It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Allah is NOT Some Pagan Moon God

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I was also VERY SPECIFIC in that I am not Jewish..

I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and the NEW Testament..

Your comments in reference to the Old Testament were specifically covered in my post...

Thank you again...

Semper




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I've covered most of those quotes already in a previous thread. Fact is, whenever they're quoted, they are only partially quoted, meaning the entire sentence or paragraph that they belong in is not given.

The "war passages" in the Quran are there because Muhammad and Muslims were being attacked by pagan tribes constantly, and they did not know if they were allowed to fight back and kill to defend themselves. Angel Gabriel came to Muhammad and told him that Allah had granted Muslims the right to defend themselves and fight, only on the grounds that it's self-defense, and that they couldn't not be the offenders, and that if the enemy were to ask for peace, then Muslims must stop fighting and give them peace.

Here are my previous replies to these Surrahs:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I wonder why people find a need to believe in anything. Hell Allah could be a muffin cap for all we know. I belive in God but dont try and understand or figure God out. Dont know why I believe in anything to be honest, but I do.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Evidently you do not believe the bit of history that Muhammed was persuaded . . . by his cohorts . . .

1. that it was not demons but angels giving him the revelations . . .

2. that it would be a grandly successful thing to have a religion to fight in the name of . . . thereby to energize the soldiers all the more and successfully take all the more territory and booty.

Muhammed thought both ideas worth taking up and proceeded to go about doing just that.

One reason beyond my former roommate's research into such things from Muslim historical sources . . . one reason such is believable

is that . . . great percentages of the religion have proceeded to do the same thing over the centuries whenever they were powerful and focused enough to get away with it.

Kind of like . . . their SOP; agenda; major way of being in the world . . . has not changed.

Of course it's interesting that they justify it so intensely via verses in the Koran . . . except when the Jihadi's are wanting to pretend that the Jihadi's are really a religion of peace instead of bloody pieces. Then they scream bloody murder about "out of context."

The rest of the time the context has so much blood all over it . . . the details tend to get somewhat obscured.

imho, of course . . . though from plenty of observations.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Forgive me, but I didn't understand some of what you wrote.

Could you not skip words when you write please?

[edit on 5-9-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
The quotes are quotes DJ...

Nothing more, nothing less....

To imply that they do not say what they do, is to deny the truth...

The old and much misused excuse that they are taken out of context, is just that, an excuse for the words...

Many religious books contain similar such text...\

Your belief does not erase the words, diminish them or support them, it is simply belief..

The words are simply words..

They are there and I have read the Quran as I have read many other religious texts and they also contain words that one belief or another may want to "explain" away...

That is your faith...

That is fine...

It does not however mean that one should not examine such things in a scientific manner, and excusing something because it makes one uncomfortable is NOT scientific..

Semper



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Did you read my replies to those verses?

Sure quotes can be taken out of context. Those verses each contained a condition which was omitted when only select words were chosen from the text. They were made to look as if that the Quran commanded Muslims to kill anyone who disbelieves, and yet when you read what's actually written there, you will see that the order to kill is only on the condition that it's in self defense, and that no more fighting is allowed if the enemy asks for peace.

If I were to say, "There is a large problem with illegal immigration, with many people coming from Mexico to seek refuge in the US illegally. Those Mexicans should be imprisoned," and someone only chose to quote me when I say "Those Mexicans should be imprisoned," would that mean the same context as my original quote?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


semperfortis, it's very difficult to reply to those, because you don't seem to have referenced the surahs properly. And you don't seem to have quoted them at all, just given your interpretation of the 'quotes'. If something is taken out of context to twist the meaning, then it's been taken out of context to twist the meaning, and it's hardly an excuse.

I agree with you 100% about scientific method, but this whole 'Allah is Moon God' thing has been debunked so many times here, that to think that people are worried about scientific method rather than promulgating their point of view is laughable. The very fact that people have to make up stuff to 'defend' themselves against another religion shows how deeply rooted their faith is
.

See, I don't have to search for "Christianity evil" in google, or insult Jesus because I have another belief that needs 'protecting'. I just study Christianity (very briefly, I admit), and realise that it's basic theological tenets are not matching with what I understand to be the Creator.

I find it interesting that when people speaking english refer to 'God' (which has pretty well documented connections to pagan pre-christian religions), their doing nothig else but using the english language, but when people speaking arabic refer to 'Allah'(which at best has pretty flimsy connections to any sort of moon god), their suddenly talking about the evil 'moon god'.

whirlwind: I'm just curious, but what is Tahrirolvasyleh? What is Ishaq? And just to understand what you are talking about Bukhari: V4B52N220, could you post the whole passage for me? Or did you just pull it off from somewhere on the internet


Excuse my sharp tones. What can a person do but become cynical when exposed to this sort of opposition?

[edit on 6-9-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   

See, I don't have to search for "Christianity evil" in google, or insult Jesus because I have another belief that needs 'protecting'.


You have apparently misunderstood my position. I reread my posts and it appears I was clear, but allow me to clarify.

I do not consider any religion "evil."

I do not consider anyone is "evil" simply because of their religion.

Some people are evil and a percentage of those people choose their religion as an excuse for their actions that are in direct opposition to what is accepted by society.

This is true in Christians, Jews, Muslims and every other religion one can name....

Your support of any given religion is only valid in an intellectual conversation if you remove your motions prior to coming to the table.


"DJ"

I will study some more and get back to you. Thank you for your post in reply to mine. I find this area fascinating...

Semper



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

What can a person do but become cynical when exposed to this sort of opposition?


Remain intelligent and thus be taken seriously would be my suggestion.

Otherwise people stop reading your posts; as flaming and emotional outbursts are not productive and frankly boring...

Semper



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Thats a cop-out semper, we both know Christian churches refer back to and use the old testament.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Thats a cop-out semper, we both know Christian churches refer back to and use the old testament.


The Old Testament is used for the purpose of Prophecy and Historical Reference...

When Jesus came, The New Testament, he CHANGED all the teachings of Moses and gave us our rules for living a righteous life.

The rules for living as a Christian all emanate from the New Testament. Hence the word, "Christ-ian"

This is very clearly laid out by Jesus in his conversations with the Pharisees and if you have read the Bible as many times as you say, I am surprised you would not know this.

However, at least you do now, and knowledge is knowledge no matter where you obtain it.

Semper



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis


The above are all DIRECT quotes from the Quran. Not in context, or taken out of context, simply and succinctly direct quotes....

Now before you jump in with the "Well the Bible says this, or that", I am NOT a Jew



(1) If they are not in context then by definition they are out of context.

(2) That you are not a Jew is not the point. All Christian churches and especially the fundamentalist and Baptist varieties rely heavily on the Old Testament and often use it as justification for specific stances, so to say that you don't know of such passages or are not taught them is disingenuous. If the churches relied entirely on the teachings of Jesus, you would be correct.

BTW I was raised in a small Brethren country church up in the Shenandoah. I was spoon fed the Bible and I am not disputing the distinctions you make about Jesus changing the law or any of that.

I am just saying that you are being mighty selective.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
From Psalm 137

a blessing on him who repays you in kind what you have inflicted on us; a blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks.

Pretty harsh and far from what i would consider spiritual. Now that is indeed taken out of context so...

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, sat and wept, as we thought of Zion.
There on the willows we hung up our lyres,
for our captors asked us there for songs, our tormentors, for amusement,
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion."
How can we sing a song of the Lord on alien soil?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither;
let my tongue stick to my palate if I cease to think of you,
if I do not keep Jerusalem in memory even at my happiest hour.
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem's fall;
how they cried, "Strip her, strip her to her very foundations!"
Fair Babylon, you predator,
a blessing on him who repays you in kind what you have inflicted on us;
a blessing on him who seizes your babies
and dashes them against the rocks.


Within the context of the whole psalm it is part of a hymn of mourning and within the context of that it is mourning the so-called Babylonian captivity.

Still it is pretty harsh. And, those were harsh times and blood was easily spilt. The times (and location) of Muhammad were pretty harsh as well.

It is easy to sit in our 21st century homes with all our comforts and our enlightened ways and condemn what happened 1500 years ago, 2000 years ago or 3000 years ago and judge them accordingly but in all reality there is no comparison and especially without the context of time and place.

I don't need a whole slue of quotes to make my point, this one does nicely since there are many more in the old Testament just like it.

I am sure some of our arm chair Biblical scholars will take me to task over this post but I really don't give a rats ass what they think. I can only listen to that quiet voice within my own heart and do what I can to follow it.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You have apparently misunderstood my position. I reread my posts and it appears I was clear, but allow me to clarify.

I do not consider any religion "evil."

I do not consider anyone is "evil" simply because of their religion.


Semperfortis, sorry. That wasn't directed at you. YOU seem to have misunderstood my position
. I was talking about 'people'. While I may have been a little less than polite (if that), I'd like to think my post was not a flaming and emotional outburst. Definitely not towards you, anyhow. Although I notice you didn't actually address any of my points.

An example of a quote out of context:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

I know what he's talking about, you know what he's talking about, but if someone who didn't know the bible read just that (and even the lines after it), they'd have a very different perception of Christianity.

About Jesus changing the OT teachings, while it may be a little off-topic (although interesting in the idea that the 'previous' religion seems to shun it's offshoots, and the 'new' religion seeks to distance itself from it's roots- Judaism-Christianity, Christianity-Islam, etc), I'd like to point out that Jesus said himself that he had not come to change even one iota of the teachings of Moses.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Grover,

You either again failed to understand my position, or as usual liberally ignored it...

I have SPECIFICALLY stated that there are quotes in most religious texts similar to the ones in the Quran..

Having to keep typing that is growing tiresome...

You must be making the contention that if it is in the bible as well as the quran it must be alright... Is this what you are saying?

Are you actually implying that two wrongs make a right?

Of course you are not...

I know you better than that..

But what you are doing is one of the most NON productive practices that happens on here...

Saying.. "Well mine might say this, but yours says that!!!!"
NA NA NA NA BOO BOO

It is difficult at best to hold an intelligent discussion on religion, as evidenced by some of the previous posts, and that difficulty is compounded when the only comments come from those that are too emotionally involved, or have no other argument than "WELL YOU DO IT TOO"

SIGH

Sadly this thread had potential and I fear that potential has been derailed and trolled into oblivion...

I truly love the discussion of religion, but along FACTUAL lines and not what some one wants something to say, or the screams of "out of context", or "well your book says this" and more and more na na na na boo boo ...

SO if anyone wants to really discuss religion, please start another thread and invite me. I would love to discuss this very complicated and fascinating topic at depth with those that can do so without prejudice...

"Please wait until the debate tournament has ended. I'm pretty tied into that unless I lose this last round..."

Until then my friends, with this thread I am concluded...

CIAO

Semper



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



Yes I know what you said semper and though generally I agree with you (on this), I am trying to point two things out here.

(1) You have specifically said that there are passages in other religions that are similar and I agree, that is why I posted psalm 137... BUT whenever this discussion comes up, you always post passages from the Quran but never post similar ones from other religions. Based on that alone, it would suggest that you have a bias against Islam which would be unfortunate since there are far more good and decent Muslims than there are terrorists, who have perverted the teachings of Islam to justify their behavior.

(2) The nature of context and how taking something out of context sometimes changes the whole tenor and meaning of a passage; then again sometimes it does not. This is especially true when the passages in general were in response to very specific events.

This is not a conservative/liberal thing semper so please do not try and make it into one.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Out of my respect for you Grover, I am going to address your comments...


(1) You have specifically said that there are passages in other religions that are similar and I agree, that is why I posted psalm 137... BUT whenever this discussion comes up, you always post passages from the Quran but never post similar ones from other religions. Based on that alone, it would suggest that you have a bias against Islam


I also don't EVER post examples of Rabbits in a thread about CATS...

Come on Grover, stop looking for the Boogie-man....

The Thread is about ALLAH, ISLAM and the Muslim Religion. YOU know me well enough by now to know that I NEVER play the "TIT for TAT" game in my debating of an issue..

I try desperately to stick to an issue and if the thread was about Christianity, I would gladly jump in there with you.

IT IS NOT about other religions, so I stick to the issues.. If you wish to debate Christianity, please start the thread and invite me. We will have a GREAT time..


(2) The nature of context and how taking something out of context sometimes changes the whole tenor and meaning of a passage;


I could not agree more....

HOWEVER...

The claim that something is taken out of context, and therefor not an accurate statement, is ONLY valid when the claimant produces the FULL context of the "quote" and SHOWS that it is not accurate in it's present form....

I have posted EXACT and UNEDITED phrases taken from the USC translation of the Quran...

I have ignored the claims of "Out of Context" because NOT once have those claims been backed up with proof...

I even went back and reread the pertinent text, and to my understanding, the quotes from the Quran I posted are accurate.

I have been known to be hardheaded however, so if anyone cares to post the RELEVANT text that includes the quotes I have posted and shows everyone where the actual context of the message differs in it's full content, I would applaud them of course.

One can "claim" that something is out of context, but Grover, you have been here plenty long enough to know that one can "Claim" that the President is a undercover agent for the Secret Squirrel Society.. Claiming it does not make it so, nor should it be believed until proven...

As I stated, I reread the passages and they look valid to me..


This is not a conservative/liberal thing semper so please do not try and make it into one.


You are right, I stand corrected and apologize for my remark...


Semper



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Ok Semper I am going to have to ask DJ Messiah for help on this since his knowledge of Islam and Islamic history is far greater than mine, even though I have studied it, I cannot connect passages with events.

Out of context means many things... it can be out of context of the rest of a passage or it can be out of context of the events that led rise to it in the first place. With the Quran it is often just one or the other but sometimes both as well.

Even if the writings you cite are straightforward and clear cut without any ambiguity about them, if they are out of context to the events that inspired them, they can be totally misconstrued. This is what the Jihadists often do claiming that a passage meant to deal with a specific event justifies their terrorism, even when it doesn't.

Do I make myself clear?

In Psalm 137 the writer is mourning the Babylonian exile. Now... it could have happened in the lifetime of the writer or it could have happened a generation or two before; after all the exile lasted 70 some odd years.... the length of time from the Rise of the Communists in Russia in 1918 to their fall in 1989.

With the Quran the writings and the events motivating them are much closer together, often days or weeks.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Out of context means many things... it can be out of context of the rest of a passage or it can be out of context of the events that led rise to it in the first place. With the Quran it is often just one or the other but sometimes both as well.

Even if the writings you cite are straightforward and clear cut without any ambiguity about them, if they are out of context to the events that inspired them, they can be totally misconstrued. This is what the Jihadists often do claiming that a passage meant to deal with a specific event justifies their terrorism, even when it doesn't.

Do I make myself clear?


This I had to quote again; I could not have explained it clearer myself.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how taking things out of context breeds misunderstanding and terrorists. This is how ignorance gets perpetuated -- through taking things out of context.

Grover, thank you for explaining it so clearly.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join