superchunk said:
I think I'm done in this thread as its getting no where and each party is simply reverberating the same general comments over and over. I quoted the above as it best fits my final thoughts. Everything I posted fits into one of two categories, imo. 1. My personal beliefs and interpretations of the great number of Holy Books in this world based on reading and studying them, personally and university level. 2. My studies, personally and university level, of history in the Middle East and the Western world. Could I be entirely wrong in everything I've posted, including my synopsis of the two Qur'ans mentioned? of course. However, that would also mean that the many books, classes, teachers, and more recently websites are also all wrong. In fact, it means that sources from both west and east are essentially lying at some point. Obviously this only refers to #2 as #1 is entirely based on my perceptions of God and the way God has sent out message after message to the people of the world. However, part of that is based in #2 as well. Alternatively, I could be at least largly accurate and that would mean that you two are either lying or reading false material in your own right. After all, any given religious topic will have tons of pro and con sources. Based on the previous posts, it seems Booh! probably bases his knowledge on personal acquaintances and Google. dib8rman seems to be based on a number of previous study, philosophy, general religious debates where he is atheist, and the web. I kinda get the feeling that both of you only accept the writings of things that already fit your preconceived notions of Islam. You both think Islam is evil/violent by nature and that the current Islamic state is just doing what is ordained. With that, anything else that demonizes Islam and the Qur'an fits your logic and is good. The Qur'an discussion quoted is a perfect example of this. While I have read sources that attack the credibility of these Qur'ans and others that are also ancient, I have read many more sources that agree with what I pulled from the Wikipedia article. I still hold firm that present Islamic nations are to Islam as Medieval Europe was to Christianity and that by tossing out the Hadiths, Islam could reform to what is taught in the Qur'an and be the community it is supposed to be. Either way, right or wrong.. see ya in the more pertinent gaming discussions. |
Well you could say that about me, I also have five shelves of books some for research some for politics, some for entertainment as well as enough books under my bed that if I should remove the legs it could probably rest on them comfortably. Of course only three of these books have anything to do with Islam, one being the Qur'an another the book mentioned before "Why I am not a Muslim" and the third being the Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda manifesto which isn't a book but I've fashioned it to one. Most of my knowledge on Islam comes from forums I’ve attended on historicity and religiosity and meetings with like minds both on the web and face to face and also with Muslim moderate friends who I've met. I've spent time in Cordoba at a friends families and visited many of the sites there, from the Roman bridge and Cordoba mosque Mezquita to the Al-Andalus museum. In fact I’m visiting Rome in the coming months as well as Avignon and if I can Naples and Cicero. Presently my close friend is in Turkey learning Turkish and even tries to get me into it all the while making Turkish pot shots at the UN again in Turkish. I don't really give much credit to people like yourself who are always so incredibly wrong and assume your so incredibly right.
(Edit since this is supposedly the closing)
For clarity sake I meant the last line only to attack your ultimatums as at the very least biased. Where you would say that myself and whoever else you were talking to (booh I believe) could be lying you instead said for yourself that your sources may be lying. Could it possibly be that maybe your lying to yourself? The evidence can be there, a Historian once told me on a talk about Jesus he said that Historically Jesus did exist as far as what the qualifications for existence historically demands.
This does tell me a man named Jesus or to be clearer with the title Messiah (self applied or not) did exist but not that he was in any way a person with a right to command men’s minds, morals or actions. Even if he was actually born of a virgin it doesn't mean he has any right over my free will. What history cannot say is historically accurate though is that he was resurrected as no one witnessed it. All his mother and other female followers actually saw was an empty grave. In fact none of the miracles of the bible can be found historically true. Even the book of Exodus and I believe even Leviticus has been proven as a plagiarism and in fact that they never happened.
As for the plagiary of the New Testament, I'm very sorry but the Qur'an is by far much more edited than dare I say even the Mormons’ Joseph Smith Edition of the bible. This is keeping strictly to the Arabic versions and only based on the explanations by prominent independent researchers like Iq. Even the Sana’a provides unneeded but invited evidence to prove that statement.
Oh and I'm not Atheist darn it!
Good bye. ^_^
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
