ArchivedDifference of understandingIn regards to UNITE: Your opinions are worthless like the dust if you cant show any factual/logical basis for them. Who do you think you are? Do you expect to make a statement like that and then all of the sudden everyone is just supposed to take your word for it and trust you? I have asked you twice already to validate your opinions by engaging in this debate with some form of an intellectual, intelligible argument, twice you have backed out like a coward, trying to hide from the truth and resolving to more ad hominem remarks. God help you. This sounds like an excuse….uh OH – a nice validation of everything ive said concerning you so far. Well certain issues, for example, the issue you yourself on your own accord brought up in this topic, can come to a conclusive outcome, but all you’ve done is raise an issue and cower away from the responses that you obviously cannot deal with. Sorry buddy, but being nice and reliable doesn’t prove anything to me. If someone were to act perfectly in accord to the Bibles lessons on how one should conduct themselves, we would have an exact replica of Christ the most perfect exemplar to ever walk this earth. Unfortunately, I find no parallel with the superiority of the Bibles teaching on love and forgiveness and personal human conduct with that of some of the Quran’s teachings, for example that of “attack the non believers”, or even as most liberal Muslims would rather assert “attack only when being attacked” – the “eye for an eye” motif – Even Christ spoke against such a motif and rebuked the use of violence or any form of revenge. Saying things such as “if someone slaps you on your left cheek, give him your right cheek also” – “love your enemies do good to those who persecute you” That’s the perfect teaching of God. And also, stop applying double standards, you want us Christians to “open our hearts” to consider your religion objectively, but are you doing the same?? Is your heart open when considering the Christian response and claims you hypocrite? NO – and that has clearly been displayed – so im afraid to say – cut the crap. This forum is a debate forum – we are dealing with facts and logic, if you want to go preach go somewhere else, there is no teaching from the Quran you could possible give that a) the Bible hasn’t already taught AND/or b) taught in a more superior way. Yeah and theres only one way to find out which interpretation is more viable and valid which is exactly what me and “OneGod” are discussing at the moment. So what was your point????? That people choose to interpret verses more than 1 way? Well I think we all know that! My sole question is WHY does the Muslim interpretation prevail?? From my eyes the Quran is not the word of God, it was written by a deceived man/men therefore I see the possibility of errors, and I see a modern Muslim interpretation as possibly deceptively trying to cover those errors. Before I looked into the issue I didn’t already make this conclusion (notice I used the word “possibly” above), this conclusion has been made since considering the arguments for and against, which logically speaking so far, I see no tenable reason as to why the Muslim interpretation should hold and therefore I see it as another deceptive ploy to impose a meaning on the text to prove there is no scientific contradiction – but that’s an issue you’re obviously not capable of properly debating/discussing. Talk is so very…very cheap. I would like to ask you, what is relevant to this forum (which is of debate I remind you), behavior or thoughts? There are very good atheists, Buddhists, hindus, Muslims, Christians, well so what? That’s all fine and dandy, but faith and works go hand in hand. Your behaviour isn’t going to save you in the eyes of God on the last day unless that behaviour has been carried out in obedience and faithfulness to the one true God. The statement you made in your initial post: Your above assertion is already arrogantly assuming you have the absolute truth, and therefore you’ve concluded that any objection to your faith is simply a matter of “peace of the heart” – that’s what I call ignorance and blind faith to the maximum. God made us in His image, he gave us logic and rational thinking, and only logic and rational thinking will validate one interpretation over the other. If you’re willing to reject everything because you lead a blind faith and excuse any objection as being a matter of “lack of sincerity in seeking the truth”, then why don’t I just apply those same standards to you? Why don’t I just say the Muslim because of the lack of “peace in his heart” offers an interpretation to conceal the truth that there is scientific errors in His Quran due to the fact it was not of divine inspiration?? And then just as you have done completely reject any possible logical/rational objection? I think at this point there is nothing you can say, and if this is your attitude then I don’t even understand what you’re doing in a forum like this – You obviously cannot assess religion with dispassionate objectivity and therefore there is nothing you can say against the fact you are leading a blind faith. Dear OneGod, You repeated a lot of your initial arguments, but I responded to these, and it was those direct responses I was waiting for you to tackle which you really didn’t. You repeat ideas of your initial argument with statements like: Well im asking HOW, what is the basis of this implication? I see the refutation of the already proposed ideas (e.g. that theres 2 different words for light used) as valid enough at this stage, I don’t feel you’ve brought a serious objection to any of it. If your argument that the word for word translation has in some way inhibited the true implication that would be given if it was read it in its original Arabic, then I would like to know what linguistical factors have resulted in this??? You surely don’t just expect me to take your word for it – I haven’t expected you to take my word for anything so far. As for commentaries, once again its almost like you are expecting me to take their word for it. Would Muslim commentators of the Quran be more qualified than me in making a scholarly exegesis based on the original Arabic? Ofcourse they would. Does this mean I just take their word for it, or does this mean what they speak is the truth? Defintely not. We are dealing with the truth, it is a possibility that such commentators are trying to cover up this error with what I believe to be an imposition of our current understanding of science on an ancient text that simply does not portray that understanding when considered objectively. So I need justifications buddy. The point is no concerning what words mean. We are concerned with the fact of whether or not the ancient Arabic language has words such as “reflected”, “borrowed” or any similar word, in order to explicitly convey the idea that the moons light is indeed reflected. Now if you’re willing to look into it, and you can come back to me with a solid confident statement that there was absolutely no such adjective in the ancient Arabic language that could have been used to explicitly convey this meaning, then I would have no choice but to concede to the fact that MAYBE we are expected to assume this light is reflected (based on the fact that no such adjective existed), but there is still nothing concrete. In actual fact it would still be highly unlikely (notice im not canceling out the possibility) that we are to assume this, because we are still left with a very valid form of methodology for philological interpretation, and that is precedent – and precedent does not support the argument of “reflected light” at all. I think you’ve touched on the issue that there is some sort of a linguistical/grammatical reason as to why we should assume the non-existent adjective modifying the noun. But im sorry your going to have to bring forth something more solid and technical then “its simply how the words are used”. Because let me ask you my friend, I want you to assume my position for arguments sake, that the writer of this verse never in fact intended to convey the idea that the light was reflected, assume that when he was writing it he wanted to say that the moon is actually light. Would the sentence read any different??? No. So you need to show me some DISTINGUISHING linguistical factors that inevitably leads us to take the implication that the light is reflected rather than the fact the light is self-illuminant. Using precedent as a form of determining the implication of a particular word (in any language) is a valid method, unless you can prove to me how exactly the immediate context overrides precedent and gives the word a different implication. They didn’t ignore anything, they were directly responding to the Muslim apologists reasons for concluding that the light was reflected – and these reasons did not include anything to do with sentence structure or grammar. This is a new point you yourself have brought up, and it is one that I find no solid based evidence for so far. You tried to use my Bible as an example. Well that’s all fine and dandy, we are not disagreeing with you on the fact that sentence structure and other linguistical factors can prevail over precedence and give a particular word a unique meaning, I am simply asking you for some solid based evidence. I want evidence that shows that it is inevitable (or even highly likely) that the implication is reflected light rather than self-illuminance, and I want you to show me what exactly in the ancient Arabic grammar would allow for this interpretation (of reflected light) to prevail over the self-illuminating light interpretation – what exactly are the distinguishing factors. Would you like some examples from my Bible? Ok let me give you an example. In John 10:30 Christ says “I and the Father are one”. What implication are we to make of this word one? Obviously, a word such as one is very ambiguous and can be open to various interpretations if we considered this sentence on its own. So one person might appeal to precedent, and try and determine the implication of this “oneness” by studying its usage in Christ’s speech in other areas of the Bible, like John 17 for example. But I would argue (just as you are) that the immediate context has sufficient evidence to determine the meaning of this oneness. I wouldn’t simply state that, but I would support it by saying that when we consider the preceding verses, Christ claims the prerogatives of God the Father, he then makes the statement “I and the Father are one”, the Jews then understand his implication means he is claiming equality with the Father in terms of nature, the proceeding verses show the Jews wanting to stone Christ for blasphemy, Christ doesn’t correct their understanding of what he said, but rather defends his deity. Therefore I come to the conclusion that this is a oneness of nature and essence. So see how ive shown sufficient evidence here from an immediate context as to why precedent should be rejected in this case? Let me give you a another other example which appeals to the original language. Lets say something very simple like Isaiah 9:6. It’s a prophetic passage describing the birth of a child (Christ) and it attributes a list of titles to that child. “wonderful, councilor, mighty, God, everlasting, Father, prince, peace” etc. Now the way I just quoted it is really no big deal, but lets say I wanted to make a big deal about the fact that the child should not be called “wonderful” as a separate title to “councilor”, i.e. for arguments sake I really needed to prove the fact that “wonderful” is actually an adjective modifying the noun “councilor” i.e. it should read “wonderful councilor”. Instead of simply saying “it should be rendered as “wonderful councilor” because that’s just the sentence structure” I give some solid evidence for this by asserting, that in ancient Hebrew, whenever there is a list of words given, all the words will generally be of the same type, unless they are specifically identified otherwise. This is because of the Hebrews economical use of words, which dictates that if one word in the list is a noun, all the others should be nouns, therefore all the adjectives in this list are merely modifying the nouns, rather than to be considered separately on their own. So what I have done is I have given a solid argument as to the implication I wanted to prove, which also cancels out any other suggested implications. That’s what you need to do for me, and if you can do that I will accept the fact that in this very trivial issue we are discussing there is no scientific error. PEACE |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame