The Holy Quran

[NMSquirrel]

That's still just political reasons. My question was more in the line of- does God appoint a messenger for every culture? And if so, where are the books for other cultures?

um quran,tora..etc (thats the only two i have in memory)..

yeah, and it's not actually always with books, and i saw once something about other books, besides quran and the bible and the jews book whatever is called, but are lost, and not perserved, the best perserved book was quran, it is the same since 1432 years.

and the quran (from what i get from not actually studying it) is the most confusing of the religious texts, yea it is honorable that it has not changed or edited, but there is value to making it clearer, more understandable.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Nowhere in that definition states that teaching requires learning. You really are eager to embarrass yourself. It is what you and others made up to suit yourselves. You are wrong as ever.

This is yet another example of your failure to understand: when one imparts (you'll note that word IS in the definition) knowledge then the recipient learns. It's that simple.
You'll have to realise that merely because you state that something is or isn't so does NOT make it true.

Says the one that just proved himself wrong.

Also false, but this isn't the first time that you've made such a declaration about the definition of a word and been shown to be wrong.
Good luck with your education, although I (still) don't hold much hope of it sticking. You haven't improved a jot since the day you arrived here.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Nowhere in that definition states that teaching requires learning. You really are eager to embarrass yourself. It is what you and others made up to suit yourselves. You are wrong as ever.

can you teach a rock?
the definition you are using suggest as much..

Here you are again, showing off your misunderstanding of a simple def. such as "teaching."
Says the one that just proved himself wrong.

without addressing your authoritative stance on this..(my way or no way)
consider that you are wrong.

 

[-ND-]

This is yet another example of your failure to understand: when one imparts (you'll note that word IS in the definition) knowledge then the recipient learns. It's that simple.
You'll have to realise that merely because you state that something is or isn't so does NOT make it true.

Impart:
1. To grant a share of; bestow: impart a subtle flavor; impart some advice.
2. To make known; disclose: persuaded to impart the secret.
3. To pass on; transmit: imparts forward motion

Once again, learning is no where in that definition. The teacher simply has to lecture. Learning comes from the other side (the student). If we would live by your understanding of the simplest forms of words this is what it would look like: a=z and z=a. (<--Everyone that has any potential competance knows that is wrong.)

Also false, but this isn't the first time that you've made such a declaration about the definition of a word and been shown to be wrong.
Good luck with your education, although I (still) don't hold much hope of it sticking. You haven't improved a jot since the day you arrived here.

I remember what you speak of. When you are wrong you just deny the truth and keep fighting the truth, because you can not and will not accept the truth. You are an incompetant of the highest degree, in any universe that exists or has and will exist.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Impart:
1. To grant a share of; bestow: impart a subtle flavor; impart some advice.
2. To make known; disclose: persuaded to impart the secret.
3. To pass on; transmit: imparts forward motion
Once again, learning is no where in that definition. The teacher simply has to lecture. Learning comes from the other side (the student).

I see. So you're of the opinion that even if something is made known to a recipient they haven't learned? If they now know it they, by definition, have learned it. Likewise with something being passed on. If the recipient doesn't carry that knowledge they don't learn, they have to learn it for it to be imparted.

(<--Everyone that has any potential competance knows that is wrong.)

Unfortunately you have neither real nor potential competence.

I remember what you speak of. When you are wrong you just deny the truth and keep fighting the truth

Yes, that's what you did, and kept doing until you were warned by a moderator.

Goodbye. You're still not worth my time.

 

[-ND-]

can you teach a rock?
the definition you are using suggest as much..

Nope. It does not. You misunderstand and made up an assumption. I am saying that you can teach a class even if no one is learning anything. Learning comes from a secondary not the primary which is the teacher. Get better.

without addressing your authoritative stance on this..(my way or no way)
consider that you are wrong.

I don't have a my way. I am not inffecting definitions with my point of view of what a definition is. Pay attention.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I remember what you speak of. When you are wrong you just deny the truth and keep fighting the truth, because you can not and will not accept the truth. You are an incompetant of the highest degree, in any universe that exists or has and will exist.

do you see how you qualify for this? its reads like the pot is calling the kettle black..

this is the danger of insults, it usually applies to the one who hurls it.

 

[-ND-]

I see. So you're of the opinion that even if something is made known to a recipient they haven't learned? If they now know it they, by definition, have learned it. Likewise with something being passed on. If the recipient doesn't carry that knowledge they don't learn, they have to learn it for it to be imparted.

Now you are just being silly.

Unfortunately you have neither real nor potential competence.

Says the one that does not understand a word like teaching.

Yes, that's what you did, and kept doing until you were warned by a moderator.

I was warned many times, for preaching and insults. They were deserved. That still does not give you an excuse for you not understanding a simple word.

Goodbye. You're still not worth my time.

Be gone and don't show again.

 

[-ND-]

do you see how you qualify for this? its reads like the pot is calling the kettle black..

this is the danger of insults, it usually applies to the one who hurls it.

Right, Dywyddyr's insults does not apply to him to him because..? Ah yes! I believe in God, so you and him must be superior to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Now you are just being silly.

Demonstrably false.

Says the one that does not understand a word like teaching.

That would, in fact, be you. As shown. And NMSquirrel's example also illustrated the point.

I was warned many times, for preaching and insults. They were deserved. That still does not give you an excuse for you not understanding a simple word.

You also received a warning for persistent denial/ deliberate misinterpretation of definitions that had been given to you. Selective memory maybe? Or just dishonest?

Be gone and don't show again.

Still arrogant, too.

 

[-ND-]

Double post.

 

[-ND-]

You also received a warning for persistent denial/ deliberate misinterpretation of definitions that had been given to you. Selective memory maybe? Or just dishonest?

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=47897 (<-Infractions section)

Nope, you are just a liar.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Fail: members can't see anyone's infractions but their own. And I didn't mention infractions. I said you were warned. Which you were: in the thread.

 

[John99]

You have to admit that no religious book contains anything that could not have been written by nearly anyone. Not even a paragraph could not have been thought up by a human.

Not even the Bible or the Baga Veeta (SP)

 

[-ND-]

Fail: members can't see anyone's infractions but their own. And I didn't mention infractions. I said you were warned. Which you were: in the thread.

In any case, I have never received anything like that. I have insults, posting violent, abusive, pornographic content, and trolling/meaningless post. Public and private warnings.

When you find the thread maybe you can enlighten us.

Good job in changing the subject though. You failed at the defintion of teaching.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Right, Dywyddyr's insults does not apply to him to him because..? Ah yes! I believe in God, so you and him must be superior to me.

actually i never implied that he was immune to that..ask dyw..he has heard my opinions..

you never did reply to my question..

can you teach a rock?

please accept my unofficial moderatorship opinion..

wannabe Mod Hat;
let it drop, continue another time..
accept the current accepted (at the very least by the majority here) definition..

you will never reach an audience if you can't speak their language.

there consider yourself officially warned..(..er.. officially means you get written up..i can't do that...)

 

[-ND-]

actually i never implied that he was immune to that..ask dyw..he has heard my opinions..

you never did reply to my question..

can you teach a rock?

please accept my unofficial moderatorship opinion..

wannabe Mod Hat;
let it drop, continue another time..
accept the current accepted (at the very least by the majority here) definition..

you will never reach an audience if you can't speak their language.

there consider yourself officially warned..(..er.. officially means you get written up..i can't do that...)

No you can not teach a rock anything. You can teach to a rock, or rocks. You are still teaching as crazy as that teacher might be, he is teaching. The defense rests.

 

[Michael]

idk what is that extension or whatever, we beleive in all prophets, that's why we beleive in jesus too

Shadow, you do understand you continuously make circular arguments? Over an Over and OVER and OVER....

Let me demonstrate: You stated "we believe in all prophets". Oh, really. ALL prophets huh? Do you believe in The Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., Do you believe in the Prophet Ron Hubbard?

No, you don't. Because Islam is not tolerant. Can you get that in your head? Your religion is founded on intolerance. It's so fundamental to your believe system thay you don't even "get it" when you about to say NO we don't "believe in" Ron Hubbard or the Mormon revelation.

"We"
"believe in"
"all"
"prophets"

My Gods, that sentence alone is so stuffed with gobbledygook it's take years to purge your hard drive. You know how your PC gets slower and slower as more and more viruses and malwar attack it and integrate into the OS? You can conciser Islam the mother of all malwar - which is why your OS runs around in circles making little to no progress :shrug:

 

[SciWriter]

The brain wires that so often fired together are now strongly wired together.

 

[Shadow1]

.

and the quran (from what i get from not actually studying it) is the most confusing of the religious texts, yea it is honorable that it has not changed or edited, but there is value to making it clearer, more understandable.

quran is an open book, means, discussible, there are always things to find out in it