Yeah, about that…
How is that “free will worship”?
–
That…is a disturbingly compelling interpretation.
Argh! “Would have”, damn your eyes!
Yeah. The Koran has a lively tradition of scholarly discussion and debate. That’s what was going on in those Islamic Universities that were centers of knowledge when Europe was still in the dark ages.
There is a huge body of commentary called the Tafsir. This consists of Hadith- traditional oral commentary on Mohammad’s life, reports from Mohammad’s companions, reports from students of Mohammad’s companions and finally but most relevantly reason and deduction. As you can imagine, there is a great deal of analysis and criticism involved in all of this. There are also all kinds of mystical interpretations of the Koran, each with their own body of work and discussion.
Since there is no central authority, there is no real way to forbid anyone from doing anything. There is nothing like a Pope or a Papal Bull, so there is no way to have a single interpretation of Islam even if you wanted one. Even these Fatwas we hear so much about ( like the one regarding Salman Rushdie) are simply scholarly opinions and don’t really carry a ton of weight in communities outside that particular scholar’s influence. In other words, it is another kind of analysis. Islamic law varies greatly depending on how local religious authorities have decided to interpret things.
Hi All,
I did intend for this thread to be a GQ, as Sapo pointed out. However, it’s all good, as long as I get some kind of answer.
I guess what I am really wondering is if the “James Randi” of the Arab world has attempted this challenge. Remember, the result of a challenge attempt won’t necessarily prove that God exists, or that Islam is the true religion, but it could prove that Islam is false (beyond reasonable doubt). The claim is that the Koran’s literary style can not be replicated in to meaningful sentences. Muslims are constantly hitting me with:
“But CalD, the writing style of the Koran is inimitable. No human being, nor team of human beings, are capable of replicating it”.
Now, as long as the criteria is reasonably objective (and I don’t know much more detail about the criteria other than what I have posted from Sheikh Abdur Raheeme Green), then I’d be surprised if a Houdini-type debunker hasn’t appeared at some point in history to meet the challenge.
So whether it’s a GQ or a GD I’m not sure… but, have there been attempts, and on what grounds did they pass/fail?
If there has been no serious attempt, why not?
CalD, you might want to PM a mod and ask permission to repost the question on GQ with a disclaimer that you are looking for a factual response and link to this thread for those who want to debate religion.
The problem is that the criteria are not reasonably objective. Regardless of how many measurable criteria there are, there’s always one that somehow seems to depend upon a Muslim agreeing with you, and consequently that one of the reasons he follows his religion is wrong.
If the Muslims you talk to want to claim that the Koran is so inimitable, then ask them to prove it. Ask them to prove how the works of Shakespeare are not as inimitable as the Koran. They are the ones making the claim, let them bear the burden of proof.
But I’ll tell you now that it’s not going to matter. I’ve had discussions like yours with a Muslim. Only his big thing was that the Koran was so scientifically accurate before those things were known by science. So when I asked him to prove it, he started pointing out passages that he claimed said things like ‘All iron comes from the sky.’ I told him meteorites, about iron mines, about how the core of the earth is iron. I showed him these things on the net. When he had no more objections to what I said, he simply shrugged and went on to the next one, something about sweet and bitter water being separated. Nothing I said mattered, he knew he was right. This is what it’s like arguing with the religious, the religion doesn’t really matter.
Please define “the dark ages” for me?
Between the ages of 14 and 16 I liked The Cure and dressed mostly in black. Those were my dark ages.
The Dark Ages is a slightly old-fashioned way of referring to Late Antiquity & the Early Medieval period in Europe.
Whatever the fashion, there were several centuries when education & “culture” fared better in Islamic countries than the Christian ones. Especially if you ignore Byzantium–an unfortunate tendency in much “Western” scholarship.
There’s a tendency not just to ignore Byzantium, but to ignore the Early Medieval period entirely…to just dismiss it as “the Dark Ages”, as if nothing of significance happened, or that it was a total cultural void.
Were they playing cards, as well? I’m sure Allah would frown upon that.
By the way, the author of 1 Timothy had this to say:
“For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13-14)
However, this is the author’s interpretation. The Genesis narrative does not state that explicitly.
You must be a hit at parties. You got me. I was using a simplistic and outmoded but still commonly understood term/interpretation-of-history for the sake of effect.
This is a interesting quote from the point of Christian demonology, and this would be exactly something a demon would say in trying to deceive, which my claim is Allah is a servant of Satan. Breaking this down:
Originally Posted by Qur’an 2:256, 5:48
True - God will not force us to worship Him, he allows us to chose our God.
Who is We, why is it capitalized (if there is a single God)? I have found that demons will often use the term ‘we’ and often exhalt themselves by capitalization.
This is true, and the law was put into effect through angels (including IMHO fallen angels) (Gal 3:19, Acts 7:53), This pattern of life is not what God wants for us, but freedom in Jesus.
Again absolutely true, but this is talking about God, not Allah.
God does test us, He wishes to refine us and to conform us to the likeness of His Son.
This is the way of the law, the OT, which we can’t do, and were not made to. The only was to do this is of God works through us through the Holy Spirit.
I’m not going to go into this much except to say that God desires that none perish and He will make every attempt to rescue His children.
[/quote]
when He will tell you of what you were at variance.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure what this means.
Whew. Good things those demons are such morons as to write in ways that are easily detectable by you. I sure am glad you are so wise in the ways of demons, so you can steer me away from their schemes. :rolleyes:
So I can safely assume that when God refers to himself in the plural in the OT, it is actually a demon pretending to be god? Glad we cleared that up.
God using the first person plural would include his (their? ;)) creation of humans, of course:
As well as:
Based on Kanicbird’s excellent exigesis, we can conclude that humanity was created by demons rather than by God.
Who knew kanicbird was a Gnostic?
As I’ve posted in other threads, theology is just fanwank. Authors construct imaginary worlds. But they make mistakes in the process – internal contradictions or annoying gaps. Fans start to notice the flaws in the work. That’s when the fanwanking starts: Why did the look of the Klingons change between the original series and the first movie? Why does a merciful, omnipotent God allow suffering in the world?
The correct answer to both questions is “Continuity is overrated.” Works of fiction are filled with contradictions. Enjoy them for what they are and don’t expect them to live up to the standards of reality.
Also to tomndebb
Father, Son, Holy Spirit