Did Muhammad ascend to heaven and descend, Messiah Jesus refutes this.

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by babloyi



And by the way, the Al Buraq comes from Persian mythology. If Mohammed was so much against polytheism, why would he even incorporate polytheism into his now monotheistic religion?

The answer is this...he was still an idol worshiper. He was still the pagan he denounced. Yes, he retained veneration and reverence of Safa and Marwa and the black stone of the Kaaba. The Kaaba is nothing more than a fire temple of Zoroastrianism.

He was a pagan from the beginning, he remained a pagan until his death and every muslim today that believes in the religion of Mohammed is a pagan.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So of course he would not say it was a donkey as he claims it had wings.


Oh, I don't know -- here's a donkey with wings:






posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So of course he would not say it was a donkey as he claims it had wings.


Oh, I don't know -- here's a donkey with wings:





That was funny.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

With lonewolf, it isn't an assumption. I've had many discussions with him. At one point he told me that the Islamic month of Ramadan starts when the crescent moon lines up with Venus to form a crescent and star in the sky. You, you I don't know yet
.

Also, considering that Muhammad was circumcised, and of the line of Abraham through Ishmael (and thus part of the covenant genealogically as well as physically), it seems a bit murky to call him a gentile. He wasn't announcing his Messiahship, as I said, he didn't even meet any (contemporary) jews there. When he lead the other prophets in prayer (doesn't say at the Temple, since he met them in heaven, not in the temple), he prayed the Islamic way, and it was a declaration of his Prophethood, not Messiahship- perhaps a less relevant distinction in judaism, but not in Christianity (which generally understands there to be only one Messiah who was THE Messiah).

The Quran makes no mention of it being Jerusalem, but the Hadith seem to indicate it was.

PS: Any evidence of Buraq having been derived from Persian mythology? Not that Persian mythology wouldn't have a winged steed (although I have no idea if it does, do you have any pre-islamic evidence of THAT?), but there are winged steeds in loads of cultures all over the world. All Persia seems to have done, insofar as the Buraq is concerned, is add the idea that it has a human face.
edit on 19-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy


1- So if you would like to assume he was eating mushrooms and had a psychedelic experience, you are free to think that way. But you would then have to explain that for every time he had an "inspiration". often times in front of other people.

2-I have to ask this though, do you think it is of any religious value of narrations of what women should do when they have periods, how to remove semen stains, which hand to use when cleaning yourself after going to the restroom, what foot to start walking with, the price to pay women after mutah, that silence of a little girl indicates complicity, sex with dead people, sex with food, sex with anybody, Jews were turned into rats, pigs and monkeys, stoning a monkey for committing adultery, which side to dress yourself from, what hand to eat with, if you don't have water to use clean dirt, how to pawn your armor to buy food, throwing a glass of water on a servant, what kinds of dishes to eat from, and many other things.

Are any of those things of any religious value?




:shk:


1-who told you or where did you get the idea that astral projection can only be done using psychedelic mushrooms? certainly not i it is you who are ASSuming or [Buraqing]
because that kind of ignorance can only be learned from others.
while its true that the amanita muscaria, and certain plants can make it occur
unless you are trained in Sorcery [Pharmakia] you wont remember much of the experience much less write or dictate a book
what about Ezekiel?are you going to continue to ignore identical cases in judeo-xtianity of what you are claiming to proof of falsity or is it fake when in islam but real when its your religion.

another case in point 2-

The laws of kashrut can be classified according to the origin of the prohibition (Biblical or rabbinical) and whether the prohibition concerns the food itself or a mixture of foods.[3]

Biblically prohibited foods include:[3]

Non-kosher animals and birds (based on Leviticus 11:3–8 and Deuteronomy 14:3–21): mammals require certain identifying characteristics (completely cloven hooves and being ruminants), while birds require a tradition that they can be consumed. Fish require scales and fins (thus excluding catfish). All invertebrates are non-kosher apart from a certain type of locust on which most communities lack a clear tradition. No reptiles or amphibians are kosher.
Carrion (neveilah): meat from a kosher animal that has not been slaughtered according to the laws of shechita.
Injured (tereifah): an animal with a significant defect or injury, such as a fractured bone or particular types of lung adhesions
Blood (dam): blood of kosher mammals and fowl is removed through salting, with special procedures for the liver which is very rich in blood
Particular fats (cheilev): particular parts of the abdominal fat of cattle, goats and sheep must be removed by a process called nikkur
The twisted nerve (gid hanasheh): the sciatic nerve, as according to the Bible (Genesis 32:33) the patriarch Jacob's was damaged when he fought with an angel, cannot be eaten and is removed by nikkur
Limb of a living animal (ever min ha-chai): according to Genesis 9:4, a limb torn from an animal that is still alive may not be consumed; this law is considered applicable even to non-Jews[clarification needed][citation needed]
Untithed food (tevel): produce of the Land of Israel requires the removal of certain tithes, which in ancient times were given to the Kohanim (priests), Levites and the poor (terumah, maaser rishon and maaser ani respectively)
Fruit during the first three years (orlah): according to Leviticus 19:23, fruit from a tree in the first three years after planting cannot be consumed (both in the Land of Israel and the diaspora)
New grain (chadash): in Leviticus 23:14 the Bible prohibits newly grown grain (planted after Passover the previous year) until the second day of Passover; there is debate as to whether this law applies to grain grown outside the Land of Israel
Wine of libation (yayin nesekh): wine that may have been dedicated to idolatrous practices

Biblically prohibited mixtures include:[3]

Mixtures of meat and milk (basar be-chalav): this law derives from the broad interpretation of the commandment not to "cook a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21); other non-kosher food may be used for other benefit (e.g. sold to non-Jews), but mixtures of meat and milk are prohibited even with regards to other benefit
Plants grown together (kilayim): in the Land of Israel plants are to be grown separately and not in close proximity. A specific subdivision of this law is kil'ei ha-kerem, the prohibition of planting any grain of vegetable near a grapevine; this law applies throughout the world, and one may not derive benefit from the produce
en.wikipedia.org...


4. Bodily discharges (Leviticus 15)

Leviticus 15:31-33 summarises this chapter. Ultimately, the LORD’s dwelling-place must be clean. Any truth of God joining us in the community of holiness must start with the renewal of everything – the buildings, the city, the animals, the people (Revelation 21). Paul Blackham gives the structure for this chapter:

Male bodily discharges (15:2-18 )


Female bodily discharges (15:19-30)

Long term discharge (15:2-12)


Menstrual cycle (15:19-23)

Cleansing by sacrifice (15:13-15)


Sexual intercourse (15:24)

Temporary discharge (15:16-17)


Long term (15:25-27)

Sexual intercourse (15:18 )


Cleansing by sacrifice (15:29-30)

What is clear from this chapter is the uncleanness is transferred to people, even beds and even chairs. We have already established that this is no personal matter – sin spreads everything and everything.

Natural bodily discharges makes a person unclean, but the passage of time will remove the uncleanness, therefore no sacrifices are needed for such discharges. Our bodies which leak fluids of semen and blood is an example of life falling from our flesh. Our bodies should be given immortality and corruption (1 Corinthians 15), and our bodies now preach anything but.

Which brings me to ‘sexual intercourse’ which is seen as unclean. Why? Firstly, because of the curse of Genesis 3, which shows that we have disordered sexual desires (c.f. Romans 1 and Paul’s argument which starts with sexual immorality). Secondly is the loss of bodily fluids when having sexual intercourse, and Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:11 show that there is life in blood and semen. The life comes as a Seed, and in Christ, the Seed of all seeds, can we have true eternal life. Most importantly it is a temporary period of washing, and the period of impurity is short, for this is the body which we inherit from Adam’s sin which we committed in his loins (Hebrews 7:9-10).

What say you about the distinction between sacrifices made for leprous flesh, but none needed for the uncleanness of our leaking bodies?
thesentone.wordpress.com...

guess you are going to need a whelchair by now, as you've shot yourself in the feet more than once here

edit on 19-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


i already explained that but i see by your replys to babloyi and myself that you might want to change avys
it's obvious by now that you're just bashing muslims





i've done my bit to deny ignorance willful or otherwise



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!



Just to clarify...



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



The Quran makes no mention of it being Jerusalem, but the Hadith seem to indicate it was.


Since you concede that is was indeed most likely Jerusalem, then the question remains, which temple? Was it Solomon's temple or Herod's temple? He mentions furnishings of Solomon's temple so that is probably what he was referring to.

And yes, according to Jewish law, he was indeed considered a gentile. He may or may not have been descended from Ishmael, but the covenant was given through Isaac. Jews would not have recognized him at all as one of their brethren, which so many Muslims attempt to justify by yanking the verse out of Deuteronomy.

This is the notion of his messiahship, and you have to understand the meanings of the words, A messiah is a savior or liberator of a people in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic or other religions. It literally means "Anointed One", and we can find this description of Mohammed from Mohammed himself.

Did he believe himself to be a liberator? Absolutely he did, he makes this mention throughout the Quran and Hadiths. He promoted himself as the savior of polytheists to monotheism. Does he believe himself to be anointed, yes, because prophets were anointed. David was anointed to be king, and Mohammed believes David prophesied of Mohammed.

Muslims usually turn to the letter of Heraclius to justify Mohammed's authority.

"I have received your letter with your ambassador and I testify that you are the messenger of God found in our New Testament. Jesus, son of Mary, announced you."[


So we have to wonder then, what were the prophecies that indicated Heraclius would even think that way? And if Heraclius accepted Mohammed as such, then why the Battle of Mu'tah? And why are there no Byzantine references of Mohammed?

Here is the history of the campaign of Heraclius and the rise of Islam in Jerusalem...From Sebeos' History, Seventh Century, from the seventh century. This would be concurrent with the time of Mohammed. According to Sebeos, the Arabs and Jews were not brethren.


Now I shall speak about the plot of the Jewish rebels, who, finding support from the Hagarenes for a short time, planned to [re]build the temple of Solomon. Locating the place called the holy of holies, they constructed [the temple] with a pedestal, to serve as their place of prayer. But the Ishmaelites envied [the Jews], expelled them from the place, and named the same building their own place of prayer. [The Jews] built a temple for their worship, elsewhere


This was AFTER Mohammed, during the time of Uthman, who was considered king. So if they planned to rebuild the temple of Solomon, how could Mohammed have gone there? OK you say astral projection can take you to any time or place, so I will leave that to you to believe it or not. I don't believe it.


So they departed, taking the road through the desert to Tachkastan to the sons of Ishmael. [The Jews] called [the Arabs] to their aid and familiarized them with the relationship they had through the books of the [Old] Testament. Although [the Arabs] were convinced of their close relationship, they were unable to get a consensus from their multitude, for they were divided from each other by religion


They couldn't even agree amongst themselves if they were or not related to the Jews. If you will notice, the Jews throughout this campaign of the Arabs were forced to submit to Islam.

[The Arabs] crossed the Jordan and encamped at Jericho. Then dread of them came over the inhabitants of the country, and all of them submitted [g106]. That night the Jerusalemites took [126] the Cross of the Lord and all the vessels of the churches of God, and fled with them by boat to the palace at Constantinople. [The Jerusalemites] requested an oath [from the Arabs] and then submitted.


I think it quite interesting that Sebeos never used the word Palestine. Would you not agree that is quite strange?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


i already explained that but i see by your replys to babloyi and myself that you might want to change avys
it's obvious by now that you're just bashing muslims





i've done my bit to deny ignorance willful or otherwise


Is Mohammed above historical criticism? Can we not look at the Hadiths to see what this man said and did? Of course not, because he is exempt, Is that what you would like for us to believe?

I see how it is, I am ignorant when I mention what Mohammed did, but others are not ignorant when they look away from what he did. There is no Muslim bashing, only Mohammed bashing. Isn't it bashing to type "xtian"?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Considering that Ishmael was circumcised that day as well, I wouldn't know. And I know what Messiah means, that is why I differentiated a bit between the jewish understanding, and the general Christian understanding.

Also, Muslims turn to a letter from Heraclius? Not really. I don't know of any muslim that feels the need to turn to a letter from Heraclius to justify Muhammad's authority. Or are you just quoting off a wikipedia article about some woman's book on the subject? While there is some evidence of Muhammad's letter to Heraclius in the Hadith, most mention of any letter the other way around is non-canon, and not really relevant to any muslim understanding of the authority that Muhammad had.

Interestingly, the same wiki article mentions that if Heraclius had any opinion on Muhammad or the religion of Islam, it wouldn't be any more than "some new subsect of Judaism".

PS: No, it isn't really bashing to use "xtian". It was used by Christians themselves to refer to themselves (and also to refer to Christ using Xt and XP, as well as other "Christian" things). Any offense is imagined.
edit on 19-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by WarminIndy


PS: Any evidence of Buraq having been derived from Persian mythology? Not that Persian mythology wouldn't have a winged steed (although I have no idea if it does, do you have any pre-islamic evidence of THAT?), but there are winged steeds in loads of cultures all over the world. All Persia seems to have done, insofar as the Buraq is concerned, is add the idea that it has a human face.
edit on 19-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)


Why yes there is....
Pegasus is the prime example of a winged steed.
The Zend Avestas are the source of Persian mythology. This was incorporated into Zoroastrianism.

Interestingly enough, the Zend Avesta also speaks of a journey to heaven...

The Book of Arda Viraf

1. And he ordered him to write (2) thus: In that first night, Srosh the pious and Adar the angel came to meet me, (3) and they bowed to me, and spoke (4) thus: 'Be thou welcome, Arda Viraf, although thou hast come when it is not thy time.' (5) I said: 'I am a messenger.' (6) And then the victorious Srosh the pious, and Adar the angel, took hold of my hand. (7) Taking the first footstep with the good thought, and the second footstep with the good word, and the third footstep with the good deed, I came up to the Chinwad bridge, the very wide and strong and created by Ohrmazd.


Arda Viraf was then shown the people of heaven, which sounds remarkably like Mohammed did. We know Zoroastrianism came a thousand years before Mohammed, so I would count that as pre-Islamic.



Both of these were created before Mohammed. One is from India and one is from Iran. I think this is borrowed mythology in the Hadiths.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Considering that Ishmael was circumcised that day as well, I wouldn't know. And I know what Messiah means, that is why I differentiated a bit between the jewish understanding, and the general Christian understanding.

Also, Muslims turn to a letter from Heraclius? Not really. I don't know of any muslim that feels the need to turn to a letter from Heraclius to justify Muhammad's authority. Or are you just quoting off a wikipedia article about some woman's book on the subject? While there is some evidence of Muhammad's letter to Heraclius in the Hadith, most mention of any letter the other way around is non-canon, and not really relevant to any muslim understanding of the authority that Muhammad had.

Interestingly, the same wiki article mentions that if Heraclius had any opinion on Muhammad or the religion of Islam, it wouldn't be any more than "some new subsect of Judaism".

PS: No, it isn't really bashing to use "xtian". It was used by Christians themselves to refer to themselves (and also to refer to Christ using Xt and XP, as well as other "Christian" things). Any offense is imagined.
edit on 19-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)


I never use Wikipedia at all for any reference. And if you look at many Islamic apologetics sites, they refer to letter of Heraclius.
islamreligion.com
Islam 101
Islamic Life

Those are three sites just pulled randomly.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Hey WarminIndy.

I didn't see any mention of any horse in that chapter you quoted, and I wasn't aware that Pegasus was persian...I thought it was greek. Did Muhammad acquire the idea from Greeks or Persians?
In case you missed it, I didn't ask for evidence of winged steeds in other cultures. I myself acknowledged that almost every culture that used equestrian creatures for transport probably had a winged variation in mythology. I asked evidence for the idea that Muhammad nabbed the concept from the Persians.

Would you mind telling me where you got those images you posted from, and what they are of? Because, as I mentioned before, they only seem to be evidence that the Persians were the ones to give Buraq a human face (something that wasn't at all mentioned in the original scripture). Perhaps they already had some winged creature with a human face, and incorporated Buraq into THAT mythology. But again, that is all conjecture, because I am still not aware of which winged steed from Persian mythology predates Islam. Care to enlighten me?


Originally posted by WarminIndy
I never use Wikipedia at all for any reference. And if you look at many Islamic apologetics sites, they refer to letter of Heraclius.
islamreligion.com
Islam 101
Islamic Life

My apologies for my mistake, then. None of those 3 sites mention the validation of Muhammad's authority through Heraclius's letter, in fact, none of them seem to mention Heraclius's letter to the Prophet at all (I haven't looked extremely closely, I just skimmed over it, so pardon me if they do). However, the wikipedia article for Heraclius, as well as the one for "Diplomatic Career of Muhammad" does both, quoting some book that claims that Muslims believe it validates and gives Muhammad authority (instead of quoting the muslims who believe this themselves). So I hope you understand my mistake.
edit on 19-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


And even more borrowing from Zoroastrianism...
From the Avesta

1. Zarathushtra asked Ahura Mazda: 'O Ahura Mazda, most beneficent Spirit, Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! Which is the most deadly deed whereby a man offers up a sacrifice to the Daevas1?' 2. Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is when a man here below, combing his hair or shaving it off, or paring off his nails, drops them2 in a hole or in a crack3. 2. Without performing the requisite ceremonies. 3. Doubtful. 3. 'Then by this transgression of the rites, Daevas are produced in the earth; by this transgression of the rites, those Khrafstras are produced in the earth which men call lice, and which eat up the corn in the corn-field and the clothes in the wardrobe. 4. 'Therefore, thou, O Zarathushtra! whenever here below thou shalt comb thy hair or shave it off, or pare off thy nails, thou shalt take them away ten paces from the faithful, twenty paces from the fire, thirty paces from the water, fifty paces from the consecrated bundles of Baresma. 5. 'Then thou shalt dig a hole, a disti4 deep if the earth be hard, a vitasti deep if it be soft; thou shalt take the hair down there and thou shalt say aloud these victorious words: "For him, as a reward, Mazda made the plants grow up5."


Sunnah of Trimming Hair and Nails

You would have to see the similarities.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider

Originally posted by MamaJ
Why do fear Jesus is not God, but our brother? He, like you have incarnated more than once. Im not trying to fool you in the least! We are ALL sons and daughters of God!


We are NOT all sons of God. The Bible clearly states:

John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

You must first believe and receive Him to get the right to become His children.


From my point of view. She is right that ALL will get it in the end. And you are right that ALL do not know they are so called "children" of god (children is really a lie because it is to simplistic of a description of what we are to god but it can work as an anology).

MamaJ: I am sending the same message back to you.


Just because John tells it is so does not make it so, or from my point of view, John is simplyfying it to such a degree that it becomes a lie for most human interactions with god. And frankly it is not up to John to make any rule about how god and the soul that is connecting to each other should do it.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
reply to post by Akragon
 


If you have received Christ as your Saviour you are indeed His child, if not you certainly are not.



Ya... your christian dogmatic views mean nothing to me...

Everyone comes from God, and everyone will return to him once we pass...

Though you are free to hold yourself higher then others... i will not...

Believe what you will though



Lol. It is funny. TheGreatDivide is saying the words but I do not think he really know the meaning of the words. Lose small mind (including ego) and gain Christ Conciousness. Just saying the words mean nothing. It like saying because I say I understand the relativity theory I will automaticly understand the relativity theory. Reality does not work that way yeet so you will have to seek and find just like everybody else.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Hey WarminIndy.

I didn't see any mention of any horse in that chapter you quoted, and I wasn't aware that Pegasus was persian...I thought it was greek. Did Muhammad acquire the idea from Greeks or Persians?
In case you missed it, I didn't ask for evidence of winged steeds in other cultures. I myself acknowledged that almost every culture that used equestrian creatures for transport probably had a winged variation in mythology. I asked evidence for the idea that Muhammad nabbed the concept from the Persians.

Would you mind telling me where you got those images you posted from, and what they are of? Because, as I mentioned before, they only seem to be evidence that the Persians were the ones to give Buraq a human face (something that wasn't at all mentioned in the original scripture). Perhaps they already had some winged creature with a human face, and incorporated Buraq into THAT mythology. But again, that is all conjecture, because I am still not aware of which winged steed from Persian mythology predates Islam. Care to enlighten me?


What is pre-Islamic? Doesn't that mean everything that came before Mohammed? Those pictures were taken at the British Museum. Why would Mohammed say he borrowed it from other mythologies? He was adamant that everything before Islam was pagan.

But then why do we find things in the Quran and Hadiths that sound strikingly similar to the Avesta, which came before Mohammed, the Bible, which came before Mohammed and the Thousand and One Arabian Nights, which are concurrent with the compilation of the Hadiths?

Muslim Philosophy and Fairy Tales


Like all Orientals the Arabs from the earliest times enjoyed imaginative stories; but since the intellectual horizon of the true Arabs in ancient times before the rise of Islam was rather narrow the material for these entertainments was borrowed mainly from elsewhere, from Persia and from India, as we gather from the accounts of the Prophet's competitor, the merchant al-Nadr


Whose competitor? Mohammed's. Is it plausible then he borrowed a lot from previous religions?

Who is Abd Al-Malik? He was the 5th Umayyad Caliph. How does Abd Al-Malik find his way into the book Thousand and One Arabian Nights?

THERE was, in olden time, and in an ancient age and period, in Damascus of Syria, a King, one of the Khalifehs, named ‘Abd-el-Melik the son of Marwan; and he was sitting, one day, having with him the great men of his empire, consisting of Kings and Sultans, when a discussion took place among them, respecting the traditions of former nations.


He is having a conversation about Solomon, the son of David. Interesting that the same stories in the Hadith find their way into a book of fairy tales.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Through out the gospels you can see his followers did not understand who they were... or even his message to the world...

Look at Luke 9:55... he states directly "ye know not what type of spirit you are"... to James and John, two of his most devout followers...

Its just unfortunate that religious authorities divide and conquer...

He said... "i came not to destroy mens lives, but to save them" His words save men through the realization of what is within all of us...

And that which is within is God...



I hate to beat a dying horse, but here goes one more time. "And that which is within is God". If morality comes from God, and God is within humans, then why are humans susceptible to changing their morality?


Morality doesn't come from God, it comes from upbringing... and basic societal influence.

One mans truth is not always the same for another my friend



From one point of view everything comes from god indirectly but that is another discussion. And yes conditioning changes a person but the soul shines thru in some people. There are people that cannot allow themselves to become bad (against higher ideals) not matter how much they are hurt. The soul draws the line at one point and that line is different between different souls.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Then you agree truth is not subjective? Which is it?


Didn't i say "not all truth is subjective?" Or was that Relative?




And in your example, truth is still absolute, one of those two groups is incorrect, or both. Their beliefs/opinions do not alter truth.


What if there is ONE and Many?


There is no thing as "subjective truth", something that is subjectively true is an opinion.


So is the existance of God an opinion?



There cannot be only one God and many Gods. That violates the Law of Noncontradiction. That's an epic logic fail. Im not being condescending but have you ever had a course in logic or Philosophy? Plato? Socrates? In your example one of the two groups is wrong, or both are. Both cannot be right because their truth claims contradict.

His existence or non-existence would be an objective truth either way, however, my faith in His existence is a subjective belief/opinion.


Just beacuse you write that it is a logical fail does not make it a logical fail. One separate thing can be part of One bigger thing connected to each other. You do get that your body is made out of small separated particles with empty space between them? You are built up of parts and belong to bigger parts that you do not know about. Just beacuse you do not know it does not make it untrue. Your cells in your body is not capable (i guess) to understand the whole you. How can you be sure you that you are not a part of something bigger that you do not have senses to percieve?

In the marco world when you push it all the way to everything you get to a state where all that exists is ONE. Every other view of ONE that humans create with religion or ideas that are smaller than ONE will just be a smaller idol of the whole. The nondual reality conciousness. There is a reason god talks about itself in plural. Many parts ONE whole.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Originally posted by WarminIndy
What is pre-Islamic? Doesn't that mean everything that came before Mohammed? Those pictures were taken at the British Museum.

Yes? What are they of? When are they dated? That is the crux of the matter, isn't it?


Originally posted by WarminIndy
Why would Mohammed say he borrowed it from other mythologies? He was adamant that everything before Islam was pagan.

Was he? I wouldn't say so. Islam quite readily admits that the arabs at one point in the past probably acknowledged God, and had their customs derived from worship of God.
And as for the borrowing of winged horse mythologies, Muhammad didn't have to have said it. Anyone else (contemporary or relatively contemporary) could've said it.
I mean, I assume you got the genesis of the idea from something other than "This culture has a flying horse, Islam has a flying horse. Therefore, Islam must've stolen it!". Because that is very silly. EVERY culture probably has a flying horse. Every culture has a deity. Every culture has the colour yellow. If you find 2 cultures with the colour yellow in relative proximity, that doesn't automatically mean that one stole the colour from the other. But to direct to a side-point, you still haven't shown me any pre-islamic rendition of a flying horse in Persian mythology. There is that picture of the statue you say is from the British Museum, and you say is Zoroastrian. Care to provide more detail? Something I can look up independently?

The information at the bottom of the Hindu picture IS more helpful, but it sorta disproves your point. The Hindu cow goddess (which is what that is), was originally depicted as simply a cow. The Islamic art (infused through the Persian filter) is what gave her this new look later- which is exactly the opposite of the point you were trying to prove. So that statue is almost 200% very post-Muhammad.


Originally posted by WarminIndy
But then why do we find things in the Quran and Hadiths that sound strikingly similar to the Avesta, which came before Mohammed, the Bible, which came before Mohammed and the Thousand and One Arabian Nights, which are concurrent with the compilation of the Hadiths?

Saying that Islam borrowed from previous religions isn't really a point against it, considering it claims to be a continuation of previous religions. But you still haven't shown it with this Buraq thing. Your link to the Thousand and one nights page is borked, you might want to fix that. Although I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with that?

A thousand and one nights was a story about loads of stories.
Not all of them were contemporary to each other, and they weren't meant to be. They were a collection of different stories. And "Abdul Malik" is a pretty common name, not sure what the significance of that is meant to be. The Arabian Nights stories aren't meant to be true either.

What exactly is the point you are trying to put forward with the Arabian Nights thing?
edit on 19-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join