedly 'revealed' all of those books/scripture BEFORE mohammed made all the claims about them and claimed to confirm them (and failed). So your excuse is corruption of what 'came before' for it failing to prove itself, but that doesn't change that IT made the claim and theoretically should have known (foresight) if those books/scripture would ever be corrupted NOT say that they were the criterion (furqan) complete, truthful, and the right path and claim to confirm them. So what you are saying is what? Your 'allah'(moh) had no ability to protect what was revealed before, and then it failed to foresee it and made a statement to prove authority based on something that would later (as you claim) be corrupted or even non-existent. And then on top of all of that, NONE of those books/scripture of any of the Prophets or Apostles are in the koran itself, all that moh (allah) could do is narrate (copy) and comment about his limited knowledge about what they taught.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#202263 Mar 3, 2014
The most authoritative books of Hinduism which are the 4 Vedas and the Upanishads do not mention Krishna of Vrindavan even once. In the Gita, Krishna speaks about himself in megalomaniacal terms. Krishna's a self-appointed God. LOL.
Truth Seeker

New Delhi, India

#202264 Mar 4, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
The most authoritative books of Hinduism which are the 4 Vedas and the Upanishads do not mention Krishna of Vrindavan even once. In the Gita, Krishna speaks about himself in megalomaniacal terms. Krishna's a self-appointed God. LOL.
The personality of "Krsna" who spoke such profound and in-depth philosophy of Bhagavad Gita, can never be a liar.

Liars always leave behind traces, contradictions and falsehood, like that rape enabler Mohammad and his Quran left.

But Gita left behind eternal truths that can not be disproved and with advancements of cosmic science, the deeper meanings of many verses of Bhagavd Gita are now becoming well established.

Simply there is no doubt that "Krsna" who spoke Bhagavd Gita is the God Almighy..

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#202265 Mar 4, 2014
KRISHNA LOON

I will soon undertake an exegesis of the Vibhuti Yoga or the Yoga of Manifestation in the Gita and show that it's pseudoscience.

Here's one example of this crap called Vibhuti Yoga attributed to Krishna the idiot:

"Among horses, know me to be Ucchaishrava, born of nectar of the king of elephants I am Airawat, and among men, I am the king."

What sense does the above example make? None!

I'll examine the above babble later to show that it is BS and provide other examples of this pseudoscience.



I'll turn Krishna into a bigger laughing stock compared to what he is already.

LOL.
Truth Seeker

New Delhi, India

#202266 Mar 4, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
KRISHNA LOON
I will soon undertake an exegesis of the Vibhuti Yoga or the Yoga of Manifestation in the Gita and show that it's pseudoscience.
Here's one example of this crap called Vibhuti Yoga attributed to Krishna the idiot:
"Among horses, know me to be Ucchaishrava, born of nectar of the king of elephants I am Airawat, and among men, I am the king."
What sense does the above example make? None!
I'll examine the above babble later to show that it is BS and provide other examples of this pseudoscience.
I'll turn Krishna into a bigger laughing stock compared to what he is already.
LOL.
You will only end up proving yourself more Ignorant ... you closet Muslim ...

First of all, this chapter is called "Opulence of The Absolute". In this chapter God, gave some allegorical example to Arjuna to give some comparative example of famous created things with himself. There is no pseudo science, these are just comparisons.

Through these verses "Krsna" was giving Arjuna an idea of his omnipresence and omnipotence .....

You are totally Ignorant about Bhagavad Gita like all Muslims are ......... You simply lack the basics to challenge Bhagavad Gita ..... Besides you do not even have God's blessings with you.
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#202267 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Save your "Pity" for yourself.
Neither we, nor our prophet need any "Pity" from dregs like you, the same goes for your scholarship and your so called "research".
You are dealers in hate and hatred and that is where you will end.
Qur'an 22:52 "Every Messenger or Prophet before you recited the message Satan cast into his recitation."

Prove it.
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#202268 Mar 4, 2014
bmz wrote:
Christians received no revelations
Silly "Scholar,"

Read this: http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/10.htm

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202269 Mar 4, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is you, who has not read the gospels well. Jesus was up to something.
" 36 He said to them,“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
And look at the stingy disciples' reply in Luke 22:38
38 The disciples said,“See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied."
Jesus knew they were not willing to sell everything and were not willing to buy sword. The answer "See, Lord, here are two swords.” already showed him they were weaklings and wimps. If you were in his place, you would have felt being pissed off!
He was up to something but it's not really clear what, nor you have any idea.

While the Nazarene was about to be captured, Peter cut the ear of a servant of a high priest who came to bring Yeshua to be sentences, but the Nazarene "healed" the servant. Is that a typical behaviour of a rioter?

If the Nazarene wanted to make wars he would have recruited men from the beginning for that purpose and his messages would have been all about wars and freedom for the Jews in the name of god. But he was not famous for his nationalistic character.
Mahmood

Peterborough, Canada

#202270 Mar 4, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Brother Mahmood,
If you wish to understand Islam from my perspective, then I would sincerely suggest that you read Koraan and forget other books.
Koraan is The Book and stands Supreme over all the books.
Also, I would strongly suggest that you should not carry your past baggage that you dropped. In fact, you should stay away from Islam and Koraan and try to be a good non-Muslim as well as a good ex-Muslim.
Salaams
BMZ
I am a good non & ex-muslim even though I am not perfect.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#202271 Mar 4, 2014
PETER'S CUTTING THE EAR OF A HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT

Much of the Bible is embellishment in order to impress fools and to conceal the incapacity of dear Jesus.

Firstly, using yogic power, it's easy to restore functional imbalances in a diseased body but it's well impossible to re-attach a severed organ to the body.

Assuming Jesus restored the severed ear of the servant, it could be argued that he did so out of fear for Peter's well being and safety.

By refitting the chopped off ear Jesus tried to assuage the flared tempers of his opponents who would have beaten him further and perhaps killed Peter for daring to attack the high priest's servant.

So, it's most likely that, not wishing to invite further trouble and perhaps by way of impressing the opponents present at the scene, Jesus performed the yogic-surgery.

Sadly, nothing could change the minds of his tormentors and poor Jesus was hung on the cross like an animal for all his crimes.

It must have been really embarrassing for Jesus' supporters to see their God (Jesus) whipped, mocked and hung on a cross to die with him (Jesus) being incapable of freeing himself by using his yogic powers.

LMAO

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202272 Mar 4, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
That he did not do. I don't think that was on his agenda. He came to reform Judaism. The Romans were not on his radar.
You accuse the Nazarene to be a colossal failure because he didn't free his country, and now you claim the Romans were not on his radar.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>We are talking about the biblical Jesus. This story has nothing to do with Allah.
We are talking about the Nazarene to which even Quran speaks about. Allah (the god) has all to do with him since he was one of his messengers...
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>Allah has told us through Qur'aan that the son of Mary, was neither killed nor crucified. That is enough for us. And we know after reading all the gospels that the crucifixion is a hoax.
Quran has only made some affermations. Considering the fact that that book came 7 centuries later the supposed fact, and that it has not supported his claims, we can conclude Quran is not worth to look to verify whether the subject in question is true or false.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>Now, do you believe that he was really crucified,
Maybe it happened.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>resurrected himself and went into heavens?
No.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202273 Mar 4, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
Mary was a Levite and according to the NT Joseph of the lineage of King David was not the biological father of Jesus and so Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah though he referred to himself in those terms. NT is a book of fake claims. LMAO.
Mary was a Levite because you say so? LOL

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202274 Mar 4, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
Mary's mother was a Levite but her father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah. However, in Jewish law, mother's lineage is used to determine the Jewishness of progeny. The Mishnah, the first written source of the Halakha, says that the status of the progeny of mixed marriages is determined matrilineally. So, by this religious law definition, Mary was a Levite.
Mixed marriages in the Mishnah refers to a marriage between Jew and a foreigner/gentile, and not between a Jew and a Levite or any other Hebraic tribe.

Mary was a Levite is a false claim in absence of proof.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#202275 Mar 4, 2014
El Cid wrote:
Silly "Scholar,"

Read this: http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/10.htm
No need to read! Nothing was revealed to Christians by God. Period!

This is another great fact, which no Christian can deny!

“G-d is certainty I'm a belief.”

Since: Aug 09

Golus

#202276 Mar 4, 2014
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#202277 Mar 4, 2014
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
Quran has only made some affermations. Considering the fact that that book came 7 centuries later the supposed fact, and that it has not supported his claims, we can conclude Quran is not worth to look to verify whether the subject in question is true or false.
I just want to address this silly and idiotic reasoning parroted out that Qur'aan came 7 centuries later.

Christianity in her corrupted form and her book known as the New Testament also came 6-7 centuries later.

You must also keep in mind that it is not worth looking into the New Testament to verify any damn thing as that book, which has nothing redeeming therin, was not revealed by God.

We do not consider the New Testament a scripture. It is the scripture of a Church founded by pagans.

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.

Archaeology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 8,000-year-old female figurine uncovered in cen... Sep 16 Stephany McDowell 1
News On the canvas: Museum digs up modern collection Sep 15 Albert 1
News Dore Gold: Archaeology is best defense of Jewis... Sep 13 naman 2
News Pioneers' graves to be relocated (Jul '07) Sep 12 ima hoosier 187
News Editorial: Return of Native American remains em... Sep 6 really 1
News Airport runway battle heats up in Macon (Mar '09) Aug '16 Curious 31
News Ruby Rose reveals John Wick 2 co-star Keanu Ree... Aug '16 daredevil82 2
More from around the web