Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam

page: 17
25
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 


That was an excellent post, and I thank you for it. wa alaykum as-salaam.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Oh man. This thread is GREAT! LOL I'm not a follower of any organized religion but this tickles me just the same. Mostly due to a petty pleasure I receive from Christian indignation. I really love your evidence and the layout of your post! Bravo!

But I reject your assertion that I can't say it comes from aliens. There is as much proof of interdimensional angels or whatever you said as there are of aliens. So *sticks her finger in a light socket so her hair stands up all crazy*

Aliens.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malynn
Oh man. This thread is GREAT! LOL I'm not a follower of any organized religion but this tickles me just the same. Mostly due to a petty pleasure I receive from Christian indignation. I really love your evidence and the layout of your post! Bravo!

But I reject your assertion that I can't say it comes from aliens. There is as much proof of interdimensional angels or whatever you said as there are of aliens. So *sticks her finger in a light socket so her hair stands up all crazy*

Aliens.


The probability is there, who knows are we being played by aliens but I doubt
. Regardless, there IS a supreme being. Total rejection of God is kinda dumb. So even if we are being played by aliens, chance still sided with the belief of one God.

About interdimensional stuff, its very very clear to Muslims. We are not alone, we are sharing the earth with ancient beings/Jin, we have more than 2 dimensions, the dimensions have separating layers between them, its possible to pass but strongly opposed. Their dimensions is not meant for us. Sometime these dimensions overlap each other either by the Jins doing or natural and we will get anomaly, very very small chances though. The best bet is to stay put until the anomaly split back.

It is sad Muslims do not research into this. Probably because of the warning I guess. Parts of Jews accept this but I dont know the depth. Christians dont have this belief and really in the dark about this matter. David Copperfield fly and you guys whoa
, Muslims view it as show off instead of amazing feat.

About true aliens from other stars galaxy etc, Muslims a bit in the dark too and just ignore the problem and treat them as the ancient being/Jin too, after all, they share same traits.
edit on 31-5-2012 by NullVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NullVoid

Regardless, there IS a supreme being. Total rejection of God is kinda dumb. So even if we are being played by aliens, chance still sided with the belief of one God.



One must ask one's self - if aliens are tossing all this together like a cosmic salad, then where did THEY come from? Who made the aliens?

Chances are, created things are created by a creator.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NullVoid
Regardless, there IS a supreme being. Total rejection of God is kinda dumb. So even if we are being played by aliens, chance still sided with the belief of one God.


Dear NullVoid,
May I ask why total rejection of God (whichever monotheist God you choose) is dumb, but belief in God is not? To date there is no proof that there is or is not a God other than the Holy books themselves, which were written by men, or dictated by the messengers themselves who were also men.

Quick parallel for you, Ron Hubbard formed his own religion called Scientology, yet it is ridiculed, who's to say that he isn't right? Sumerians had their own belief system pre dating any known belief system, yet it is side stepped in preference of monotheism (it's far easier to control masses when they all believe in one God and not many gods). Judaism, Islam, Christianity are the three biggest monotheist religions, each beleve in a differing singular God, who's to say which is right, or that any are right?

Here's a link for you, i'm sure you've read the folklore: en.wikipedia.org...

So if the Ismaili "sect" was going out and about killing off leaders of other "sects" to ensure it's version of Islam was the primary version etc.. who's to truly say any version is "right"? From what i've been able to ascertain Islam has/had more variants than even Christianity until the last few years, are they all right, or are they all wrong?

Your statement was kind of dumb and arrogant. If you truly believe in a God, then you should also truly believe that everyone has the right to their own belief system. My biggest issue with deity believers is that you think those who don't believe, and more often than not those who don't believe in your deity, are lesser people. Who's to say you're right, a fictional deity in a book written by men?

Respect far outweighs religious belief and that is where most, if not all, religions go wrong. Mutual inherent respect is put to the side to ensure YOUR religion will be the dominant one. That is why so many people are becoming atheists and want to rid the planet of all YOU religious war mongers. Less we forget the vast, ridiculous, insane numbers of people who have died due to man's obsession with God.

T
edit on 1-6-2012 by torqpoc because: spelling



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by InfoKartel
 




I said Muslims see Jesus as one of the prophets, not the messiah. A messiah, not the messiah.


Saying Jesus was not THE Messiah" does not automatically imply that you meant to say Jesus was A messiah..

But you can keep telling yourself that.


edit on 31-5-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Oh I see, you're a mind reader then!

And it actually DOES mean that, if you had paid attention in reading comprehension classes. That's why I also mentioned that he was just one of the prophets in Islam, while Muhammed is put on a pedestal as being the only perfect human being(ie. the only human without sin)...while that is ridiculously retarded because the guy was a thief, rapists and murderer. But go on, ridicule yourself some more, it's entertaining.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 

Hey Info...it confounds me how you keep talking about Islam when you don't seem to know much about it, and you keep getting the most basic things wrong.

You're trying to make it as if Islam shoves Jesus into "Just another one of the guys" category, when it simply doesn't. First you claimed he was just one of the prophets, you denied he was the messiah, now you say he's "just one of the messiahs". I think you missed my previous response on this point
(Here, in case you didn't see it)

Islam acknowledges NO other Messiah. Jesus Christ is the ONLY Messiah talked about in Islam. While Judaism refers to several Messiahs (although even they put special emphasis on the Prophesied Messiah), in the context of both Christianity and Islam, THERE IS ONLY ONE MESSIAH.

Now you are going on about Islam considering Muhammad the only human without sin. Newsflash: In Islam. ALL the prophets (including Jesus as well, who was THE Messiah) are considered sinless.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



You're trying to make it as if Islam shoves Jesus into "Just another one of the guys" category


Errr no. Not "just another one of the guys", but "just another one of the prophets".


First you claimed he was just one of the prophets, you denied he was the messiah, now you say he's "just one of the messiahs". I think you missed my previous response on this point


I haven't missed the point, but it seems like you are knowingly ignoring points I'm making. Why? I don't know, maybe it's the religious zealot in you?



Islam acknowledges NO other Messiah. Jesus Christ is the ONLY Messiah talked about in Islam. While Judaism refers to several Messiahs (although even they put special emphasis on the Prophesied Messiah), in the context of both Christianity and Islam, THERE IS ONLY ONE MESSIAH.


Yeah whatever, go back a few pages to learn the root of that word again, I'm not repeating myself.


Now you are going on about Islam considering Muhammad the only human without sin. Newsflash: In Islam. ALL the prophets (including Jesus as well, who was THE Messiah) are considered sinless.


And again, knowledge is lost upon you. But keep lying all the same. Do Muslims follow Muhammad or Jesus? You can't say they follow Jesus through proxy, that's retarded. They follow a known murderer and thief. Do the research and see the psychological effects for yourself. And if you're really into this thing called researching, research the psychological effects that forgiveness and sacrifice bring with them. Then, maybe, you will figure out what the hell I'm saying. And what the hell it means to put sacrifice and forgiveness on the same level as murder and theft(it doesn't mean anything good, in fact, it forebodes issues that stem from psychological trauma)

Now you can jump up and down, huff and puff all you want, but my house is built on solid rock and consists of bricks.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 

Ah. Good then. I guess this means you now acknowledge that Jesus is THE Messiah in Islam. And I guess you now acknowledge that Islam considers ALL prophets sinless.

Great. Wonderful. Without any dodging and sliding about and backpedaling, you have acknowledged these facts. Progress!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



Great. Wonderful. Without any dodging and sliding about and backpedaling, you have acknowledged these facts. Progress!


I come across lots of ironic statements, this is one of them.

Which is great of course, because you acknowledged that; believing Muhammad even remotely spoke God's word causes psychological damage!

You failed to address the crux of my post, maybe because you are afraid?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 

I can only address statements, not random undirected and unsupported accusations or personal opinions about "this is the best" and "that is the worst", or ad hominem attacks questioning sanity and retardation.

Here are the definitive statements you have made so far in this thread:

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Because most Arab scientists were dumb as a rock and most of the "Arab" discoveries were actually Persians making discoveries. The twisting of history is so overwhelming.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Muslims see him as one of the many prophets.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Which is that he is one of many prophets. Not the messiah.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
He is one of the messiahs. Big difference.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Jesus becomes one of the messiahs, one of the prophets in Islam (the implication here being the 'messiah' just means 'prophet')


Originally posted by InfoKartel
I said Muslims see Jesus as one of the prophets, not the messiah. A messiah, not the messiah.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Muhammed is put on a pedestal as being the only perfect human being(ie. the only human without sin)


Not only are every one of these statements objectively false, they're not even internally consistent. First it was exclusively the kurds who did all the "intelligent" scientific work rather than Arabs and Persians, now it is the persians? First Jesus was only considered a prophet, then he was only considered ONE of the Messiahs, now Messiah means prophet? You keep going on about how you explained the "root of the word", (although you didn't). Here, let me break it down for you:
"Messiah" means "annointed one". Yes, there were many Messiahs in Judaism, but there is only 1 famous, end-times one, the Prophesied Messiah. Christians believe this Messiah to be Jesus. In fact, when you ask a Christian "Who is the Messiah?", they're not going to answer "There are many messiahs" or "Even Cyrus the Great was a Messiah". They'll say "Jesus".

In the same way, Islam considers Jesus THE Messiah. Islam mentions lots of the other people mentioned in the Hebrew texts, but ONLY Jesus is referred to as THE Messiah. "Messiah" doesn't mean "Prophet". Since you talk about the root of words, the word for Messiah and the word for Prophet in arabic (and in the Quran) are TWO SEPARATE WORDS. In Islam, Muhammad was not THE Messiah. He wasn't even A Messiah. Moses wasn't either, nor was David, nor was Solomon, nor was anyone else. Along with Jesus, they were all sinless (being that they were Prophets of God), but they weren't the Messiah, or even A Messiah. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

So now you are saying that yes, all that you said before was wrong, but that I am not addressing "the crux" of your post? What is the crux of your post, then? What are these points you are making that I have missed? It seems they have been built on a mountain of inaccuracies. If this mountain of inaccuracies was irrelevant to "the crux" of your post, then why did you mention them?
edit on 1-6-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-6-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



Not only are every one of these statements objectively false, they're not even internally consistent. First it was exclusively the kurds who did all the "intelligent" scientific work rather than Arabs and Persians, now it is the persians?


Your hatred for Kurdish people is ever apparent.

I never claimed it was "exclusively", but the ones we constantly hear Muslims bragging about usually are Persian discoveries - and if you then trace those discoveries it turns out to be Kurdish making most of them. This is not something for this time, as science hasn't been allowed or able(due to oppressive regimes forbidding research as one factor, the other factor being that most folk in those places are still as racist as can be - Arabs taking the trophy for that one of course).

The ability to understand that little bit of information, as they so eloquently put in Men in Black 3, is above your pay grade.


First Jesus was only considered a prophet, then he was only considered ONE of the Messiahs, now Messiah means prophet?


Err, no, complete reading comprehension failure on your behalf there whizkid. Also, I love how you inserted a piece of text then claimed I wrote it. The part that says "implication being that blabla" in bold letters.

While it doesn't even imply such a thing. It says: "Jesus becomes one OF the messiahs" "One OF the prophets". There are multiple messiahs in the Bible yet Jesus is CLEARLY of a different caliber. Hence why he is not A messiah but THE messiah.


You keep going on about how you explained the "root of the word", (although you didn't).


I didn't explain it, other ATS members did(thank you). I mentioned it but couldn't be bothered to explain it to you because your "agenda" is quite clear to me. Riddle me this; if my name is Harry and the people from the place that I'm from call me Harry the Awesome, and some random person from another place(ignorant of the language of my place) heard me being called "Harry the Awesome". Do you think he would understand the meaning and further implications and be able to translate "the Awesome" or would he just try to pronounce it in the same way he heard it and understood it on a very, very basic level?


Here, let me break it down for you:
"Messiah" means "annointed one".





Yes, there were many Messiahs in Judaism, but there is only 1 famous, end-times one, the Prophesied Messiah.


There are more than one prophesied messiahs. Funny you mention Cyrus the Great, because he also was prophesied about.


Christians believe this Messiah to be Jesus. In fact, when you ask a Christian "Who is the Messiah?", they're not going to answer "There are many messiahs" or "Even Cyrus the Great was a Messiah". They'll say "Jesus".


And what if you ask: "Who is A Messiah?".


In the same way, Islam considers Jesus THE Messiah. Islam mentions lots of the other people mentioned in the Hebrew texts, but ONLY Jesus is referred to as THE Messiah. "Messiah" doesn't mean "Prophet". Since you talk about the root of words, the word for Messiah and the word for Prophet in arabic (and in the Quran) are TWO SEPARATE WORDS. In Islam, Muhammad was not THE Messiah. He wasn't even A Messiah. Moses wasn't either, nor was David, nor was Solomon, nor was anyone else. Along with Jesus, they were all sinless (being that they were Prophets of God), but they weren't the Messiah, or even A Messiah. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.


This is of course, deflection. Because how many Muslims idolize Muhammad? There, your argument lost its merit.


So now you are saying that yes, all that you said before was wrong, but that I am not addressing "the crux" of your post? What is the crux of your post, then? What are these points you are making that I have missed? It seems they have been built on a mountain of inaccuracies. If this mountain of inaccuracies was irrelevant to "the crux" of your post, then why did you mention them?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Crux of the post is: Muhammad was a charlatan if we look at his life. He was an insane man. Muslims idolize this insane man to a point of making him holy and whatnot. Muslims suffer brain damage for idolizing this man's life in the same way someone would suffer brain damage if they idolized Hitlers life.

Then there's the difference in; a prophet, the prophet. A messiah, the messiah. Islam nor Muslims recognize Jesus as the son of God.

Take care, I hope the brain damage is limited for your sake.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Muslims don't idolise any man. I think you're confusing them with Christianity. And yet again, you're trying to wiggle out of the blatantly incorrect statements you made earlier. Muslims consider Jesus THE Messiah. Islam considers Jesus THE Messiah.
How does my argument lose merit, when my argument is that Islam considers Jesus THE Messiah? Because that is my argument. That is exactly what I said, that is exactly what is written in the Quran, and that is exactly what you keep denying.

But yes, now we come to the crux of the matter.

You seem to think that Messiah means "THE Son of God". Now again, In Judaism, there are many "sons of God". Even Jesus in the christian scriptures acknowledges these many sons of God. However, in general, Christians consider "The Only Begotten Son of God" to be something different, and special.
Christian theology wishes Jesus to be THE Son of God. THE ONLY Son of God. THE ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God. While these characteristics can be proven false even through the Judeo-Christian scriptures, that isn't really the point of this thread.

Judaism doesn't believe the Messiah will be "The Only begotten Son of God". Islam does not believe the Messiah is "the Only Begotten Son of God". Judaism doesn't accept Jesus as the Messiah, but Islam DOES. Islamic scriptures say that Jesus is THE (note I say "THE" not "A") Messiah. The ONLY Messiah.


If the crux of your argument is denigrating Muhammad, then do that. Write about that. Post about that. What on earth are you doing writing about who is or is not THE Messiah in Islam, who is or is not sinless, or which people among which ethnicities made which discoveries? The statements you made regarding these things have been shown to be objectively false...You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about these things.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 



And it actually DOES mean that, if you had paid attention in reading comprehension classes.


If you were paying attention is basic english class, you would have simply said "Jesus is a messiah in Islam" in your original reply. Instead you say "Jesus is not the messiah"....and then turn around saying you meant something else.

How cute.
edit on 1-6-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



You seem to think that Messiah means "THE Son of God".




Keep guessing, it's done you favors in the past



If the crux of your argument is denigrating Muhammad, then do that. Write about that. Post about that. What on earth are you doing writing about who is or is not THE Messiah in Islam, who is or is not sinless, or which people among which ethnicities made which discoveries? The statements you made regarding these things have been shown to be objectively false...


If all you can post is nonsense because you cannot counter the point in any given argument, saying stuff as "objectively false" while clearly showing to us that your reading comprehension skills are below the average of an elementary school dwelling kid, then don't post at all?


You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about these things.


You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about Islamic cultures and the ignorance it breeds. So forgive me if I take everything you say with a truckload of salt.

Enjoy the ignorance.

Oh by the way, in Islamic culture, what does your mother or what does your sister receive as an award for a pious life? I see...


reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



If you were paying attention is basic english class, you would have simply said "Jesus is a messiah in Islam" in your original reply. Instead you say "Jesus is not the messiah"....and then turn around saying you meant something else.


Because you failed at reading comprehension I should have typed something else.

Way to propel your ignorance to a whole new level.
edit on 1-6-2012 by InfoKartel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I've been doing a little digging and a lot of pondering. It seems we have one word, with a basic meaning of "the anointed" that all can agree upon, but it takes on added shades of meaning depending on the culture of the individual applying it. It's a matter of what they expect the messiah to do, what the office entails, where the cultural and religious differences enter.

From what I can tell, the Jews were looking for a political messiah, an "anointed one" to lead them (in a revolt) and save them physically - at the time of Christ from the Romans. Jesus did not do that, he did not lead the expected sort of political, physical, revolt, and so the Jews said "no, that's can't be the messiah we're waiting for", so they voted to save Bar Abbas instead when the choice was given them. Bar Abbas WAS fighting against Romans, but they did not recognize him as being a "leader", an "anointed one", the messiah.

I'm still trying to get a grasp on what Muslims expect of the messiah. From what I can tell, they expect him to be a war leader, too, and to fight in support of the Mahdi against the Dajjal. Then, they expect him to convert everyone to Islam, most especially the Christians (i.e. to "break the cross"), and then he is to be a "king" - of what isn't yet clear to me - and die after a 40 year rule. That is what I have been able to gather of the Islamic concept of messiah.

The Christians, in contrast, think of the messiah as a spiritual leader, someone who will save them spiritually, not so much physically. They believe that has already been done, while the messiah walked the Earth and by his death and resurrection. When they hear "Nah, he never died on that cross. Nah, he was never resurrected. Nah, he didn't say what you read that he said", well, they automatically interpret that to mean "He wasn't the messiah, because he didn't do messianic stuff", and consider it an attack on the very basis of their religion. Then, when a Muslim says "but he WAS the messiah." question marks pop up all over a Christian's head, dancing around it like stars in a cartoon. They're thinking "how can you claim he's the messiah when you don't believe he did anything messianic?" In the same way, the Jews look at Christians and think "How can you claim he was the messiah, when you don't believe he did anything messianic?" because expectations of what a messiah is to do are culturally and religiously colored, in spite of all of them sharing the same basic definition.

Everyone believes in "The Messiah", but no one agrees on what it is he's supposed to do, or whether he has already done it or not.

A word with similar problems is "scripture". It really just means "writings", "things that were scribed". Melville's "Moby Dick" and Tolstoy's "War and Peace", as well as the daily newspaper, are ALL "scripture" at the most basic level. To a Jew, I imagine "scripture" carries the meaning of Torah and other canonical Jewish writings, but does not include the new testament. To a Christian, "scripture" means the Bible - old and new testaments, but does not include the Qur'an. To a Muslim, it includes all of them, but with the caveat that the Jewish and Christian writings have been corrupted, such that they believe in the concepts of those writings, but not in the writings we have now. They believe in the Bible without believing in the Bible, which is an odd concept to me.

So they believe that the real Injeel will be brought back at some other time, meaning that man has thwarted God in it's delivery to man for the moment, and so it had to be replaced with the Qur'an, which strangely draws some of it's material from the same "corrupted" writings we have now, with additions that never made it into the canon of the other religions, such as Adam being made from a blood clot instead of Earth, and Jesus speaking in his infancy, just a day or two after birth.

This is one of the problems I've always had with Christians. They seem to have their own language, co-opted words with different meanings. I always called it "the Christian Jargon". It's unfathomable to me. Another example is "purposed". What the hell does that mean? Proposed? Intended? Accomplished? What the hell does it mean, and why isn't plain English sufficient?

I had an English teacher, long ago, who made the flat-out statement that language is for communication. if you aren't using words that can be understood by the hearer, you aren't communicating, you're just expelling air at body temperature. She didn't like big words much, because not all minds can grasp them, and she stressed the importance of speaking to people on a level they can understand.

Christians don't generally do that, and I have no idea how they ever get their points across.

This is why I tried to pin down the concept of "messiah" as viewed by others... so that we could all be on the same page in understanding what the others meant by it.



edit on 2012/6/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Hey nenothtu!

I appreciate the interesting discourse, and the attempt to level the "playing field" in this discussion. If you don't mind, I'll provide my perspective for these things.

While what you say is true, in that Jesus disappointed many of the jews of the time, in that he wasn't the political leader he was expecting, the majority of Christian theologies (a small minority do believe that Jesus came for this one major spiritual mission, and now he's done) counter this with the concept, as laid down mostly in Revelations, that Jesus will return in the end times and do the whole political leader stuff- destroying the enemies of Christianity and generally turning the world upside-down.
So I'd say that all three groups share this perception of the Messiah. His over-all mission, especially in his second coming, will definitely not be purely spiritual.

As far as scripture goes, I'd say it is much more simple. It just depends on who is using the word. If you know whether it was a Jew, Christian or Muslim (or Hindu or Buddhist), you'll know exactly what they mean by scripture.
In the case of the muslim perception of previously revealed scriptures go, I agree that non-muslims would probably consider it a very convenient sidestep. Basically, whatever from the older scriptures agrees with the Quran can be understood to be uncorrupted. The rest cannot be trusted (although many sources use it for learning). Many muslims I know subscribe to the Q document hypothesis: that there was an original scripture that Jesus Christ wrote/dictated himself, from which much of the other Christian scriptures that make up the Bible were then derived, but the original Q document was lost.

PS: In Islam, Adam is said to have been made from clay/mud/dust. The verse you are talking about is man in general: Man is made from a blood clot/sperm/cell/clinging substance.
edit on 1-6-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Hello.babloyi!

It's good to see you. I can always count on you to disagree without being disagreeable!


In the matter of messiahship and Jesus, I don't think most Christians consider the "salvation mission" to be over and done, but rather ongoing so long as there are people who stand in need of it. Otherwise, you're pretty much right on the money.

In the "future mission" that they derive from Revelations, I believe they are mistaken, because they take revelations far too literally. It's allegorical, mystical, not to be taken literally, and they fail to perceive that. I've yet to meet one who believes Jesus has white wooly hair with a 3 foot chunk of steel sword sticking out of his mouth literally, but that's what's written in Revelations. Yet somehow, they take the rest of it literally.

You may surmise that I don't subscribe to that "interpretation" of Revelations. In all honesty, I believe they are destined to be just as disappointed as the Jews when their militant commander fails to materialize. While they search for the body, they will miss the spirit entirely. They're looking for the wrong thing, as was already demonstrated before, to the Jews. I believe that the sword in the mouth passage SHOULD have clued them in on what sort of "militancy" to expect, and the allegory to be drawn from Revelations, but they miss it altogether.

Some people never learn.

Understand that this is my own personal viewpoint, and I've yet to find many - Christian, Muslim, or Jew - who would agree with it. However, standing alone is nothing new to me. What you say of the Christian beliefs is by and large true, and can mostly be traced back not more than 200 years, with the advent of "dispensationalism". Christians have to jump through ridiculous and unrealistic hoops to make that dispensationalist timeline work out for them.

Probably another reason that I'm not considered a "Christian". Christians consider what I have to say "fightin' words", yet can't really refute any of it from within their scriptures. One might consider me to be most closely a "Hanif" more than a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, because it appears to me that ALL of the above add baggage to the message that ought not to be there. No, I'm NOT a Hanif, I just think that I'm probably closer to them than I am any of the rest in my philosophical outlook. there are still differences there, according to the Muslims.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


Salam,
After this, I will leave the thread, better to stay aside and watch.

To everyone.
Firstly, I'm from Sunnah Wal Jamaah sect of Islam. Please be aware that even Shiite is considered small compared to Sunni/Sunnah Wal Jamaah. The Shiite view are considered not the main view of Islam in general. Sunni dont know about 12 imam that everyone is talking about.

For everyone education of how its all split, view this. And to a certain point, link it with where all the "bad Islamic war news" come out.

Guess what ? Shiite is not the major part of Islam. Please do your homework before shooting "12 imam" to me. Heck, I dont even know what, who and where the 12 imam and the majority of Muslims Sunni also dont have a clue about them. And that is about 1 billion people who dont know 12 imam. Go figure how mislead you are regarding Islam.


To babloyi and InfoKartel:
You both got it wrong and up to certain point babloyi was right. nenohtlu even successfuly corrected me about the names and titles. Obviously, Messiah in Islam is more than 1


To torqpoc
Thanks for the questions and points you made.


Here's a link for you, i'm sure you've read the folklore: en.wikipedia.org... So if the Ismaili "sect" was going out and about killing off leaders of other "sects" to ensure it's version of Islam was the primary version etc.. who's to truly say any version is "right"? From what i've been able to ascertain Islam has/had more variants than even Christianity until the last few years, are they all right, or are they all wrong?

See "to everyone" above and decide yourself how big Ismaili compared to the general Muslim view. I dont know that folklore or what Alamut is, until you give me the link.
Ismaili is very very very small sect from total Muslims.
Muslims have less sect than Christian, and you seems not aware of it I presume ? There are only 3. See the map. And to a certain point, link it with where all the "bad Islamic war news" come out.

On Scientology religion, who am I to say you are wrong. But then, who am I to deny whats around me ?
Without moral I would rape my neighbor (hell yeah, no god, no punishment) and I'm only human/(homo sapien ?), its natural to act like an animal. Would you like to live in such way ? Would you like to live for "nothing" ? Afterall, without god, my life is comparable to amoeba - live fast, no pray, die young.
Scientology is junk, go find a religion or spiritual teaching, Bahai/Islam/Buddha/Jews/Dao/Christian/Satanic or what ever, at least you raise yourself from the "animal" level to "with a purpose" level. Heck even a pagan knows there is "something else" that more powerful that create everything.

C'mon buddy, raise up to our level and fight/jihad your way. At least you live and die "with a purpose"

Scientology - turn unlimited thinking ability to become similarly amoeba like mentality.




edit on 1-6-2012 by NullVoid because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-6-2012 by NullVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 

Hey nullvoid!

I'm not REALLY all that interested in sects and subcategories of muslims, I'm of the opinion that in this day and age, if you follow the Quran and Muhammad, you'll mostly probably be okay being labelled as a muslim.

As far as our previous discussion was going, I left off after you said that "it could've been al-imam" and that it didn't really matter, because it was just a title. Well, I considered it more than just a title, it is a pretty important part of Abrahamic eschatology. Again, if you believe that the Mahdi IS labelled as a Messiah, I really would like to know the source of this quote you read somewhere!





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join