FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
CAN WE DO THE APPLE_PIE HERE?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Tvebak, Cooments on Apple_Pie's Misleading Post  Reply with quote

brainout wrote:
   For others, the subthread in question begins at FFI, "Jesus is God Says Koran", page 56.


Thanks for the link you provided here.

Through this link, I am able to access and read the junk and stuff of FFI, Apple_Pie and other Christbots and No-bots.  I can copy their material and paste anywhere now. This link allows me to get in but I can't post.

BMZ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
All_Brains
Master Administrator
Master Administrator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 632



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been watching this thread for a while and I find it weired that both camps of Muslims & Christians reject eachother yet they still search for their vailidity in one supposedly corrupted scripture and another fake one authored by a fake prophet!!!

"Lau kana lee ajneha, la hawalt al-tairan"

If there WERE wings for me, I would have attempted to fly!

The above is a literal translation of (Lau and kana) combined. Kana is verb to be in the past tense (was or were).

The above structure does indeed indticate that God does not have a son, but that would have happened if he had one!

The above does raise the eye brows though, as God uses the very human defensive argument of "If I had"!!!

I thought God should have not subjected himself to the IF word, after all it's from Satan!!! Wink
_________________
A little boy prayed for a bike. Then he realized God doesn't work that way so he stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.
www.all-brains.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
AhmedBahgat
Golden Member
Golden Member


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 671


Location: Australia
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All_Brains wrote:
I have been watching this thread for a while and I find it weired that both camps of Muslims & Christians reject eachother yet they still search for their vailidity in one supposedly corrupted scripture and another fake one authored by a fake prophet!!!

"Lau kana lee ajneha, la hawalt al-tairan"

If there WERE wings for me, I would have attempted to fly!

The above is a literal translation of (Lau and kana) combined. Kana is verb to be in the past tense (was or were).

The above structure does indeed indticate that God does not have a son, but that would have happened if he had one!

The above does raise the eye brows though, as God uses the very human defensive argument of "If I had"!!!

I thought God should have not subjected himself to the IF word, after all it's from Satan!!! Wink


Oh please A_B, do you think I will waste my time with a detailed comment to such ignornat freaks AP and brainout?, think again

now to reply to what you said above that Allah subject Himself to the word IF,

you are wrong because the argument was said to the Kafirs, who think that Allah has a child,

it is not like Allah is talking about himself, RATHAR, Allah TOLD Mohammed to SAY to them such argument , i.e. If there is a son to Allah then I (Mohammed) will be the first worshipper


please donlt act desperate as those fools

Salam
_________________
And say: Truth has arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is bound to perish.
[The Quran ; 17:81]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All_Brains wrote:
I have been watching this thread for a while and I find it weired that both camps of Muslims & Christians reject eachother yet they still search for their vailidity in one supposedly corrupted scripture and another fake one authored by a fake prophet!!!

"Lau kana lee ajneha, la hawalt al-tairan"

If there WERE wings for me, I would have attempted to fly!

The above is a literal translation of (Lau and kana) combined. Kana is verb to be in the past tense (was or were).

The above structure does indeed indticate that God does not have a son, but that would have happened if he had one!

The above does raise the eye brows though, as God uses the very human defensive argument of "If I had"!!!

I thought God should have not subjected himself to the IF word, after all it's from Satan!!! Wink


Thanks, All-Brains.  That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out:  in kana can be read two ways, positive or negative.  I'm not trying to claim that Qu'ran buttresses or supports Bible.  That's what Apple Pie wants to claim, and he and I part ways there.  He wants to show that it's really a Christians' workpiece, and I don't agree on that.

My latest hypothesis is that Muhammed himself was a Christian, went bad and the demonboys messed with him, just as he first suspected and reported to Khadija, according to the hadiths.  

For the Qu'ran CLAIMS itself as another wanna-be-Bible, like the Book of Mormon claims.  There is very much in common within the doctrines, tenets, and rhetorical styles of BOTH sets of alleged "scripture" -- and the lifestyle of their leaders.  

  • Both leaders are held up as paragons of virtue, and you imitate the leader in even the smallest detail, that's the law for you.  Mormonism however is more like Calvin, preferring to go off to itself and establish its own ruling territory, not take over others, which is why they went west and settled in Utah, after Joseph Smith died.  They didn't war on Washington.
  • Though their leaders' histories are preserved (and slavered over);  those histories prove both leaders were NOT as 'advertised'.  
  • Both leaders were avowedly sex-crazy, practiced polygamy and child marriage is a big feature of both faiths, notoriously so.  
  • Both practiced trickery and took money/property from people.  
  • Both practiced false agreements.  Things were more civilized in Joseph Smith's day, and at that point you didn't use a sword to conquer, you used chicanery.  Worked, just as well.  
  • Both sects' holy texts unabashedly REWRITE PAST HISTORY even though you could, AT THAT TIME, prove the rewrite, patently false.  
  • Both sects' holy books are anti-semitic, even claiming to replace the Jews, albeit with variations on how (BOM asserts its people are the true Jews, and that's why Mormons are so hung up on genealogy).  
  • Both sects' holy texts use derisive and Delphic-Oracle language so the verses are just vague enough to be read in opposing ways.  
  • Both sects' holy texts claim their definition of "God" AND the prophet must be believed, else you go to hell.  
  • Both sects prescribe an iffy gotta-work-your-buns-off method of salvation, so are alike extremely legalistic, full of right and wrong weird clothing, food taboos, days, ceremonies which don't make sense.  
  • Both sets of holy texts engender honor killing and prescribe their own versions of jihad, though Mormonism favors political means, true support of the current country and not military takeover, so it's not a threat to civilization.  
  • Both sects prescribe a strict yet weird form of morality,
  • and if you leave, you can be killed.  
  • Most of all, both sects' holy books are fixated on Christ and Bible heroes, SUBSTITUTING a DIFFERENT Christ from the one in the Bible, but claiming it's the same 'guy'.
 The list of similarities is larger than I depict here, but you can see there is something of a pattern to at least investigate.


So what gives?  For there are 1200 years and thousands of miles between both books (Qu'ran and Book of Mormon plus the associated holy texts for each faith) -- yet they are sooooo similar? LOL I must focus on rhetoric, grammar, and so forth.  For if the SAME MIND is behind both sets of books, then it's NOT human, and it's NOT God.  That's the focus of my interest.

Joseph Smith didn't know anything about Islam.  It wasn't a faith America understood.  So he's not copying Islam, and in fact as you review what he writes, it's entirely Bible-centric, and it resembles Christian Gnosticism and Kabbalah, the most.  Idea is, God the Father is more like a Greek god, but an alien from another planet, and Christ is his son (naturally propagated), who wars with his brother (yes, brother) Satan over the human race.  The classic souls-sent-to-earth thingy, but with a distinctly-modern "alien" twist.  Nice aliens, of course (excepting Satan).

So why the SAME WEIRD TENETS as in Islam, which you'd have to be an Islamic scholar (at that time), to even know?  Granted, being 1200 years later, modern conveniences like toilet paper are not forbidden.  But much of the moral code is the same, especially with respect to women.

Hence my pendantry about kana.  As for others' interest in comparing Qu'ran and Bible, well -- there are many reasons to do that.  Biggest one, is that the Qu'ran, like Book of Mormon, claims to be THE ULTIMATE book, and both claim that the Bible is corrupt.  So if either one is really THE ULTIMATE REVELATION it must pass the same tests as you would use on Bible.

That's what I'm doing.  Others are also doing it, and for their own interests.  I do find the translations Apple Pie renders sometimes quite hard to dispute.  Maybe you would also, maybe you would not.

But it's really the Qu'ran which begs this question, as it claims the BIBLE is valid, but somehow read wrong or interpreted wrong (it never quite says the TEXT is corrupted, as Mutley pointed out in an FFI thread, providing if I recall 21 ayahs to prove that).

So if the Qu'ran claims to update/improve/be the last word of the Word of God, then it must be compared to the very set of books it claims to 'correct' or 'update'.  So that's the reason for the comparison:  Qu'ran itself demands it.

That those believing in the Qu'ran throw out the Bible and scurriliously abuse it to make the Qu'ran look good, well -- that's their problem.  Christians don't do their homework well in Bible either (else you'd have NO prolife movement, for example).  So it's not only Muslims who are sloppy.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:48 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It always interests me to see which passages of the Bible muslims consider ‘valid’ and uncorrupted, especially when using them to prove the validity of their own Qur’an. For example, passages in the New Testament about Jesus referring to God as though talking about someone not him seem safely uncorrupted. Those detailing his crucifixion, however, have fallen foul of editors, apparently.
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed, Pazuzu.  You put it well!

We Christians tend to make that same error.  Basically if we see the text of the 'other side' agreeing with our own, we call it "valid", and if it doesn't, then the other side is wrong.

The deeper issue is WHOSE CHARACTER is displayed in the text.  That's what I'm testing for.  Because, agreement can be had from either a demon writer or a Divine writer -- or, a human who had his facts straight.  So agreement tells me nothing.  It's the character of the author of the book, which is determinative.

I submit you can tell character of the author from a large piece of writing.  And it's a kind of autograph, really.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed — in principle. Unfortunately, as plenty of contemporary Islamic scholars keep pointing out (tellingly, none of them actually muslims or from a muslim background), the traditionally accepted (in other words, orthodox muslim) view of the Qur’an and its construction simply does not hold up! Taking separate strands together it seems that the final version (like the kinds that circulate today) only turned canon a couple of centuries after Muhammad, and certainly not during his lifetime.
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello ignorant TV

again, names in Arabic can not be translated you fool

you are dismissed too


The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.

Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?

Cheers.



hmmm, there is no any other use to the following two human names:

1) Ahmed
2) Mohammed

some names however may have other uses, for example:

Hassan = Human name (male)

Hassan = Good

another example is like this:

Jamal = Human name (male)

Jamal = Beauty

a third example goes like this:

Aya = Human name (female)

Aya = Sign


now, for Ahmed & Mohammed, I have never heard of any other meaning but human names (males)


Please stop being desperate and confused

cheers

Sorry Ahmed but your entire comparison is to be dismissed.

First: Of all these names Ahmad is the least used and it is unfair to lampoon it with Mohammad.

Second: Hassan is hardly ever used. MAybe Hassana but not Hassan.

Third: Those are Arabic words. They fit the Weight from the root (Masdar). Mohammad for example is on the same weight as Moghaffal. As such they are Arabic words and are fair games to be used.

Fourth: As for Mohammad not being used in any other form, who would dare use it in any other form? Who would dare even naming their teddy bear Mohammad? That does not mean it can not be used in other form.

So sorry, your examples are lacking and biased.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

brainout wrote:
Agreed, Pazuzu.  You put it well!

We Christians tend to make that same error.  Basically if we see the text of the 'other side' agreeing with our own, we call it "valid", and if it doesn't, then the other side is wrong.

The deeper issue is WHOSE CHARACTER is displayed in the text.  That's what I'm testing for.  Because, agreement can be had from either a demon writer or a Divine writer -- or, a human who had his facts straight.  So agreement tells me nothing.  It's the character of the author of the book, which is determinative.

I submit you can tell character of the author from a large piece of writing.  And it's a kind of autograph, really.

We have to teach people at an early age that a valid argument is just an argument that does not contain fallacies. That a valid argument can still be True or False. Validating an argument before accepting it or refuting it is a minimum before a person can go around claiming to have a free will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spot–on, Lord Wink. As anyone versed in Logic can point out, a ‘valid’ argument does not necessarily equate to a ‘sound’ argument — as the hilarious argument proving the moon’s construction from green cheese (using contradictory premises but a valid argument) goes to show…


_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum