Give me any statement .....

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The play on words used by some to attempt to give you the feeling that you aren't as intelligent as they are. When in fact, your art shows you to be light years ahead of all of us...

"Jig" is a pattern or mold, or block, used to form a shape that still is in our mind, and about to become reality...sound familiar? lol

Oooh lol, nah it's cool I am still where I was

lol I never realised you were a watcher of my art works lol... Thanks for the compliment brother

See I have never heard the word used in such a term, most used to it being for phrases such as "The jig is up!!!!"

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The play on words used by some to attempt to give you the feeling that you aren't as intelligent as they are. When in fact, your art shows you to be light years ahead of all of us...

"Jig" is a pattern or mold, or block, used to form a shape that still is in our mind, and about to become reality...sound familiar? lol

Shame on you for your assumption and characterization, Quahom1. I neither intended, nor attempted, nor thought anything of the sort regarding Alex's intelligence.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Alex P

What's a JiG?

Specifically, "What's a JiG follower like..." I am inclined to think what is meant is "Jesus is G-d" follower.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajra.

Thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

to be perfectly frank i find the claims regarding the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be somewhat doubtful in that based on my understanding of business, a being that cannot read or write would tend to be very disadvantaged and wouldn't likely be successful yet that is what Muhammad (pbuh) was.

i suppose it could be a sort of business where literacy and writing aren't important, i just don't know what that business is.

I've known a few people in my time who could read very little. They had remarkable ways of dealing with day to day issues. Be that as it may, the era of Mohammed was a very different time and place, it was probably quite common to not be able to read or write.

I followed up looking at Wiki, which while I know is not a definitive authority, at least it is comparatively neutral, and it reaffirmed the assertion that Mohammed did not read or write...and that the Koran was handed down orally, to at least the next generation before being written. Possibly as much as two hundred years later before being written.

Now, an oral tradition doesn't concern me so much, with what little I understand of Jewish and Native American traditions, both having long histories of oral tradition.

But if oral tradition should serve as a disqualifier, then I think it should be only logical to fairly apply the same standard to all similar traditions.

I haven't seen islamis4u around to answer this rebuttal...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the more salient point, however, is that such only presents an issue for a certain sort of Christian, what i term a BibleISM adherent. if one isn't a BibleISM adherent then the issue simply doesn't exist.

I was thinking more in terms of fundamentalism, but that *is* still an "ism." Whether fundamentalist Muslim or Christian, I do find it amusing and intriguing that both can level excruciatingly sharp logic at the other, but both refuse to turn that same logic inward on themselves.

The real fun though is in watching the internal fireworks when contentious issues are raised. But that's just how it is...Christians would rather bicker between themselves than unite against an outside assault, and Muslims would rather unite to assault others than bicker among themselves. Not that this is exclusionary, of course. There are more than enough Christians willing to assault others, just as there are more than enough Muslims willing to bicker among themselves. I just find all of it quite amusing.

Curiouser and curiouser...

[mee]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

There are more than enough Christians willing to assault others, just as there are more than enough Muslims willing to bicker among themselves. I just find all of it quite amusing.

Curiouser and curiouser...

And there are those from all nations making known GOODNEWS

MATTHEW 24;14 REVELATION 7;9-10


Just as Jesus asked them to matthew 28;19-20

and they are all in unity with one purpose in mind , to be doing the will of God. and to be showing love among themselves.

I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another.
By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves."
john 13; 34-35


now who can that be? OH I HAVE FOUND THEM Jehovahs witnesses

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I've known a few people in my time who could read very little. They had remarkable ways of dealing with day to day issues. Be that as it may, the era of Mohammed was a very different time and place, it was probably quite common to not be able to read or write.

my next door neighbor is 53 years old and she cannot read, shes worked the same job, in a retirement home laundry for 35 years now and simply knows how to do the job at hand. grocery shopping is basically symbol recognition which is becoming more and more common in alphabetic based societies. i only offered to help her one time and she was too embarrassed to accept and i demurred to her feelings. shes' married and has children that are close and care for her for what its worth.

i'm sure that it was common to be illiterate it just doesn't jibe with me to also be successful in business given that written contracts and such were in use during this period in history and the geographical region under discussion. it's just an oddity for me more than anything else and i've no reason to dispute the official account.

Now, an oral tradition doesn't concern me so much, with what little I understand of Jewish and Native American traditions, both having long histories of oral tradition.
But if oral tradition should serve as a disqualifier, then I think it should be only logical to fairly apply the same standard to all similar traditions.

i've personally never understood the argument that oral traditions are inherently less trustworthy than written traditions. generally speaking i think the issue is one of consistency in the retelling of the story which is being impugned but this seems to ignore the central, public nature of oral tradition and community story telling.

i would agree, of course, that being logically consistent in ones application of critical examination is the only intellectually honest approach that one can take. i'm aware that this may lead one to some unpleasant conclusions regarding their own paradigm and that the avoidance of this can cause people to refrain from turning their attention towards their own tradition.

i understand why this is so and i'm pretty sure that i do it myself when i'm not paying attention when i become aware of it i try to make it known to myself as well as my friends who may have been on the other end of my attention

I haven't seen islamis4u around to answer this rebuttal...

it's no worries.. folks are busy and this conversation will be here for awhile

I was thinking more in terms of fundamentalism, but that *is* still an "ism."

to be honest with you i don't even know what that means. i hear it quite often used in a dismissive manner regarding another beings particular beliefs. often the "ism" is being applied by the same people that then denigrate that which they have labeled... quite unusual behavior to be sure. my religion, for instance, is called Buddhism in the West which is not the name that our religion is actually called, it is called Buddha Dharma, but i digress.

The real fun though is in watching the internal fireworks when contentious issues are raised. But that's just how it is...Christians would rather bicker between themselves than unite against an outside assault, and Muslims would rather unite to assault others than bicker among themselves. Not that this is exclusionary, of course. There are more than enough Christians willing to assault others, just as there are more than enough Muslims willing to bicker among themselves. I just find all of it quite amusing.

Curiouser and curiouser...

when a being is possessed of the Truth and feel the compelling urge to convince others of it whilst other beings are, simultaneously, possessed of the Truth and feeling the urge to convince others there is hardly any chance for any other outcome. by and large it comes down to the all to familiar expression of ego and greed.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is also the small matter of the term "prophet", which implies one who makes prophecy that comes true. Forgive me for my daftness, but I fail to find a "prophecy" let alone prophecies, that the good man Mohomad made, to begin with, let alone any coming true...

The Bible and the Bible's Jesus however, seem to be a different matter all together... but perhaps I am in error...

Namaste Q,

i use the term as a matter of respect for Muslims, i should think my view on prophets would be self evident

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i'm sure that it was common to be illiterate it just doesn't jibe with me to also be successful in business given that written contracts and such were in use during this period in history and the geographical region under discussion. it's just an oddity for me more than anything else and i've no reason to dispute the official account.

I thought about this, but neglected it in my response. You are probably correct. I can see the possiblity of being a *small time* business person during that period without being able to read and write, but it does seem that reading and writing for the reasons you mentioned (contracts, big business arrangements) would be necessary in order to be *successful* (rich, wealthy). And by what accounts I have heard and read, it seems Mohammed was successful.

No doubt a portion of his wealth came from marrying a wealthy woman. In that he shares much with John Kerry and John McCain.

[islamis4u]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Juantoo3 skidoo!

thank you for the post.



wouldn't this be true of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? i'm pretty certain that he didn't write anything either regarding these things.

metta,

~v

Sorry for late replies as you know im a busy person much on my head to cop-up with so, anyways. About this look first we never say that Muhammad (PBUH) is (naouzbillah) God so question never i arsis about it. But Christian claims that Jesus (PBUH) is (naouzbillah) God, so if He(PBUH) is then why did not he said that in the Bible ???? We also never say that Prophet MUHAMMAD (PBUH) wrote Qu'ran Rather we say and is true and believe that its Allah's word.

[islamis4u]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I thought that too, but then, I know less than nothing of Islam and the Koran.

It does strike me as rather...egoistic?...to have to tell everybody, "hey everyone!, look at me!, I'm the Messiah!"...it just seems wrong to me. Did Mohammed have to do this to convince the first followers of Islam?

What makes Jesus a respected rabbi is what he is said to have taught...the sermon on the mount, various parables, many insightful ways of looking at the old legal paradigm and whittling it down to simplicity of love in action.

What makes him Messiah is not what he said...but what he did. Fulfillment of prophecy (Psalms 22 comes to mind), healing others, walking on water, raising others from the dead, resurrecting from the dead himself.

None of this was written by him, it was written *about* him by others. Believe it or don't, but that's all we have to go by.

i answered much in above post, now look brother miracles are never basis to say some is God or Prophet. Moses(PBUH) also did Miracle but that made him God? One thing i say that Prophet (PBUH) did many miracles , like splitting moon into with His (PBUH) fingers. Their are many others many other but we never claim that we Believe in Prophet (PBUH), because of Miracle. Biggest Miracle is Qu'ran, offcourse yes He(PBUH) can't read or right that make it miracle and also that it is compatible with Modern signs. We do so is by His(PBUH) conduct. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prophet to us not God??? We can't match the cases with Jesus(PBUH) .... Their are also many books wrote about Prophet(PBUH) We also beleive in the Miracles of Prophet Jesus(PBUH) so that never make HIM(PBUH) God..... You are mixing to different things. How can we believe in Qu'ran when it was not written in time of Holy Prophet (PBUH) time that is wrong.

During the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the Qur'an was mainly preserved through memorization. Hundreds of Companions of the Prophet, were huffaz, or memorizers of the whole Qur'an and had memorized the Qur'an without any mistakes. But the Qur'an was also preserved through writing.
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made special arrangements to have it written down. When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to receive a revelation, he dictated it to a Companion, who wrote it down on anything that was available: bark, stone, bones, leaves, etc. The companion then read, what he had written, to the Prophet. If there were any mistakes, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would correct it and then let it be brought before everyone. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) also told the order of the verses, etc, and they were written accordingly.
So, in the days of the Prophet(PBUH)one copy of the Qur’an existed of what he had gotten written under his personal supervision. It was not in book form but in different parchments. Other Companions also had collections of the Qur'an for their personal record but no standard copy of the Qur'an in book form existed.

[islamis4u]

I haven't seen islamis4u around to answer this rebuttal...

You know brother im very busy i have almost 3 sites to control only by myself with my education life and also my personal life now a days im giving many university test for adm, you know many havn't replied my posts and im waiting for them, i know how i take time out.....

[farhan]

Namaste Farhan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by vajradhara

to be perfectly frank i find the claims regarding the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be somewhat doubtful in that based on my understanding of business, a being that cannot read or write would tend to be very disadvantaged and wouldn't likely be successful yet that is what Muhammad (pbuh) was.
i suppose it could be a sort of business where literacy and writing aren't important, i just don't know what that business is.

Originally Posted by farhan

Things were simple back then, & reading/writing wasn't in fashion in Arabian peninsula. Its said that in Mecca, with a population in tens of thousands, there were only around 20 people who knew how to read & write (& they were all merchants). Business was merely an exchange of commodities. This much of this thing for that much of that thing. Four camels loaded with this for five camels loaded with that. Meccans would travel in summer towards north (Syria) to do business with the Byzantine influenced regions, & in winter towards south (Yemen) to buy Indian spices & Chinese silk etc.

pardon me for being blunt, Farhan, but that is romantic nonsense. "things" whatever that term may signify were every bit as complicated as things are today they were simply complicated in a different manner. i readily concede that literacy was rare amongst the masses yet we aren't talking about that, from what i've learned in my study of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a very successful business man though i am not sure what sort of business that he was actually engaged in. if you know i'd be pleased to learn.

in any event, writing and the use of business contracts was ubiquitous at this point in history, especially amongst societies that lay along the Silk Road. the Arabian peninsula engaged in trade with many foreign nations as far away as China. the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if he was or was not literate, he didn't write Al Qur'an anyways.

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Shame on you for your assumption and characterization, Quahom1. I neither intended, nor attempted, nor thought anything of the sort regarding Alex's intelligence.

I let the other convict your words...I have no intention of doing such.

And prosecution is something I am very good at. Because I simply use your own words against you, for the jury to decide. True democracy at it's best.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Q,

i use the term as a matter of respect for Muslims, i should think my view on prophets would be self evident

metta,

~v

Indeed sir. I stand corrected.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, farhan, good to speak with you.

Originally Posted by farhan

I think what Islam4u was trying to say was that Jesus himself didnt claim to be "the begotten not made son of God". Later people attributed divinity to him. Infact there was a voting. According to the majority opinion, Jesus became God. Nowhere in the current bible he himself is recorded saying "I am God".

I found islamis4u saying a number of things, and you are correct, but so am I:

Originally Posted by islamis4u

i havnt found any which will i know you are not qouting Jesus(pbuh) yet you are qouting someone else,

Whether I agree regarding Jesus as G-d is unimportant for just this moment...islamis4u is trying to make the statement that because Jesus did not write his own words, then the words Jesus said are untrue. "You are not quoting Jesus, you are quoting someone else" who wrote down Jesus' words. If this is so, then because Mohammed did not write down his own words, ...

Do you see the error in this reasoning?

I appreciate islamis4u's lengthy attempt to reconcile the issue regarding Mohammed, but he does not follow his own logic. It is irrelevent whether or not Mohammed claims to be G-d, he still claims a special relationship with G-d just as Jesus did. And if Mohammed did not write his own words, then the reader of the Koran is reading someone else's words (not Mohammed's).

Now, let's say for discussion that I disagree with you, that I think the text of the Gospels can be interpreted as Jesus saying that because he is the son of G-d that he is G-d manifest in flesh. First, just like Mohammed, others wrote of him; he did not write down his own words. Second, again like Mohammed, it was years before the words were committed to text. Third, again like Mohammed (using the wonderful history lessons you and islamis4u provided), Christianity came to a point of consolidation of conflicting texts (in the case of Christianity, at Niceae and later). Where Christianity and Islam differ from what I can tell is that Christianity has nothing like Hadiths to argue over, so instead we have our little disagreements on interpretation. One of those disagreements of interpretation follow on the matter frequently used by Muslims and Atheists to attempt to discredit Christianity; that of the nature of Jesus in the role of Christ...was he G-d incarnate or not?

Originally Posted by farhan

He did say that he was the son of God. Put this phrase in Jewish perspective, & its more or less equivalent of being a prophet.

For the sake of discussion, let us say I now agree with you. How does that erode the teachings of Jesus or the institution of Christianity? From my perspective, it does nothing at all.

In other words, so what? So what if Jesus is or is not G-d incarnate? It makes no difference in the value of the wisdom teachings of Jesus. It makes no difference when it comes to the question of salvation and correct living. Either we as Christians choose to believe and live the words Jesus taught (to the best of our ability and understanding), or we allow unbalanced logic to malign and destroy an otherwise beautiful set of instructions for right living.

Christianity isn't perfect...mainly because people aren't perfect, and Christians are just people. But thinking that Islam, or Judaism, or Sufism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any other major world faith is perfect at the expense of all others...is to deceive oneself. *Any* of these has faults that can be used to destroy it in the minds of those who want to see it destroyed. That includes Islam.

All major world faiths are made up of imperfect people, and imperfect people are going to find ways to justify this and destroy that. It isn't necessary. I think you will find that is what underlies a lot of the religious strife in the world today.

So Christianity isn't perfect, so what? What religion *is* perfect, Islam? A yes answer would be incorrect for the very same reasons; Islam is made up of imperfect people.

Shalom