I know this means something to you, but to me it’s gibberish. Why does it matter which one was born of the slave and which was born of the free woman? What difference does that make several thousand years later?
This body is just a shell (or tent), I believe it is possible that God will erase the memory of the pain we have experienced here for the believer and give us a glorified body and the life He always intended us to have, which would be eternal.
The non-believer, anyone condemned to Hell, outer darkness and/or the lake of fire I would assume would retain some sort of imperishable body of death and remember the life they chose instead of the new one God wants for them.
Note: “therefore” and “therefor” are two different words.
Regardless of how Islam compares to other religions based on desert tribal myths – what do you think about the difficulty of producing Quran-style verses? (What I get from it is that Muhammed was a poetic genius. If only he’d been a secularist as well.)
Disprove? What happened to prove? It’s all feel-good, baseless, wishful thinking unless it can withstand the same level of scientific rigor we demand of other aspects of society. If you want to apply some personal value to it, have at it. If not, you’re free to walk away from it.
The Quran is a work of Satan, a being that existed at least back before the fall of man and having a army of angels. I’m sure he could come up with verses that would make Shakespeare appear like a 3rd grader.
The Qu’ran is the work of men, as is the Bible. Whether either one of them was “inspired” by a supernatural being of whatever alignment (lawful good? chaotic evil?) is something that cannot be proven.
Given that its author Mohammed was such a certifiable psychotic, it’s hard to imagine taking this Qu’aranic challenge seriously.
How is Mohammed any more psychotic than men who planned to kill their children because God said to? Or men who committed genocide against entire peoples because God said to?
Then you’d think he’d play the fiddle at least as well as a deaf monkey.
Exactly. But the existence of other psychotics is not an argument to take him seriously.
Why? I already linked to one example which appears to fulfill the requirements. One is all that is needed.
Wait a minute, how was Eve deceived? I just read through it again, and I can’t find the part where the snake lied.
I am sorry to see this thread moved to GD and already derailed into the usual pacifier fight. I think the GQ was a valid and interesting one.
Group X has issued a challenge. Has this challenge been met? Yes or No. In case the answer is No, the obvious question is “Has anyone tried?”. If yes to that last one, why did it fail?
Ask Granny if her dog bites.
Sorry…I dragged your post into the mini-scuffle with kanicbird by mistake. Carry on.
So, you don’t actually think about it; you just respond with a competing myth. Thanks.
I’d also like to see a factual answer; has anybody met the challenge? I’d like to see a surah be presented and judged by a secular Arabic scholar, not somebody blinded by religious belief.
Prove he is wrong about Muhammed and win $50,000.
I take this to mean that you actually think the prophet borrowed from the Old Testament? Which is a reasonable thought.
and to Eve being deceived Genesis 3:4 "But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.” Just because the death was not immediate does not mean this was not a lie. Eve would of lived for ever had she never eaten of the tree.
More or less, yes. It seems obvious that Mohammed (or whoever actually wrote the Qu’ran) built on the Jewish scriptures. There are situations and names that are basically identical in both. The author also borrowed from the New Testament, as Isa (Jesus) is mentioned and revered as the penultimate prophet. To me, as someone who basically doesn’t believe in any of the three Abrahamic faiths, saying that “Allah is the same as Abraham’s God” means that Mohammed intended for Allah to be seen as the same God that guided the Hebrews in the desert. It doesn’t mean I think that entity actually exists, just that it’s obviously intended to be the same entity.
The problem is that you’re conflating two meanings of the word proof. You’re using proof in the formal logical sense. But there’s another more general sense which means “Show me enough evidence to convince me.” People have been using the word prove in that sense probably since Ogg accused Ugg of stealing his rabbit pelt. Courts use proove in this sense all the time, as in “prove beyond a reasonable doubt,” i.e. show enough evidence to convince the jury that the defendant must be guilty.