₦airaland Forum

Happy New Year everybody.

______________________

jcross22:
the issue of allah and all that have raised a lots of concern on the islamic doctrines which remained familiar to pre-islamic campaign , remember the father of mohammad was a pagan ,, and he was named after a certain god name in kaba , abdullah. can you tell me if mohmmad was not a pagan.

Well, let us not dwell so much on whatever Muhammad and his predecessors were - that is not helpful. If truth be told, even Abraham was a pagan (Josh. 24:2) before being called by God (Isaiah 51:2) - and the same could be said about many of us before we came to believe in Christ. Please don't be upset about these things.

https://www.luxuo.com/wp-content/uploads/new-year-2010-468x292.jpg


. . . . .

https://www.showbizgalore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/new-years-eve-countdown-2010-300x171.jpg


[size=16pt]. . . . .[/size]

https://www.imchill.com/Happy_new_Year_2010/hp_files/new_year_comment_graphic_04.gif

jcross22:
that it's lie viaro okay look at this words abdullah why not abduil.

Sometimes in arabic contractions the alif is dropped, as in the case of 'al-ilah' to yield 'allah'.

However, in Abd[i]ul[/i]lah, we should be careful not to mix them up, as this below points out -

Ullah is commonly the last part of some Islamic names and titles. It can be translated as "of Allah", "of God". It is the form assumed by "Allah" when in a genitive construction: for example, in old-type classical Arabic when the case ending vowels were still pronounced, "servant of God" would be "`abdu -llāhi", where the initial "a" of "Allah" has dropped by the hamzat al wasl rule[1], thus modern "Abdullah".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullah

jcross22:
. . . THEN CAN ANY ONE TELL ME WHY ALLAH IS NOT USED AS THE SUFFIX FORMATION OF SUCH NAMES IF ALLAH MEANS GOD IN HEBREW AS EL.

Actually, 'allah' is a contraction of two words: 'al' (ie., 'the') and 'il[/b]ah' or '[b]il[/b]aha' (ie., 'god'). It is understood that 'allah' is actually 'al-[b]il[/b]ah', and perhaps the answer for the suffix you seek is embedded in the '[b]il' of 'il[/b]ah' for such names like Jibr[b]il or Mika[b]il[/b].

Abu Zola:
Hahaha, nice one but is a sad one coz you fail, Hud and shua'ib were never israelite, to be more eloquent the two are brothers of the same clan that degenerated, one in yemen and the other in jordan.

Please sir, where did viaro ever say that either Hud or Shua'ib were Israelites?? I'm sure you didn't even try to read through before replying.

Lol, for your info never trust wiki coz they will make you down and humiliated. Cheers !

I quoted Muslim sources from Wikipedia; but even if that does not persuade you, I could give you a number of Muslim sources. Play with these and deny them one and all - after you deny them, we can then conclude that no Muslim source will ever be trusted so we are not left embarrassed for your sake:

[list][li]'The Quran mentions only twenty five prophets by name while the Bible mentions about fifty. Most of the Quranic prophets can be identified with their Biblical counterparts: Yaqoob of the Quran is the Biblical Jacob, Haroon in the Quran is Aaron in the Bible, Shuaib of the Quran is the Biblical Jethro, and so on.'

source: the Muslim website known as Al-Islam[/li][/list]



[list][li]'In the Old Testament reference is made to a descendant of Noah named Eber.  In some traditions, he is called Heber, and known as the father of the Hebrew language.^[1]  In Islam however he is known as Hud^[2] and is one of four Arabic prophets, the others being, Saleh, Shuaib and Muhammad.'

source: a Muslim website known as 'The Religion of Islam'[/li][/list]



[list][li]'Hud (Arabic ) is a prophet of Islam. The eleventh sura of the Qur`an, Hud, is named after him. In the Bible he is known as Eber.'

source: a Muslim website known as Islam-Pakistan-Way[/li][/list]

Do I need to add more?

Cheers.

What About Dhul-Kifl?

Now, if you bothered to check the last reference I gave of Encycopedia of Islam, you will find that 'Dhul-Kifl' is not equated with anyone - not even Isaiah. There are various renderings of the two verses (Q. 21:85 and Q. 38:48) where that name appears, and these renderings include:

         *  Dhu'l-Kifl  -   Pickthall, Hilali-Khan, Sher Ali, etc.
         *  Dhu'lkefl   -  Sale
         *  Zul-kifl     -   Yusuf Ali, Shakir,
         *  Zal-Kifl     -   Rashid Khalifa

But translators like Hilali-Khan are just being dubious to make 'Dhu'l-Kifl' the same as 'Isaiah'. Other Islamic sources either leave it blank because they are not sure to whom it refers; while others give 'Dhul Kifl' as EZEKIEL (see Wikipedia where a notable reason is give for this).

Sorry, Abu Zola. . you failed in this one again. You can't be quoting cheats like Hilali-Khan who just want to make you believe that DhulKifl is Isaiah. .  that is just not going to work magic here.

That being the case, where is ISAIAH in your quran? Choose any complete quran and lie again - we shall see how far you want to dribble in Isaiah into any line of the quran. Just try.

Any other lie before the year ends? Huh?


Anyhow, enjoy the few minutes before 2009 closes. . and Happy New Year 2010!

Yet, to address your initial questions about Hud and Shuaib:

Abu Zola:
Simple Quest, why is Prophet Hud Quran 7:65-72, 26:123-140 and Prophet shuaib Quran 7:85-93, 11:84-95 absent in the Bible ?

We begin by asking who these names are referring to according to Islamic theology. Hud is taken to refer to Eber, while Shuaib refers to Jethro - and sure enough, both Eber and Jethro appear in the Bible (Eber - Genesis 11:17; and Jethro - Exodus 18:9). Both names of Eber and Jethro appear in the Bible several times besides the verses above; so your OP was just empty noise.

Now, if you're not convinced that Hud is Eber and Shuaib is Jethro, what if I point you to authentic sources that show the same thing? Please check any of the following:

          *  Wikipedia (Hud = Eber)
          *  Hud (Arabic: هود‎) is the name of a prophet of Islam,
              the prophet known in the Old Testament as Eber - Wikipedia
          ____________________

          *  Shoaib is traditionally identified by Muslims with Jethro,
              Moses' father-in-law according to the Hebrew Bible.
              [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu%27aib]Wikipedia[/url]]
         *   Encycopedia of Islam gives Shuaib as 'Jethro'

@Abu Zola,

Abu Zola:
Did you just make sense at all, poor son of jesu

You're the one who has not made any sense; but before we enter 2010, let me again trash your brains and send you back to that Islamic school from which you graduated. Poor soul.

Abu Zola:
This again shows the superiority of the Holy Quran

It's quite a simple thing, really. The question of whether some names appear in the quran but are absent from the Bible is not what gives Islam any credibility. Some names in the Bible do not appear in the quran, and some which are mentioned in the quran cannot be found in the Bible either. So what's the big deal about that? Nada, zero, zilch.

Just to humour you, we know it is commonly held that there are about 25 prophets by name in the Qur'an; and besides that, it is often said that there are about 313 apostles and about 120,000 prophets (according to the hadiths). In all these, no muslim is able to give the names of all the apostles and prophets in the quran or hadiths. None! Apart from the handful of names in the quran, the '120,000' is just an assumption that is thrown out there like a joke that no one takes seiously today, so let's not even begin to ask you to make wild guesses.

Abu Zola:
Why are you asking me for the meaning, why are you xtrian so cunning, when the truth is reveal to you, you dodge

The reason I asked you for the meaning of the name Isaiah is because it just shows you don't carefully consider a matter before your two fingers grab your cell phone to type anything and post on Nairaland.

But if the meaning of the name Isaiah is too hard for you, leave that one aside for now - you're not writing Oxford exam. Rather, just go back and consider carefully if 'Dhul-Kifl' is the same as Isaiah. (Please don't run round in circles like you did in the other thread about dahaha and ostrich eggs. . I don't have power to laugh until 2010! )

Please hurry up and stop making excuses.

nuclearboy:
Best wishes for a fulfilling, rewarding and very happy 2010 to you DeepSight, Mavenbox, Jesoul, Ancel, Tiatma and my Chairman Viaro! To Chairman, here's hoping the carbonated intoxication hasn't been renewed for 2010

Many blessings follow you nuclearboy into the new year 2010 - and everyone else mentioned above as well those many others who are very much in our hearts. God bless you real swell.

Abu Zola:
Isaiah ? Oh, check this out

'and remember Ishamel and enoch and isaiah, all were among the patient' Quran 21:85

I knew you would fall for that. Please tell me what is the meaning of the name Isaiah. Most translations of the quran in that verse have Dhul-Kifl which they translate as 'Isaiah'. Just let me know the meaning of Isaiah then we can take it from there.

^^ Nice.

We should understand that the number seven is symbolic and often tends to completeness in a certain regard. In any reference we read about Him in the symbolic language of sevens, we should be careful to not draw a conclusion that that is all the completeness we can find about the Spirit of God.

Just as there is a seven indicated in Isaiah 11:2, so there is another seven indicated in Isaiah 61:1-2. This latter verses read:

[list]The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath ¹anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; ²he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, ³to proclaim liberty to the captives, ⁴and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; ⁵To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, ⁶and the day of vengeance of our God; ⁷to comfort all that mourn[/list]

But immediately after the verses above comes another series of 'seven' in verse 3 -

[list]¹To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, ²to give unto them beauty for ashes, ³the oil of joy for mourning, ⁴the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; ⁵that they might be called trees of righteousness, ⁶the planting of the LORD, ⁷that he might be glorified[/list]

Then back to Revelation where the Spirit is called the 'seven spirits'. We have noted that this is not talking about a literal number os seven different spirits, and some translations have tried to proffer easier understanding of those verses by rendering them as 'sevenfold spirit'. However, in these verses, they are in consonance with the symbolism of the completeness of the workings of the Spirit of God.

Please show me the prophet ISAIAH in any edition of your most complete quran.

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5224577#msg5224577 date=1262272406]My brothers, Habibi, punkinmusty, olabowale, abuzola, Muhsin and all others, you now see this laymen people noising all thier hullabaloos. And yet they can not stand to refute my post. Tell them they should stop deviating from the point. What I post is a clear biblical text; why they still fail to use a single biblical verse to refute the truth that I have raised. This entails that they were defeated although they are shy to confess. They can continue to say their nonsense words bu they could not invalidate this truth I have raised.[/quote]Why do you resort to blatant lies as cosmetic for your adventures? Why do you make these cowardly statements and solicit cheap commiserations/condolences for yourself from others who have not even been able to help you in one dot after my refutations to your cut-and-paste?

Anyhow, did you say that we failed to use a single Biblical verse to refute yours? Not even one verse in all the debunking? Hahahaha. . . bro, you just confirmed you either don't read; or you were biting your fingers and trying to unplug your PC so that the answers would disappear!

Last time I checked (seconds ago) the answers are still there - posts #22 and #23 on the previous page. Let's count how many verses I used there to discuss in my answers:

[list][li]Genesis 16:3[/li]
[li]Genesis 16:6[/li]
[li]Genesis 16:8[/li]
[li]Genesis 16:9[/li]
[li]Genesis 16:12[/li][/list]

[list][li]Genesis 17:19[/li]
[li]Genesis 25:18[/li][/list]

[list][li]Deuteronomy 5:2, 3[/li]
[li]Deuteronomy 17:14-15[/li]
[li]Deuteronomy 18:18[/li]
[li]Leviticus 20:2[/li]
[li]Leviticus 22:10[/li]
[li]Leviticus 24:22[/li]
[li]Exodus 12:43-45, 48[/li]
[li]Exodus 29:33[/li][/list]

So, tell me Abu-Safwan: all the above verses (no less than twenty) amounts to your assertion that "they still fail to use a single biblical verse to refute"? Let me know, please: what school did you attend to make you lose coherence?

I never talked about anything being true origin of anything,You are the one talking about true origin of things, What do you mean by true?

I have explained several times what I meant, example in post #48:

[list]The point here is this: although we're already thinking of such theories, how would such be able to 'explain' the true ORIGIN of anything that exists? How would such help towards explaining how matter came into existence in the first place?[/list]

If we're truly going to talk about true origins, that basic of all questions need not be thrown out of the lab - 'how matter came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly universe'. Starting at a singularity of the BB is not a true origin of the Universe coming into existence - the BB only goes as far as Plank Time and not earlier.

Of course this does not mean that I'm seeking to throw in the God-hypothesis; and in this regard I already said in post #44 -

[list]One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who makes such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe.[/list]

That is what I meant by true origins.

There is nothing like true in science is there?

I don't know; but 'true' is a qualifier often used in many sciences. It does not mean just that something is shown to be 'not false'; rather, it is used in several contexts to show particularities - 'the quality of being particular and pertaining to a specific case or instance'. For this reason we can understand the qualifier pointing to particularities as used in these two examples:

Negative Differential Conductivity in Gases: The "True Origin" -
by Blake D., and Robson R. E.
Abstract:
. . . In the present paper, we argue that the true origin of NDC
has indeed been explained satisfactorily, and present a
comprehensive range of calculations for a number of cases,
demonstrating the effectiveness of momentum transfer theory . .

https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51IHQwfJAlL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps:
The True Origin of Species -
by Robert Felix

And as far as I know there is nothing like truth in science.

Well, I don't know. However, scientists who use such terms often try to contextualize what they mean.

Scientific explanations are what they are and there is nothing like[i] true[/i] scientific explanation for anything.

I didn't ask for 'true scientific explanation'; rather I distinguish 'true origins' from 'beginning' of the Universe - these are worlds apart.

Let's take gravity for instance all we have is scientific explanations for what it is, There is nothing like the true theory of gravity or true origin of gravity or true explanation for gravity. Science can explain the origin of the universe, Its doesn't have to be true, Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless. Talking about science explaining the true origin of the universe is a misstatement in my view, Because science can not explain the true origin of the universe, science can only provide reasonable explanation for that. You don't hear about words like[i] true[/i] in science, you only hear about laws, hypothesis, theories that offer explanation to phenomena and I have never heard scientist talking about them explaining the true nature of anything.

hehe. . you seem to be losing confidence in your own assertions. I already have shown what I have been talking about; but what you're saying is quite another thing entirely. I know and understand the place of theories, hypothesis, models, proofs, laws, etc. in science - but I have not made any reference to a conclusion beyond any doubts. The areas where I have been using the word 'true' is clear in context; and I've shown just two examples of the use of that word in science.

I agree that I do not know how science is able to do so but that does not mean that science can not explain the origins of the universe without the need for deities, Are you asserting that modern science can never explain the origin of the universes without the need for deities?

No, that is not what I am trying to assert. I have noted in post #44 that -
"[list]One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who makes such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe.[/list]"

I hope this sorts out what you may not have understood earlier.

Are you asserting that modern science due to its limitations does not have the ability to explain the origin of the Universe? A simple yes or no will suffice.

No, I am not asserting anything. I make no assertions of whether modern science with its limitations has or does not have the 'ability' to explain the origin of the Universe. What I am asking is whether YOU understand the weight of your own assertions before stubbornly maintaining such assertions and explaining aboslutely NOTHING!

On my own part, I have tried to proffer my reasons for an understanding of TRUE ORIGINS and also asked a simple question: how matter came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe? Even philosophers of modern science do not brashly assert that 'modern science' is able (or 'can')  do this or that with respect to true origins. I have tried to look up a few including the UCL Institute of Origins and The Origins Institute: it is not so much what they are doing, but HOW they are doing what they do. . which is, the philosophical foundation of the ORIGINS science. The latter has something interesting on their webpage:

[list]Formulating answers to the many questions that we consider involves a transdisciplinary approach that utilises ideas and methods from a variety of subjects, such as anthropology, astronomy, biochemistry, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, physics, and psychology, and advanced computational and visualisation techniques.[/list]

Scrolling to the bottom of that page shows what areas of origins they are concerned with:
[list]
[li]The Origin of Space-Time[/li]
[li]The Origins of Structure in the Cosmos[/li]
[li]The Origins of Elements[/li]
[li]The Origins of Life[/li]
[li]The Origins of Species[/li]
[li]The Origin of Humanity[/li][/list]

The basic question here being whether 'modern science' can/could/is capable/has the possibility of 'explaining' these origins (or 'all these phenomena' as you said earlier) is not so much that anyone makes an attempt. Just as George Ellis noted that 'there is a range of models that could explain the observations', the bigger question is: on what philosophical foundation would such models be formulated?

In the same way with the sciences of the various Origins Institutes, what philosophical foundation drives their researches? Yes indeed, there is quite a range of holistic approaches being considered including SYSTEMICS, etc. But even at that, would it not be coherent to understand that what many people attempt are mere speculations? Do you know why not many scientists are venturing into what is before Plank Time in questions about the true origin of our Universe, with such confidence of 'modern science'? The answer is simple: current scientific paradigms do not provide tools for such kinds of 'ORIGINS'; and any pretences to speculate on what modern science does not assert is mere speculation, no matter how interesting.

This is just one reason why you ought to be careful when making very unjustified assertions about what 'modern science' can do - you can't just excuse your assertions anyhow by a terse disinclination to the philosophical foundations of any scientific paradigm.

Now I believe you are trying to play games here, I said science can explain the origin of those phenomena without the need for deities, You on the other hand are now trying to stress  or talk about the true Origin.

What games was I trying to play? The point is that your constant assertiveness was taking a whole lot of issues for granted, and in some examples I had to show just how you're mixing up issues. Such examples would include the one where i tried to delineate the distinction between a 'beginning' and a 'true origin' - and went on to say simply that more and more cosmologists are shying away from the simplistic statements of the Big Bang as trying to 'explain' the ORIGIN of the Universe. They shy away from such because they know that it is just dishonest to maintain an 'origin' of the Universe where clearly the BB only traces from a specific point (Plank Time) and says nothing about the very 'origin' of the singularity from which the Universe emerged. Today you will find a lot of compromise in this area when cosmologists often do not leave 'origin of the universe' to stand alone; rather, they tend more and more to put that statement alongside evolution (e.g., 'the origin and evolution of the Universe'). No, toneyb, I wasn't playing any games.

toneyb:
I was just giving my opinion and not trying to explain the scientific process, I don't owe any body any explanation for my assertions If we are to go but that then I will also turn the table on your and begin to show you how you have made assertions that also explain nothing and expect applause at the end of the day but I am not really interested in all these running around.

Interesting, and I observed you were giving your own opinions. But asserting things about what modern science 'can' do is quite another thing - and in that regard I offered some explanations as to what exactly you had not considered.

How do you read stuffs? From dictionary.com. Can means: to have the possibility. My assertion is that modern science can explain all those phenomena I talked about.

I understand very well what is meant by 'can' - and if you noticed, I already indicated this clearly in posts #44 and #48.

In post #44by my statement was: 'Modern science could explain a lot of things'. And in post #48, I made clear also that: 'I understand that science as a progressive endeavour is capable of making many more discoveries'.

The Accurate and Reliable Dictionary, ARDictionary, presents both 'can' and 'could' as basically pointing to the same idea of would be or should be 'able' or 'capable' of doing something. MacMillan Dictionary gives more or less just about the same meaning of could as 'used for saying what is possible' (third definition on that link). So we're saying the same thing here - 'can' or 'could' or 'possible' or 'capable'.

It seems you like taking a single sentence out of a whole narrative dwell on it build mountains and mountains of your own(As some on has pointed out),

They are wrong! Many Nairalanders often make such silly statements when they cheapen their own intelligence - and my reaction to such is just to humour them and pass on. As you can see above, I was not oblivious of your use of 'can'; and you should have calmed down to see that I did not disagree when I already said plainly that 'Modern science could explain a lot of things' - whether 'can' or 'could', they are just the same thing in context here. Just ignore twerps who make such accusations about my posts so they don't get you wired in all sorts of directions. There's nothing essentially different between 'can' and 'could' or 'capable' and 'possible' in context our statements.

My assertion remains, Modern science can explain the existence of all the phenomena that I talked about without the need for any deities.

That is precisely what I would like you to demonstrate. That was not saying that I was asking you to do the explaining yourself and so proffer an understanding of the ORIGINS of all those things you enumerated.

Basically, for someone to assert anything about modern science, it would be more helpful for that person to show just what they understand about modern science to be making such assertions. I went one step further to explain why your assertion is gravely mistaken by touching upon the talk in many quarters about 'Theory of Everything' and show just what many scientists have in mind when they lean towards such ideas - 'which are attempts to fully explain and link together all known physical phenomena'. With that in mind, you will find that modern scientific paradigms are not structured in such a way as to answer the big questions of HOW and WHY: rather, they seek more to answer the basic question of 'WHAT'.

On the other hand, you just keep insisting on your own assertions and then turn round to argue on small words of 'can', like that was the huge point that settles this whole discussion.

All these philosophical talk about science is personally meaningless to me because, Science is constantly progressing that it has limitations today does not mean it will not over come them tomorrow. Are you trying to say categorically that modern science can never know or does not have the possibility of explaining the origin of the universe or living things? Is that your position?

Philosophical talk about science ought not to be meaningless - that is what has led us to the current paradigm of science today. But we ought also to recognize the limitations of what we mean by 'science' instead of making blanket statements about what 'science' can/could do. My position is categorically that the modern paradigm does not provide us with a systematic approach to understanding TRUE ORIGINS. This, I think, is the fine point that beneli makes in referencing astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis - 'What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that'. If then we're looking at TRUE ORIGINS, what branch of modern science has a well structured criterion for explaining the true origin of anything - especially how matter came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe?

^^Many blessings will follow you all your days, jiniux.

@tonyeb, howdy?

Your latest reply seems to still be asserting things without explaining anything. We all could do that same thing: make assertions, explain nothing, and expect applause at the end of it all. The reason I think that is what's showing up in your post is these examples:

toneyb:
I still maintain that modern science can explain the origin of the Universe,

. . then please show us how; because this next line seems to be the excuse behind which many assertions like yours are hidden:

That it hasn't doesn't mean it can not, 1000 years ago we really didn't know what the stars are or that the cell is the basic unit of life.

I understand that science as a progressive endeavour is capable of making many more discoveries. But we have to understand that 'science' has its limitations and seeks to answer questions of 'what' much more than questions of 'how' and 'why'. It does not mean we never ask 'why' or 'how' questions in seeking small details; but it means that when the proper questions of 'how' and 'why' are presented, science often leads us back to 'what'. This is one reason among many that helps us to both appreciate the limitations of current scientific thinking and the paradigms of philosophies of science, so that we can carefully weigh what anyone is asserting about what modern science 'can' do.

There really is no reason to flag the excuse of a future prediction of what modern science 'can' do, because we are at the cutting edge of understanding how modern scientific endeavours work, even to the extent that there's this talk today about the 'Theory of Everything' (ToE) or a 'Grand Unified Theory' (GUT) - which are attempts to fully explain and link together all known physical phenomena. The point here is this: although we're already thinking of such theories, how would such be able to 'explain' the true ORIGIN of anything that exists? How would such help towards explaining how matter came into existence in the first place?

These are no small questions to play with; and for someone to assert that modern science 'can' explain the origin (that is, the true ORIGIN) of living things, such a thinker should be able to demonstrate HOW it 'can' do so in simple terms. To just make the assertion and excuse it under a future prediction of what science can do is to belittle science itself.

Sure science does not have the answers presently because science is progressive and is always progressing. I say it can because as it progresses it can find concrete explanations.

That kind of statement is borrowed - it was not made because you know how science is able to do so; but just because you might have heard some making such statements does not give anything more to the point.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=370214.msg5222886#msg5222886 date=1262254168]@ VIARO

Not all acts of 'kissing' have a sexual undertone. It might just be a part of their custom or a religious rite of spiritual importance.[/quote]No, I didn't say so. And I'm very aware that there are various ways (including kissing on cheeks or hugging/embracing) of showing communal correspondence in many cultures and religions.

Do not judge other cultures based on western principles.

I wasn't doing so.

That kissing is an act of sexual affection in the west doesn't necessarily mean it means the same thing in the far east.

It depends on context. And no, I have not attempted to use western ideas to interpret Muslim kissing.

[quote author=Habib16 link=topic=373466.msg5215773#msg5215773 date=1262170850]
. . . and if u are doubting me go check the Real Bible and not the new testarment that almost everything have been changed u people have turned Injil (Bible) into something else.[/quote][quote author=Habib16 link=topic=373466.msg5222692#msg5222692 date=1262251097]
@viaro U are a capital letter FOOL, na u be the real illiterate u no even know the English u wan dey argue! Dondi u want tell me say we no get Mexico English, Brainwashed slowpoke that want to argue testarment and testament no be the "r" wey make the diff. Chai na the r dey hungry u go chop am. Viaro ibeg u need to go back sch or find English lesson teacher coz u dey kill English. U need to be arrest.[/quote]Dunce! Did you read 'testarment' in any of my posts in this thread? Daffodil! Check post #32 and see who was trying to correct you before confusing usernames.

You muslims are too cheap to toy with. .  damn too cheap. Trying to steal verses from the Bible and the scriptures of other religions for Muhammad does not work. Instead of reasoning issues here, you have turned this thread into a market place for trading insults. . . which is expected when you have run out of steam. Enjoy stealing more verses, and you will find red cards for your games.

Abu Zola:
Mr you are not making any sense, your allegation is false whereas that of the xtrian is obvious, the U.S and ZA even approved same sex marriage, enough of xtrianity and its gabbages

Pictures don't lie - and you only have to be ashamed of your tongue-sucking mullahs! It is not my allegation. . those pictures speak volumes my guy!

Punkinmusty:
Viaro.salim does'nt need guidance frm d bible to tel u who Muhammad(peace be upon him) is.

No, he didn't. But he had to go and steal verses from the Bible to show what he could not show for Muhammad. . and the lot of you were applauding his stealing efforts until the bubble went burst! That statement up there is even far more dense than I would have expected from you.

even if he quotes frm d quran your static mind wont ponder.

You guys should remain with your quran - stop going around stealing verses to give Muhammad any credibility. . from the Hindu Scriptures to the Parsi of Zoroastrianism to the texts of Judaism then to the Bible - Muslims are fond of stealing verses in every available text to find Muhammad in them, even when those verses have nothing to say about an Arab! Just stay with your non-translatable arabic instead of travelling around stealing verses, okay?

i think what u fail to realise is dat u hav held d bible 4 long not reading it but rather waitin 4 d pastor to tell u wat to read n wat not to read.

My replies to the OP were not the transcripts of any messages from any pastor. I have my own mind to read and understand before discussing anything with any Muslim.

in d process u ar blind folded n deluded of d facts therein.

That's fine. . I knew you would not be able to simply talk before spewing the gutter from your miswak.

nw,salim is helpin u out of your illusion,al u could do is find excuses to shy away frm d truth.time waits 4 no one.u shuld b busy lookin 4 answers nt swimming in shame n guilt.pls read d bible thoroughly n u wil begin to ask your pastor questions u has no answers to.by d way hw old ar u?

Salim did not help himself, talkless of trying to help me or anyone here. Did you miss the fact that the dude could not even reason on his own and had to try and hide behind quotes from Deedat? If Deedat lied, he would still be crowned an 'eminence' for his cheap shots. Please, go home (if you're far from home) and make a new year's resolution to stop stealing verses from outside the quran for anything you want to say about Muhammad.

Abu Zola:
for your info there is no space for homosexualism in Islam.

No, there is no 'space' for homosexualism in Islam . .  that's why all other spaces in the Muslim world are used by your clerics to suck the tongues of little boys (not to mention the 'spaces' in hospital wards where your muslim clerics are sucking the tongues of patients). No 'space' indeed! If they gave those men real 'space', our little boys will be an endangered species!

There are many things too shameful to list that go on in the Muslim world - these are not secrets.

Today, when Muslim clerics kiss boys with lustful hunger, people laugh it off:

[img]http://roguejew.files./2009/01/muslim-kiss.jpg?w=342[/img]

. . . or when muslim clerics suck the tongues of their male attendants and loyalists, people also laugh them off:

https://www.mideastyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/khameni_kiss.JPG

https://www.mideastyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/akhund_kiss.JPG

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216635#msg5216635 date=1262178437]Addtionally, Jesus said about that prophet: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is to your advantage that I go away. For I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart he will be sent to you, he will guide you unto all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatever he shall hear that he shall speak” (John 16: 7&13). Likewise, The coming of prophet as God’s messenger foretold in the books of John 16:12-14, Habakkuk 3:3, Song of Solomon 5:10-13, Deuteronomy 33:1-2, Matthew 23:39, John 14:30 and e.t.c.[/quote]I already hinted that -

viaro:
I was looking through the threads to see where these things have been discussed soundly to the conclusion that no Muslim was able to show that Muhammad is ever called 'the Holy Spirit' anywhere. When I find them, I shall post the links. . or just repost the whole thing here from the discussants.

@Abu-Safwan, I just found one of such threads which directly answers the question: WHERE did ALLAH ever refer to Muhammad as "THE SPIRIT"?. There is no need for me to post the well-rounded points debunking the muslim claim that John 16:12-14 was referring to Muhammad, for the answers provided in that thread have laid that argument to rest. Those muslims who are pretending to see this for the first time should go over there and read the thread carefully. There is not a single line anywhere in any scripture where Muhammad is ever referred to as a 'spirit'.

When I find the others, I shall post the links as well.

IbrahimB:
Do you guys just believe anything because it rubs you the right way?

Not everyone believes the story and a few have pointed sources that very well doubt its authenticity.

[quote author=e-mail link=topic=373482.msg5219035#msg5219035 date=1262201286]i saw this story last year and i helped spread it around. it was from a local newspaper here in Nigeria. if no source come up by next year i will get the source for you. its just that i am not close to the source right now.[/quote]Oh, that would be very interesting. Many thanks in advance.

^[edited.]

toneyb:
Where did I suggest that evolution deals with the origin of living things? How do you read things, I said Evolution tries to explain how organisms evolved to their present state over time, Why are you trying to build a mountain over what I did not say? . Stop playing a deepsight on me

I didn't say that you argued evolution as dealing with the origin of living things. In my previous post, I had a parenthesis for what I was referring to - "(as in your initial post)" - where you had indicated that modern science can explain "all of these phenomena" such as . .
* the origin of the universe,
* the design of the universe,
* and the origin of living things.
What discipline in 'modern science' can explain the origin of living things, toneyb?

Abiogenesis tries to explain the origin of life was what I said, why are you playing a deepsight on me my friend?

Abiogenesis does not even come close to 'trying' - that is the point. If anything in abiogenesis could be put forward as possibly able to explain the origin of life, we should have seen some of these - but what has emerged from abiogenesis is mere speculation that continue to embarrass us all.

How is this different from what i said which is that the BB tries to explain the origin of the universe?

The 'beginning' of the Universe is not to be confused for the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe. The BB does not say anything about the 'origin' of the singularity from which the Universe emerged - that is why it is important to know where we are starting our discussion, and for that reason I mentioned Plank Time.

I still insist that modern science can explain this things without the need for invoking any deities or supernatural entities.

Modern science could explain a lot of things; but the particular things you have indicated is not what modern science has shown itself capable of doing, to wit: 'the origin of the Universe' and 'the origin of living things'. One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who make such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe. The moment one asks questions like this, the typical response from the atheistic naturalist is to flag a disclaimer that his worldview does not deal with such kinds of 'origins'.

The problem is that if we discard the scientific process and explanation we will still discover that the supernatural claims have explained NOTHING about the origins of anything because they can not explain anything about the origin of anything beside ordinary claims and counter claims.

No, it is the other way round. No one here is begging to discard the scientific processes involved in any explanations; rather, you seem to be the one making claims about what modern science 'can' do and yet completely discarding the processes involved in science!

Punkinmusty:
It is obvious dat viaro n lawrence ar comfortable livin in d dark.i think u shuld be askin urselves why did d christiandom deviate frm al dz facts instead of proving hw ignorant u can be.salim i dey feel u.jazakallahu khair.

First, my posts are not to 'prove' anything about me or anyone else. If it helps, it should just show that Muslims are not too sure of their own religion until they steal verses from every religion to give Muhammad some credibility in Islam.

Second, talking about deviation, are you the only Muslim who is ignorant about the fact that Islam today is deviant, divided, daffy, deciduous, and deleterious? Can you claim that your own sect in Islam among the more than seventy-two factions is the closest to the sunah of Muhammad? Are you even sure you will enter jannah free of charge? Instead of trying to be reasonable and think through my response to the OP, you're hiding behind two fingers knocking silly lullabies on your keyboard. Next time you crawl out to just through spit after chewing your miswak, take care not to do so on viaro.

Akindolu:
Never a latecomer.Aam just a conscious seeker ofb the truth and not trying tio make a mark or such.Seek Go.I see people taking advantage of us ,pastors,imams-fanatics in the name of religion.That's my concern.Simple.

Akindolu, that's okay. It is good to seek God; but doing so does not mean we have to lash out just about anyhow at people just because we have one or two concerns. If someone had done something that we all frown at, it does not mean we then should tar all his predecessors with the same brush - because doing so is adding to the whole confused state we all find ourselves. In the same way, we should not use the case of the 23 year old chap to paint all Muslims, religions, or even Nigerians. As it is, Nigeria has suffered enough bad-mouthing from Europeans who like to think Africans are sub-standard beings - always to be led, never rising to be leaders. Our grumbling and complaining will not make things better; and until we learn to be objective, this western image about Africans will only get worse.

The second point is that we can better understand that fraud pervades the entire fabric of society - not just religion. Leadership in any field of human endeavour today is without trust, whether in religion, politics, professional careers or science. If you see people taking advantage of you, it's up to you to adjust yourself and stand to be smarter than that. Change starts from me and you - and as individuals, it is only when we know how to think through issues carefully that we can be of any support and help to the next man. I hope this would be of some substance for your consideration.

toneyb:
Viaro hehehe, Are you also playing a deepsight on me? . Did you see where I put the "can" qualifier? I did not say that mordern science has explained, I said it can explain., I believe was careful enough and I phased my statement correctly.

Haha. . I saw the 'can' and maybe played alongside Deep Sight (truth is, I was carried away, which was why I noted that you could not be attacked for that statement). Poor me.

It wasn't a forceful and general statement of declaration, I said modern science can explain these things without the need for a god. The big bang model tries to explain the origin of the universe, Abiogenesis tries to explain the origin of life, Evolution tries to explain how organisms evolved to their present state over time, all these scientific explanations do not require a god no?

Oh, sorry, tonyeb. You know what you've done? You just managed again to make us go 'deep sight' on you!

Okay, jokes apart, let me re-consider and show you why we still feel that the argument in both your posts are almost the same.

First, evolution does not deal with ORIGIN of living things (as in your initial post), even though it attempts to 'explain' the evolution of species. The 'origin' of species is just simply a non-starter because philosophers of science note that Darwinists (back and front of Darwin) have not even tried to show the 'ORIGIN' of species in the first place. The phrase just caught on without careful thinking.

Second, abiogenesis cannot explain the ORIGIN of life. This is not to deny that some have made attempts to offer this 'explanation', but has anyone even come close to the idea of 'can explain'?

Third, I'm not so sure that the Big Bang model 'explains' the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe. I think that many more cosmologists are shying away from the idea of 'origin' of the Universe and rather lean towards the evolution of the Universe. The BB is not the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe but is an attempt to describe the 'beginning' of our known universe as far back as we can trace by Plank time. Back of Plank time and what happened before the BB is still an enigma to scientists of all disciplines (as far as I can tell).

It is for these reasons that it seems quite a leap of faith to postulate that modern science 'can' explain all these things, especially with reference to what is truly considered 'origins'. At best, we are looking at all sorts of postulations (perhaps 'conjectures' more aptly); but if one were to consider the limitations of 'science', it then becomes easy to see that perhaps it is quite ambitious to reckon that modern science (for whatever it is worth) 'can' explain all of these phenomena.