Islam's Bizarre Philosophical Problem (An amazing contradictory statement: the Koran is eternal)

American Thinker ^ | 07/21/2017 | Michael Konrad

[SteveH]

Thank you! Very illuminating.

[ViLaLuz]

That’s the reason I always think hypocrisy when I see Muslims call Christians “the people if the book.” They’re actually the ones who worship their book. They don’t let anyone touch it with unclean hands, let the unbeliever touch it, always keep it wrapped up in cloths.

[HLPhat]

>>I see you apply the standard that if a Christian ever in history deviates from our present understanding of religious freedom, all Christians are forever condemned.

Maybe that’s what you want to see.

What standard did Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Infidels of every dominion apply?

[HLPhat]

>>you believe there is truth that is eternal

How’s that E=mc^2 truth working these days?

Gravity?

2+2=4?

John 1:1?

[Redmen4ever]

You were the one who cited acts of hundreds of years in the past as though the meaning of it were obvious.

Riddle me this Batman: A person from east Africa killed a white women in cold blood in Minneapolis last week. What does this say about Barack Obama?

[Redmen4ever]

E = mc^2 where did you get that? Is it in the Koran?

There was a time Islam was open to free inquiry. Reason and science were honored. But, that was a long time ago. Islam turned dogmatic, as it would have to.

Einstein, by the way, said a scientist searches for an answer, believing that there is an answer. This, he said, was essentially religious.

Both parts of what Einstein said are religious: That truth exists. And, that we can discover it. That truth can be known.

Having said these things, I must also say that there are things that are true that cannot be proven. This has been proven. An implication of this is that there is room for belief.

The Koran CANNOT be the revealed literal word of God because it has a flat-earth cosmology. Only scripture that could claim to be revealed would have to be consistent with our understanding, relatively recent, that the universe came into being in a singular event that we call the Big Bang.

That the surface of the earth was originally dark and without form. Then, when the thick clouds started to allow light in, there could be photosynthesis. At a latter time, when the cloud cover assumed their present form, that the creatures of the planet could see that Sun and the moon, etc.

Until recently, we had no idea of the climate history of the planet, or how the Genesis account could be reconciled with it. But, whether the Genesis account was ever intended to be a scientific account or merely a way saying that God, through a series of miracles brought about the universe and our part of it, is not crucial to Judaism and Christianity.

The Bible, to get back to the thread, is only viewed as written by men inspired by God. It is not claimed to be literally true the way a history book or a science textbook is. The Koran IS said to be literally true. This difference is crucial for acceptance of free inquiry, honest differences of opinion, for support for the scientific method, and for the progress of knowledge.

[HLPhat]

>>E = mc^2 where did you get that?

When wasn’t it the truth?

[Redmen4ever]

We have already proven that it is true when you make ridiculous statements. Now, for the sake of science, let’s see if it is still true when you say something that is sensible.

[HLPhat]

What standard did Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Infidels of every domination apply; and do you have any fresh straw that wasn’t stuffed in Obama’s shorts?

[HLPhat]

What standard did Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Infidels of every domination apply; and do you have any fresh straw that wasn’t stuffed in Obama’s shorts?

[HLPhat]

Is John 1:1 sensible?

[Redmen4ever]

I see you double clutched on your two prior posts. You weren’t fearing the wrath of God were you?

Look, I’ll be generous. I’ll not count the repetition as two posts. So, you have failed twice to say something sensible. I’ll give you one more try at it. But, you know, in real like, as in baseball, three strikes and you’re out.

[HLPhat]

>>You weren’t fearing the wrath of God were you?

Nope.

Is John 1:1 sensible?

[HLPhat]

>>We have already proven that it is true when you make ridiculous statements.

Actually E=mc2 is self-evidently true regardless of your ridicule.

That’s what makes natural laws what they are.

[Redmen4ever]

You have now struck out. You actually are incapable of saying anything sensible. All you do is ask smart ass questions. Being a smart ass isn’t a sign of wisdom. It’s a sign of being a smart ass. So, here’s a question for you to ponder:

If E =mc^2 were self-evidently true, why wasn’t it self-evident prior to Einstein?

I’ll give you a hint: Look at my prior posts.

[HLPhat]

>>why wasn’t it self-evident prior to Einstein?

Pretty sure it was self-evident in the context of the LOGOS described in John 1:1.

>>Look at my prior posts.

Admire your own vociferous plumage.

[HLPhat]

>>A person from east Africa killed a white women in cold blood in Minneapolis last week. What does this say about Barack Obama?

That you just stuffed more straw in his shorts?

[HLPhat]

>>All you do is ask smart ass questions.

John 1:1-5

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understooda it.

NIV

 

What does this mean?

[HLPhat]

>>For Jews and Christians

Which of those was Thomas Jefferson and...

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

1821Works 1:71

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html

 

...what does "Infidel of every denomination." mean?

[Redmen4ever]

verily. The action of one person - though of similar pigmentation, living roughly contemporaneously and having roots in the same region of the world - in killing another person in cold blood says nothing about Barack Obama.

If you weren’t such a racist, you would say the same thing about white people. The injustice suffered by Galileo and Bruno what his name, occurring centuries ago, before the Enlightenment, says nothing about Christianity since the Enlightenment. Christianity didn’t invent blasphemy laws. Blasphemy laws preceded Christianity, were ubiquitous prior to the Enlightenment, and continue today in every majority Muslim country in the world.

And if you weren’t so stupid, you wouldn’t have fallen into my trap. But, you took the bait. You pointed out the obvious fact that Obama has nothing to do with the killer in Minneapolis. It is actually ridiculous to think skin color makes one responsible for the evil deeds of another. You agree with me regarding not judging people with darker complexions collectively. It’s just those white people and their Christianity that you have a problem with.