Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

will religions join with the returning of

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: will religions join with the returning of
    Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 08:26
Thread is now reopened. Keep it on the level folks.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 20:17
Not a bad idea Northman. Maybe a day or two for cooler heads to prevail.
 
Closed for now. Exclamation


Edited by Seko - 30-Jul-2006 at 20:18
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 19:30
Maybe some moderator could stop by and stop this rule violating, totally out of topic, mud-slinging, arrogance competition.
 
I think its way out of line - the last post on topic was more than full page back!
 
 
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 15:03
lol, you talk about proofs while you provided none, you talk about "Arabia was never attacked by Romans or Persians" while you admit they did in Yemen, and the Lakhmids you talk about arguments while you have none, all you doing is hopelessly trying to bla bla bla about ignorant statements which through your own articles are proven wrong.!!
 
you yourself admitted Yemen was a state was under Persian rule, how did that happen? peacefully? not even a one drop of blood?
 
you want proofs about Romans attacking Arabs? read about Nabateans and their End.
 
so the "never" argument is wrong, you will even proof your stupidness by continue talking about it.
 
 
 
you even added new ignorant statement here,
Arabian peninsula was not populated only by arabs; Syria, Palestina, the eastern crescent, were not populated by arabs till recent times; the muslims army imbued with Muhammad religion arrived there late, as late as it could be 7th th or 8th century!"
 
LOL
 
it seems like its hard for you to pronounce "Islam", anyway its your problem not mine,
 
anyway, "Palestina" mr.latino, Syria, Jordan, Iraq HAD Arab population in them BEFORE Islam's arrival.
 
don't stupidly ask me for proofs, you prove there weren't any population and i will show you mine, although they are obvious and you yourself admitted their presence before Islam through the ghassanids and lakhmids. so i dont see why would you ask for more proofs !
 
 
the rest of your post is nothing but stupid arrogant post which lacks any historical proofs and full of false statements.
  and again dont make a fool of yourself and ask me for proofs, because i already proven your ignorance and your arrogance above, from the few posts your posted in this forum i see many people shares my opinion.
 
 
 


Edited by azimuth - 30-Jul-2006 at 15:07
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 12:31

Originally posted by azimuth

lol, were not states or were states, were immigrants or were not, all these are irrelevant.
  

Oh yes, it is very relevant, and I explained already why: You cant speak about an invasion or conquest if there is no state to be invaded or conquered. 

and i dont see why you keep talking about states, the term Arabia is not for a "state' or "states". its an Area mostly Arabian penensula. Jordan and syrian deserts.. and other parts around the limits of the Peninsula are all "Arabia".

You speak here geography: arabian peninsula was not populated only by arabs; Syria, Palestina, the eastern crescent, were not populated by arabs till recent times; the muslims army imbued with Muhammad religion arrived there late, as late as it could be 7th th or 8th century!

yemen is not in arabia?! i guess you think "Arabia" is only whats called today Saudi Arabia?! then i advice you to read more and give us info that relevant to the discussion instead of showing us infos that are irrelevant and nothing but " hey i know this and that!" which we already know. 
 

No, that's your supposition only, and a malicious one in lack of better arguments. Yemen was an arab state, but it is not that "Arabia" from where Muhammad and his succesors started the war for an empire.

no you did not speak about what exactly is "Arabia of Muhammad", as i said, Arabia is the same before Isalm and after Islam, i guess you are confused between "Arabia" and "Saudi Arabia", many parts of Arabia were under roman and Persian Rule.

Many parts of a peninsula, but not areas populated before by arabs; As I exemplified you, pagan arabs arrived in north later, they become (herretical) christians by peacefully conversion, and once the succesors of Muhammad did begin to practice the philosophy of razzia, as their master so often practiced and teached them, they subdued this free people as romans never did. 

Originally posted by Corlanx

No, thats not true, when I was speaking of vassals I was considering the ghassanides that never were conquered by romans but miggrated from south and established their state to the frontier of the roman empire, and they were, as most herretical christians of the time peacefully converted, and of lakhmides that were not attacked by persians but they themselves attacked the empire . . .  after being defeated they become an independent client state of persans with the same role as ghassanides for romans, that is to protect the frontier from bedouin foray . . . 

again with arrognat ignorant confidence. so you are saying Ghassanides were never had any military conflicts or occupation by the Romans? and Lakhmides were  Not attacked by persians or been under persian occupation?!

Mr. Seki normally, should warn you for these insults (and they are worse than simple insults, because you're uttering them WITHOUT PROOF OR ARGUMENTS!!!).  Yes, I've said already that ghassanides were never occupied by romans, and that lakhnides were occupied temporarly by persians only after the first attacked the empire. 

you do realise that those Empires and kingdoms lived for hundereds of years and attacks and counter attacks were normal thing.

Drop this general rethoric and produce proofs! And try to insult no more. I expained you why these big empire were not interested in conquering a desert, but only in keeping the nomads from there from attacking their natural imposed frontiers. I am able to produce historical quotes for that. You?

so basically by saying Romans and Persians never attacked arabia, you showed nothing but ignorance and naivetity to History.
 

Prove it! I have nothing against learning something I dont know yet, appearantly in big contrast with you.



Edited by Corlanx - 30-Jul-2006 at 12:38
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 12:04
Originally posted by Scorpius

2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.

 What I said was I find my own miracles while reading the book. I didn't say I believe because I find miracles.

 

 

Well, if your "miracles" are defined like above, and not religiously, no one is interested in them (at least not me).

 

And as for the number 2:  

I find many suras talking about physics concepts like expansion of the universe, orbits, stars ( collapse, die, etc..). All written 1400 years ago. It is extremely outstanding, and  unusual.

 

Oh . . .  Thats not exactly your personal observation Wink, or at least you're not at all the first muslim obsessed by such "findings" . . .  in fact there is a whole hagiography created by pious and selfdeceived muslims about the koranic "science"; there are scores of books about this subject, as there are many, too many actually, sites on the web with the same ridiculous purpose of justiying the pretention that the Koran is divine, by trying to opperate a futile effort of indentifying passages that fit somehow when read in an post-factum lecture with one or another modern scientific data . . .  There is also many sites that are rejecting all these pious arguments, and there is a lot of humour on this subject . . . compared maybe only with the humour made about christian creationism.

For now, I will limit the range of my reply to a general observation, waiting that you specifiy exactly what sura explain what astrophysics fact.

So, considering "your" idea suggesting that there is "extremely outstanding and unusual" scientific relevant data in Koran, for muslims appears a very, very annoying question:
Why were not the muslims those responsible for the scientific revolution in XVIIth century (when very important astrophysical discoveries were made)?
Why were not the muslims those creating the science as we understand today this term?
Can muslims accept that Allah put scientific data in Koran, but for 1000 years (till others made the discoveries) they were not able to see and understand it? (maybe christians read and understood Koran better than muslims themselves, and just faked the discoveries LOL ) You expect people accept that the believers in Allah (muslims) failed to get the whole message of Koran, i.e. having divine hinting and clues available, but the "crusaders" succeded even without "divine" tutoring?Confused
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 07:01
Originally posted by Corlanx

Where do you put the frontiers of this "Arabia"? Because if thats established geographically, well, Europe is still occupied by turks now . . .

Hopefully eastern mediterranian cost and the eastern crescent is not "Arabia" . . .  When arabs commenced to conquer their empire, they made it from the desert in centre and south, not from the crescent or eastern litoral . . . even those christian arabs from north, were imigrants there . . .

 

Originally posted by Corlanx

They never did it, because there was no such statality like that

If really there is an exemple of arab state subdued to another statal entity, yes, thats Yemen as satrapy of Persia. Though Yemen is not exactly Muhammads Arabia, and its not Arabia in spite of proximity, not even today . . .

 
lol, were not states or were states, were immigrants or were not, all these are irrelevant.
 
and i dont see why you keep talking about states, the term Arabia is not for a "state' or "states". its an Area mostly Arabian penensula. Jordan and syrian deserts.. and other parts around the limits of the Peninsula are all "Arabia".
 
yemen is not in arabia?! LOL
 
i guess you think "Arabia" is only whats called today Saudi Arabia?! then i advice you to read more and give us info that relevant to the discussion instead of showing us infos that are irrelevant and nothing but " hey i know this and that!" which we already know.Wink
 

Originally posted by Corlanx

 I have already said speaking of Arabia of Muhammad and his succesors; my idea was that the empire was not established by response to aggressions, but by aggressions, and thats true now as it was when I told it to my partner above. 

 
no you did not speak about what exactly is "Arabia of Muhammad", as i said, Arabia is the same before Isalm and after Islam, 
 
i guess you are confused between "Arabia" and "Saudi Arabia", many parts of Arabia were under roman and Persian Rule.
 
i dont see why you keep arguing about facts, and keep your "never occupied Arabia" nonsense.
 

Originally posted by Corlanx

No, thats not true, when I was speaking of vassals I was considering the ghassanides that never were conquered by romans but miggrated from south and established their state to the frontier of the roman empire, and they were, as most herretical christians of the time peacefully converted, and of lakhmides that were not attacked by persians but they themselves attacked the empire . . .  after being defeated they become an independent client state of persans with the same role as ghassanides for romans, that is to protect the frontier from bedouin foray . . . 

again with arrognat ignorant confidence. Big smile
 
so you are saying Ghassanides were never had any military conflicts or occupation by the Romans?
 
and Lakhmides were  Not attacked by persians or been under persian occupation?!
 
you do realise that those Empires and kingdoms lived for hundereds of years and attacks and counter attacks were normal thing.
 
so basically by saying Romans and Persians never attacked arabia, you showed nothing but ignorance and naivetity to History.
 

Originally posted by Corlanx

  You have to prove that Im a rasist, and for that, you have to know the sens of this term, fact that I begin to doubt seriously, seeing you labeling here people like that . . . Let's talk about that if you really want!

of course i will have to do so, thats what i do. i did not say i dont have to prove you are a racist, you appear to be one, i might be wrong .
 
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

 I dont bother to read for now your so much-adevertised limits from CC, because I suppose they are the same as on any civilized forum. Hopefully you know what you speak about; I dont know by which criteria you was chosen to be a moderator, but I begin to be a little annoyed by yours harrassements . . .
 
relax, you are not the first nor the last arrogant person we meet here.
 
take your time and read the "CC", and other Forum admin related threads. Smile
 
-------------------
 
and you knowing or not knowing which criteria i was chosen to be a moderator isnt something i care about. also you dont need to care about answering that question too. unless you are  obsessed, then ask a psychic.
 
 
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 23:35
Originally posted by Corlanx

Ah! I begin liking you a lot, scorpius!LOL But you did speak about miracles as proof of the validity of your religion and the existence of your god, and # 2 doesn't can make much for that . . . Confused
 
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.
 
What I said was I find my own miracles while reading the book. I didn't say I believe because I find miracles.
 
And as for the number 2:
 
I find many suras talking about physics concepts like expansion of the universe, orbits, stars ( collapse, die, etc..). All written 1400 years ago. It is extremely outstanding, and  unusual.
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

Well, science can't prove that your abrahamic god is extent, but can prove that he's not and never was extent
 
BTW, I was talking about natural sciences.
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

What's the point here? Confused 
Ah, maybe you started to like pantheists?
 
That is exactly my point. For you there is no point there Tongue.
(Hmm ??!!??)
 
BTW, I have nothing to do with pantheism.
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

And please, give me the link to the on line dictionary ..
You can use Microsoft Word for your spelling Smile
Webster is a good dictionary.
 
Have a nice and beautiful day ( or night; It depends..).
 

 
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 22:13
Originally posted by Scorpius

Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law .
 
Read number two. That may help. Your defination is something else I was not talking about.
 
Ah! I begin liking you a lot, scorpius!LOL But you did speak about miracles as proof of the validity of your religion and the existence of your god, and # 2 doesn't can make much for that . . . Confused
 
 
 
I will speak now to the scientist you (pretend that you) are ..
 
 
I do not need to pretend. Although I am practising Computer Science to pay my Bills, I also hold a B.S in Physics.
 
As a comp. science and physicist, but in fact as human, it's time to inform yourself thoroughly! You have still too much to know, even though that could make yoy losing some beliefs . . .
 
Secondly, your "own miracles seen with your own eyes" (have you ever seen something with other's people eyes?Tongue )
 
 
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts"
Albert Einstein
 
What's the point here? Confused 
Ah, maybe you started to like pantheists? Well, that's good news, so you're "ripe" already for Avicena, Alfarabi and Averroes, they too had pantheistic views! Clap
 
 
 
your eyes can and in fact are frequently cheating on you
 
 
What I meant was I read the book ( yes with my own eyes) instead of believing people talking about it like you.
 
As told you, you have to know first what the book is in fact . . . you know it? I doubt, and if you wonder why, I will elaborate.  
 
 
 
because of that science is a matter of intersubjectivity, my friend (I still consider you so). So, in order to evade this situation you have to put in place an objective non-human system for authentifying what you perceive as being a "miracle".
Ever done this, body?
I doubt it . . .
 
And once Ive said that to you (some "abc" in science . . .), I have to deceive you once again: a miracle is not a proof for the existence of your god; at least not in science, body . . .
 
....
 
Interesting.
Where did I say that you can prove the existence of God by science. How stupid is this ! If it can be proven by science, you wouldn't be writing here about this issue, would you? And we wouldn't be discussing what happens if Jesus will return. 
Where is your logic? Anyway, forget it.
 
LOL OK, brother . . .  Well, science can't prove that your abrahamic god is extent, but can prove that he's not and never was extent . . . You know that?  
 
And please, give me the link to the on line dictionary (because each time I have to google when needing the spelling of words (and I need vvvvery frequently . . . )


Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 22:20
We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. - Bill Maher
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 21:58
Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law
 
Read number two. That may help. Your defination is something else I was not talking about.
 
I will speak now to the scientist you (pretend that you) are ..
 
I do not need to pretend. Although I am practising Computer Science to pay my Bills, I also hold a B.S in Physics.
 
Secondly, your "own miracles seen with your own eyes" (have you ever seen something with other's people eyes?Tongue )
 
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts"
Albert Einstein
 
Did you see it with your own eyes!!?
or ( that may sound shocking to you ? )
Did you hear it with your own ears!!?
 
English 101
 
your eyes can and in fact are frequently cheating on you
 
What I meant was I read the book ( yes with my own eyes) instead of believing people talking about it like you.
 
because of that science is a matter of intersubjectivity, my friend (I still consider you so). So, in order to evade this situation you have to put in place an objective non-human system for authentifying what you perceive as being a "miracle".
Ever done this, body?
I doubt it . . .
 
And once Ive said that to you (some "abc" in science . . .), I have to deceive you once again: a miracle is not a proof for the existence of your god; at least not in science, body . . .
 
....
 
Interesting.
Where did I say that you can prove the existence of God by science. How stupid is this ! If it can be proven by science, you wouldn't be writing here about this issue, would you? And we wouldn't be discussing what happens if Jesus will return.
 
Where is your logic? Anyway, forget it.
 
 
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 20:59

Originally posted by Scorpius

Moreover, I find my own miracles with my own eyes; confirmed by my own understanding of science. You are not required to have a degree or degrees to understand a Holly Book. Having one or more just helps you to find your own miracles. And yet again you fail to understand me.

 

 
 I will speak now to the scientist you (pretend that you) are: You can't have miracles confirmed by science (but I accept that could be by your understanding of science! LOL), because miracle mean:
 
a striking interposition of divine intervention by God in the universe by which the operations of the ordinary course of Nature are overruled, suspended, or modified.
 
fact that collide havily and irremediably with the main postulate of science, that is the postulate of objectivity of nature, that stipulates that always there is a natural explanation to the unexplained. Boy oh boy . . .  where did you studied actually?  Ouch
 
Secondly, your "own miracles seen with your own eyes" (have you ever seen something with other's people eyes?Tongue ), are not miracles at all, because your eyes can and in fact are frequently cheating on you. As your judgments too; because of that, science is a matter of intersubjectivity, my friend (I still consider you so). So, in order to evade this situation you have to put in place an objective non-human system for authentifying what you perceive as being a "miracle".
Ever done this, body?
I doubt it . . .
And once Ive said that to you (some "abc" in science . . .), I have to disappoint you once again: a miracle is not a proof for the existence of your god; at least not in science, body . . . .  For that, as you know, or as you should have been knowing it, for the phenomenon x to be considered the cause of the phenomenon y, you should know and explain how x produce y ("relation of causality", remind it?); in details! If you fail doing that, all your "miracle" is not more than a hypothesis, and in fact I doubt that a miracle could be a scientific hypothesis at all!!! (because in order to have a scientific hypothesis, it has to comply with the falsifiability criteria, and an explanation where there is a santa claus or a god, has no chance in complying with . . . - how could you empirize santa claus? (except puting some santa claus clothes on your grand-father)); that because in order to have a cause called "god" , you have to have a god first, i.e. you have to have god proved before as existent!!! Never accomplished duty by any religious on earth  . . . .
Science is not religion, body . . .  take that syntagm as prayer for a month, in order to grasp all the significance in it . . .
 
are not required to have a degree or degrees to understand a Holly Book.
 
And by the way, the essential is not only undestanding a text, but knowing what is that text, knowing his history, his author, the history, the originality or non-originality of the ideas found in that text, etc.


Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 21:35
We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. - Bill Maher
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 20:12
Originally posted by Corlanx

NOOOO, my friend, you are wrong!!!!!! LOL

 
 
First of all, I am not your friend Wink 
We are forum users, sharing personal opinions and knowledge.
 
Pronunciation: 'frend
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English frend, from Old English frEond; akin to Old High German friunt friend, Old English frEon to love, frEo free
1 a : one attached to another by affection or esteem
2 a : one that is not hostile b : one that is of the same nation, party, or group
3 : one that favors or promotes something (as a charity)
4 : a favored companion
5 capitalized : a member of a Christian sect that stresses Inner Light, rejects sacraments and an ordained ministry, and opposes war -- called also Quaker

Originally posted by Corlanx

I tell you that as a physicist too!!!
No, having degrees in sciences, is not helping you being able to judge the problem of truthfuleness of a religion; for that, you need to have degrees or at least knowledge in logic/philosophy, in history of religion, sociology of religion, anthropology of religion, philosophy of religion, hermeneutics.
And thats revealing as being true, because is obvious you are not very good in replying my arguments . . . And I can bet you will not be better in  the proximate future either!
 
Second of all, that is your opinion only Smile
Third of all, I am not even discussing the truthfulness of a religion.
That is what you are discussing.
I was dragged into the topic by your offensive comments about my religion (which was off topic anyway).
 
Pronunciation: &-'fen(t)-siv, especially for 1 '-"fen(t)-, 'o-
Function: adjective
1 a : making attack : AGGRESSIVE
b : of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons>
c : of or relating to an attempt to score in a game or contest; also : of or relating to a team in possession of the ball or puck
2 : giving painful or unpleasant sensations : NAUSEOUS, OBNOXIOUS <an offensive odor>
3 : causing displeasure or resentment <offensive remarks>
- offensively adverb
- offensiveness noun
 
Moreover, I find my own miracles with my own eyes; confirmed by my own understanding of science. You are not required to have a degree or degrees to understand a Holly Book. Having one or more just helps you
to find your own miracles. And yet again you fail to understand me.
 
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

I wish you all the succes, my friend! But let me give you an advice: on this forum, and maybe no other else, you cant expect to get much knowledge, all that it can make for you eventually, is giving you the appetite for study; for indivdual study in books, and thats a many-years-long action.
 
Thanks for your concerns again. I wish you the very same.
I am hunting for pointers only. As I said I like to do my own research before accepting things to be true.
 
 
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 19:23

I apologize from the viewers of the thread since some way I am contributing to this off topic discussion. I just want to answer this single raised question mark that is underlined.

I didn't mean that I believe Muhammad was a wrong-maker, what I meant was the people who claimed that they followed him were the wrong-makers as you described and named them.

 

But I can give you a lot of exemples that doesnt follow this statement:

 

"You shall remind, for your mission is to deliver this reminder. You have no power over them." [88:21-22]

 

I'm  repeating what already said: Muhammad had a lot of power over those that he killed heartlessly for not following his religion!

 

 

  

I am a man of science. I find my own evidences and do my own investigations and my own research. I do not need anybody to tell / guide me what to believe, how to feel and how to question. I have the brains, the education [B.S in Physics, Astrophysics and optoelectronics as minor; M.S in Computer Science, and Bullsh*t degree in business (aka MBA)]; lets say I have the necessary tools (my opinion only) and enough intelligence(my opinion only) to evaluate data in hand.

 

 
NOOOO, my friend, you are wrong!!!!!! LOL

 I tell you that as a physicist too!!!
No, having degrees in sciences, is not helping you being able to judge the problem of truthfuleness of a religion; for that, you need to have degrees or at least knowledge in logic/philosophy, in history of religion, sociology of religion, anthropology of religion, philosophy of religion, hermeneutics.
And thats revealing as being true, because is obvious you are not very good in replying my arguments . . . And I can bet you will not be better in  the proximate future either!
And thats not because Im knowing more physics than you Tongue , but because I know more history and history of religion, and sociology, than you . . . .

More than that, I can show you that your science (physics, chemistry, biology) can't give you not a single valid argument supporting the idea of existence of your god. Just try me!
 

 
 

Thank you for your concerns. I know I am not good at History but I am trying to learn more, especially about Middle East. And that is actually why I am here  .

 

I wish you all the succes, my friend! But let me give you an advice: on this forum, and maybe no other else, you cant expect to get much knowledge, all that it can make for you eventually, is giving you the appetite for study; for indivdual study in books, and thats a many-years-long action.



Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 19:40
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 18:56

Oh yes!? Romans and persans attacked Muhammad? Prove it!

Arabia was never a state (before Muhammad). So attacking what? Nommadic tribes? In fact, there was christian independent states on the frontier of the two empires allied with them. And if it is true there was arab states (like Yemen, e.g.), they were never attacked by bizantynes. And there was good reasons for that: the desert is of no importance, all the interest the big civilizations had there, was preventing nomadic tribes attacking their frontiers. And for that reason they created client states, that served as a buffer. 

iam talking about Arabia occupied/attacked/invaded by Persian Empire and the Romans. northern Arabia was under Roman rule, southern Arabia was under Persian Rule.

 

Where do you put the frontiers of this "Arabia"? Because if thats established geographically, well, Europe is still occupied by turks now . . .

Hopefully eastern mediterranian cost and the eastern crescent is not "Arabia" . . .  When arabs commenced to conquer their empire, they made it from the desert in centre and south, not from the crescent or eastern litoral . . . even those christian arabs from north, were imigrants there . . .

 

i did not talk about Arabia being a State or not, nor that verse. i was commenting on your statement that Romans and Persian "never" invaded Arabia.

They never did it, because there was no such statality like that . . .  e.g. the westerners never "invaded" north of north America, because there never was a state to be invaded . . .  when prehistory invades history thats called "destruction of a civilization", when history extend to traditional prehistory areas, thats inclusion. That's not implying that there was not a genocide: maybe states were not there to the meeting with the whites, but human beeings undoubtedly were . . .

If really there is an exemple of arab state subdued to another statal entity, yes, thats Yemen as satrapy of Persia. Though Yemen is not exactly Muhammads Arabia, and its not Arabia in spite of proximity, not even today . . .
 

iam not sure what you mean by mohammed's Arabia, is it Arabia in general or Arabia at the time of the Prophet? Mohammed's Arabia did not change from pre-Mohammed Arabia.

 I have already said speaking of Arabia of Muhammad and his succesors; my idea was that the empire was not established by response to aggressions, but by aggressions, and thats true now as it was when I told it to my partner above. 

 

then here you talked about pre-islamic arabia states, vassals or not vassels is irrelevant they were attacked and then became "vassals", also Yemen was under Persian occupation so was the whole coast of the gulf, in different periods of time of course.

 
No, thats not true, when I was speaking of vassals I was considering the ghassanides that never were conquered by romans but miggrated from south and established their state to the frontier of the roman empire, and they were, as most herretical christians of the time peacefully converted, and of lakhmides that were not attacked by persians but they themselves attacked the empire . . .  after being defeated they become an independent client state of persans with the same role as ghassanides for romans, that is to protect the frontier from bedouin foray . . . 

 

Originally posted by Corlanx

That's your opinion, my friend, and hopefully it'll not influence your attitude as moderator. Maybe in my opinion this forum is actually too pro-arabic, and that's not necessarily bad thing, the bad thing become when this attitude harm the truth. But that doesen't matter.

And besides that, there is nothing bad in having objections in what concerns arabs or islam. The idea is having them smart and truthfully. One can having objection to jews and there is no problem in that; important is that these objections express coherently a truth.

By the way, what's your "agenda"?

 it is my opinion and it will influence my attitude if you made it more obvious that you are a Racist , i advice you read or re-read this forum's Code of Conduct.

 You have to prove that Im a rasist, and for that, you have to know the sens of this term, fact that I begin to doubt seriously, seeing you labeling here people like that . . . Let's talk about that if you really want!

 
off course you can have your ideas and criticism about any religion and nationalities Within our LIMITS as stated in the Code of Conduct of this forum.

 I dont bother to read for now your so much-adevertised limits from CC, because I suppose they are the same as on any civilized forum. Hopefully you know what you speak about; I dont know by which criteria you was chosen to be a moderator, but I begin to be a little annoyed by yours harrassements . . .



Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 19:01
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 18:51
Originally posted by Corlanx

  So, what is for you the guarantee that the wrong-maker is not a liar too? Confused
 
I apologize from the viewers of the thread since some way I am contributing to this off topic discussion. I just want to answer this single raised question mark that is underlined.
 
I didn't mean that I believe Muhammad was a wrong-maker, what I meant was the people who claimed that they followed him were the wrong-makers as you described and named them.
   
I am a man of science. I find my own evidences and do my own investigations and my own research. I do not need anybody to tell / guide me what to believe, how to feel and how to question. I have the brains, the education [B.S in Physics, Astrophysics and optoelectronics as minor; M.S in Computer Science, and Bullsh*t degree in business (aka MBA)]; lets say I have the necessary tools (my opinion only) and enough intelligence(my opinion only) to evaluate data in hand. 
 
Thank you for your concerns. I know I am not good at History but I am trying to learn more, especially about Middle East. And that is actually why I am here Wink .
 
 
Back to the Topic, I am not sure if Jesus will return at all. But Let's assume he will return.

From my way of thinking, if Jesus will return, people suppose to believe him without observing any physical evidence.
 
If he shows physical evidence through miracles and such, then if not everybody but the majority of the population will join him and then there will be no need to be tested in Earth as holly scriptures tell us.
This means the Judgement Day ??
 
If we suppose to find our own evidences before believing him to be the man he claims to be, the Jesus; then again people will be divided according to their beliefs.
 
 
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:57
Originally posted by Corlanx

 
Protection of themselves, eh? LOL
Anyway, thanks azimuth for your very useful explanation . . .
 
you are well come and a >LOL< back at u.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

 
Oh yes!? Romans and persans attacked Muhammad? Prove it! 
Arabia was never a state (before Muhammad). So attacking what? Nommadic tribes? In fact, there was christian independent states on the frontier of the two empires allied with them. And if it is true there was arab states (like Yemen, e.g.), they were never attacked by bizantynes. And there was good reasons for that: the desert is of no importance, all the interest the big civilizations had there, was preventing nomadic tribes attacking their frontiers. And for that reason they created client states, that served as a buffer.  
 
iam talking about Arabia occupied/attacked/invaded by Persian Empire and the Romans.
 
northern Arabia was under Roman rule, southern Arabia was under Persian Rule.
 
i did not talk about Arabia being a State or not, nor that verse. i was commenting on your statement that Romans and Persian "never" invaded Arabia.
 
iam not sure what you mean by mohammed's Arabia, is it Arabia in general or Arabia at the time of the Prophet? Mohammed's Arabia did not change from pre-Mohammed Arabia.
 
then here you talked about pre-islamic arabia states, vassals or not vassels is irrelevant they were attacked and then became "vassals", also Yemen was under Persian occupation so was the whole coast of the gulf, in different periods of time of course.
 
Originally posted by Corlanx

  
That's your opinion, my friend, and hopefully it'll not influence your attitude as moderator. Maybe in my opinion this forum is actually too pro-arabic, and that's not necessarily bad thing, the bad thing become when this attitude harm the truth. But that doesen't matter.
And besides that, there is nothing bad in having objections in what concerns arabs or islam. The idea is having them smart and truthfully. One can having objection to jews and there is no problem in that; important is that these objections express coherently a truth.
By the way, what's your "agenda"?
 
 
it is my opinion and it will influence my attitude if you made it more obvious that you are a Racist , i advice you read or re-read this forum's Code of Conduct.
 
and this forum cant be too pro Arabic, thats it has more than 4000 registered members and less than 5 active arab members. this forum has many different nationalities and members with different believes, staff and members.
 
unless  not anti-arabic means to you a pro-arabic.
 
off course you can have your ideas and criticism about any religion and nationalities Within our LIMITS as stated in the Code of Conduct of this forum.
 
i did not say that you cant do so.
 
Originally posted by corlanx

  
well, looking to the posts of your coreligionars and others till now, I am very surprised to learn that. Wink
And let me, please, choose what I'm looking for and what I'm not; don't be as religious people usualy are, telling others what they want and what's good for them . . .
 
well i was hinting to you if you were/are seeking an anti-arab or anti-islamic or both forums then this is not a one.
 
i did not force you nor asked you to leave nor requesting from you to do so.
 
i dont do that, if i saw its necessary not to have you hear ( and thats only when you violate this forum's rules) i wont take your opinion nor ask you to leave , you will find yourself warned or banned.
 
that was only a suggestion to you if you were seeking a "bashing" type of fourms then the net is full of them, this is not one them.
 
other than that you are welcome to be here, reading and/or contributing to this forum.
 
also just to prevent you from more "surprises", we are mostly here not history professors nor scholars, many members here contribute their information and exchange ideas.
 
you wont be punished for making an innocent ignorant false post.
 
there are rules we follow and we have a system for complaining and such, refer to all of those in the first two sub-forums for more info.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:55
thank you!
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:54
Don't worry about your latest post Corlanx. You not only stayed within the confines of the topic, since you reponded about a concern from another, but you were pretty mature about it too. Smile

Edited by Seko - 28-Jul-2006 at 17:54
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:49

trying to reply to xi_tujue, hoping not being again considered "off-topic" . . .

 

Originally posted by xi_tujue

are the people who follow abrahamic relgions the only ones who try to force there religion on other people or what?

 

Maybe not. Anyway, they are the champions, as history pathetically is showing us . . .

In fact, judaism, the first abrahamic religion, was an ethnic and rasist religion (and stayed so till today): as the big religious and religion historian etienne gilson put it, the god of jews is the god of jews, not the god of humanity; but that is better explained by other historians of religion, that tell us how jews monollatry became a monotheism. Its about history, their history  . . . They saw to which extent they were impotent and that was obviously in contradiction with the monollatrious view that their god was bigger than the neighbours one. So, they did choose to consider that there is in fact just one god, their's, and this god punish them for some unknown and obscure (and often stupid) reason . . . As example, because when asserting something is already good to explain and bring arguments in support, I can say that jewish religious book is painting in black colors the jewish state (of north) and their leaders that succeded being strong and developed, but painting in good colors the poor, backward and underdeveloped state (of south), that for a while succeded to survive, enough time for creating the biblical text and his "southern" ideology.

The first religious universalism was the christianism (if not considering buddhism a religion). Islam followed. As universalist religion, they are more dangerous than judaism was, as any universalist ideology (liberalism, e.g.) is, because is intruding the others lives.

 

when did thsi fenomenon started. the jews didn't want any non hebrews when did this change?

 

I've said already. The christianism as a sect of judaism evolved in a period where the jewish culture was in close contact with the hellenistic and roman world. Alexander's hellenism was the first universalist ideology that spread untill India, and by the greekobuddhism far beyond, in China and Japan. Paul, the "ideologue" of christianism, but Jesus too, had a universalist view. They tried and succeded to pass the ethnic frontiers of judaism, and spread as many other religions have done before, in the roman world. It is more to say than that, but maybe I'm off-topic already  . . . Confused



Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 18:02
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:33
Sorry to break your bubble but past prophets that believed in the singularity of God were called to surrender to Him. They were Submitters. al-islamideenan.
3:85 And whoever follows other than surrender as a system, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.
 
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.