This is for Lawdog...

superluminal said:
I find that amazing. My impression is that the powers-that-be would never allow such a thing. How does that fit in with the sacred nature of the place? I'm really suprised.
Click to expand...

Money changes everything. There's not as much difference between people as one would think. Why do you think they took over in the first place? To go to heaven? Nyah! everyone wants the earthly delights first.
 
samcdkey said:
Money changes everything. There's not as much difference between people as one would think. Why do you think they took over in the first place? To go to heaven? Nyah! everyone wants the earthly delights first.
Click to expand...
Sad. :(
 
I'd rather the impression that slight historical misdating was the point.

Any bets on the date of the first pinch of salt?
Click to expand...

Man you're like a forum troll, but not as amusing. A couple of better one liners and I might just give you a smiley.
 
samcdkey said:
I like you super, you're the best!
kiss3.gif
Click to expand...

Oh pulleeeze, get a room, you two. :D
 
samcdkey said:
(Q) said:
based on duplicates from at least two separate individuals, yes

edit* it helped of course, that the Quran is not read, but recited with meter and rhyme*
Click to expand...

TWO! WOW!

I'm thoroughly convinced, that's rigor!
Click to expand...
 
Hapsburg said:
Damn, that guy actually thinks "Land of the Lost" and "the Flintstones" are accurate depictions of history? :eek:
What a fucktard! :D Good find.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it, is it any wonder evolution scientists don't take creationism and intelligent design seriously! :p
 
samcdkey said:
one translation of verse # 13:31

Another common mixup is between momineen (believer) and muslimeen (Muslim). A believer is one who follows the right way and a Muslim is one who follows Islam. Both terms are used specifically in Arabic, but used interchangeably in English. Similarly for kaafir (nonbeliever in Islam) and mushrik (one who is not a monotheist); they are both called disbelievers in English.
Click to expand...

this seems to be pointless semantics. i would think that someone who believes and follows the right way but is not actually a muslim is a nearly useless distinction that can only be meaningful when viewed through the lens of religious law.

similarily, the difference between kaafir and mushrik is minimal, and it is accurate to call both of them disbelievers or non-believers. if someone is a monotheist but not a muslim, they are a non-believer. if someone is a polytheist, then they are obviously not a muslim, and are also non-believers.

in addition to this, you just portrayed the delicate distinctions between those words to us in english, and it wasn't impossible for us to understand them. so, i don't get you translation argument.
 
charles cure said:
this seems to be pointless semantics. i would think that someone who believes and follows the right way but is not actually a muslim is a nearly useless distinction that can only be meaningful when viewed through the lens of religious law.

similarily, the difference between kaafir and mushrik is minimal, and it is accurate to call both of them disbelievers or non-believers. if someone is a monotheist but not a muslim, they are a non-believer. if someone is a polytheist, then they are obviously not a muslim, and are also non-believers.

in addition to this, you just portrayed the delicate distinctions between those words to us in english, and it wasn't impossible for us to understand them. so, i don't get you translation argument.
Click to expand...

These are examples of some words, there are others with more than four or five possible meanings; when applied to concepts and shades of meanings, the dinstinctions are greater. There is no regulation regarding translations and many of the translations are just plain bad.
 
Anyways, ive seen lately, there's really no getting to you scientifically... so lets talk biblically... lets start with Genesis, give me yoyur explanation, and we can move on, if anyone wants to add stuff, go right ahead! If you wanna answer, go right ahead! After all ... its a public forum :p
Click to expand...
Whoa, this is quite a challenge for which I am quite unworthy to comment on so holy and sublime a text, since my mind has become so feeble and I have no true authority to do so. Therefore, nothing that I write should be taken as the official Roman Catholic interpretation, though I will draw from that source. I will try, but please forgive me if I make mistakes or sound ignorant.

As I have said before, i interpret scripture in the spirit of the Church fathers, who in many cases take a fundamentalist position, that these events actually occured, though they are not bound or limited to that position.
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Click to expand...

Genesis 1: 26-31

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
Click to expand...
Here you may note that God refers to himself in the plural, a rare occurance in scripture, and Jesus does not do so. It must therefore have some other meaning than the "royal we." The fathers claimed that this is the first intimation of the multiple persons in God. Three persons, one God. the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God makes man in his own image. Of course the old use of 'man" and "his" is the universal, and applies to both sexes. This distinction is this: God, being pure spirit, is portrayed as male with respect to his personhood.

One must imagine a maleness that surpasses in perfection all our limited experiences of maleness and fatherhood. It is the perfection of the role of lover to beloved, God to the soul, except in the case of the incarnation, sexuality cannot be separated from personhood.

That God's personhood is portrayed as male for the sake of humans says nothing about the actual situation, that God encompasses both male and female and is far beyond gender.

Also note that God created Man in his likeness, that is in the first place, God, being pure spirit created Man as a spirit after his spiritual likeness, endowing him with all the same gifts and virtues. Here is a secondary more shaky but additional interpretation: God also created Man to physically appear as Christ's incarnation. It does not mean that God has a physical body in Heaven. Nevertheless it does seem that he has a spiritual body. Man's physical body is a sign that recalls God's spiritual body.

and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Click to expand...

Man has dominion over the Earth, not to abuse it and misuse it like we have, but to be like Adam and Eve, gardeners and cartakers of the Earth.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Click to expand...

God's original plan for humans was to have them multiply and be fruitful, not illiminate the children their wombs.

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Click to expand...

God supplies man with all his needs.

There are some very beautiful interpretations of this passage, but they dont come to mind right now. It has something to do with the arrangement of the days of creation.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

According to this, God created Man on the sixth day of Creation, male and female. Man refers to Human, not Male. So, Male and Female were created together, as Man was created, Male and Female were created, at the same time.
Click to expand...
Genesis 2: 5-7

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [c] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

According to this, Man was created first, only a male, and after him the plants and animals were created... very, very different than what the first creation story tells us... since that tells us plants, animals, and then humans.
Click to expand...


It is the result of a typical writer, he is probably relating some account that his grandfather told him or some ancient scroll, and does not take into account the indiscrepancy. He probably had collected various stories that he had heard and put them together. As a writer, I know that it happens to me all the time. It was not just one man that wrote all this, but if it was there would be even more indiscrepancies.
 
Last edited:
Provita said:
So, u admit thee bible contains stories, and isnt all word-for-word factual?
Click to expand...
Of course not. You must look at the genre of each book. Its not all just history. personally I tend to read it with more of a fundamental take, but that does not limit me to only one way of reading it.
 
So how do u know wat interpretation of the bible, since now some of it can be contextual and not literal, is right?
 
charles cure said:
this seems to be pointless semantics. i would think that someone who believes and follows the right way but is not actually a muslim is a nearly useless distinction that can only be meaningful when viewed through the lens of religious law.

similarily, the difference between kaafir and mushrik is minimal, and it is accurate to call both of them disbelievers or non-believers. if someone is a monotheist but not a muslim, they are a non-believer. if someone is a polytheist, then they are obviously not a muslim, and are also non-believers.

in addition to this, you just portrayed the delicate distinctions between those words to us in english, and it wasn't impossible for us to understand them. so, i don't get you translation argument.
Click to expand...

But do you know that muslimeen not always considered to be already mu'mineen?
 
Provita said:
So how do u know wat interpretation of the bible, since now some of it can be contextual and not literal, is right?
Click to expand...
I generally do not interprete the bible on my own, but with the help of the Church fathers. Nor do I use the bible as a source of dogma for morality or spirituality. The bible is only an additional source of spirituality for me.

no one doubts the importance of scripture...but...

Where in the bible does it forbid men to use other means of learning truth or morality, as one might in the study of philosophy, or the writings of saints?

Jesus did not say "you must read the bible or you cannot be saved"

Nor did Jesus erect the bible as the sole source of morality or knowledge.

The scriptures themselves describe how Jesus used a body of men and women to establish an authoritative Church led by Simon Peter. Jesus never says "make sure to write this down."

And what about people that cant read? are they to be damned?

Jesus centered his Church around himself, not a book. Jesus gives himself to Man in the Eucharist, in the outer appearance of bread and wine, which are in reality his body and blood.

only the Catholic Church has the same valid eucharist consecrated by priests from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top