-
The translation of “Allah” into English is “Allah”. How could you tell that “Allah” was not translated, again?
-
I would be suprised (no, stunned) if you could show me a person who didn’t know what “Allah” meant after September 11, 2001.
-
I don’t get it. You’re arguing that God is a human construct, right? So why do you think that there is exactly one idea of “God” that is shared by all theists? If we discovered that that were true, wouldn’t it be a point for the theists?
-
Is it more or less accurate to use different words to describe different things?
Hail Gaudere, full of smiting, the IPU is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst Admins and blessed is the fruit of thy Law.
#$#@% typos. So much for coherence.
And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you have any direct evidence of their motives, or is this merely conjecture?
Either way, I think the American people are intelligent enough to realize that those words were the opinion of an Islamic terrorist, rather than a statement from God Himself. I mean, can you really imagine Joe Six-Pack saying “Oh my gosh! God destroyed the WTC! Bin Laden said so!”
Sorry, Andros, but I have to disagree with you (though I’m not sure I get his point either). I’ve recently been part of a discussion where otherwise reasonably well-informed people held the view that Allah was the chief of the pre-Islamic deities of Mecca and had nothing to do with the Judeo-Christain view of God (which is admittedly itself quite fractured).
You remember the quote Isaac Asimov excavated the title of The Gods Themselves from? 
Yup. Ol’ Freddy had something there. 
Fair enough . . . I do have a tendency to overestimate people’s knowledge sometimes.
it’s like this, osama believes in “god,” dubya believes in “god.”
one of those gods leveled the world trade center…which one?
how is allah translated as allah when it means “god.” what was osama saying in his language, allah or god? there was a lot of debate and the video was even held up for release, because of translation problems.
remember our guvmint program of disinformation that was created and dissolved by the bushies in two weeks time because they got caught crimson fisted? lots of mind games being played here.
Really? I could have sworn it was Al-Qaeda cooks!
I suggest that you read about the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Quite simply, your conclusion does not follow from the facts.
Why should we believe that EITHER of those gods was responsible? For that matter, if a god was responsible, why should we believe that it was either Bin Laden’s or GW’s? Common sense dictates that those are not the only possible options.
Besides, if you’ve convinced yourself that a god was responsible, then you are derelict if you do not believe in it.
dubya says the “evil-doers” did it, osama (the we can’t find him "evil-doer) says it was done in the name of allah (god)…i’m only reporting what i read in the newspapers.
don’t you guys believe what you read in the newspapers???
So, if I poke you in the eye and tell you I did it in the name of Cheddar, was it me or cheese that poked you?
Hi biker
and, in your earlier post
What you say you read in the newspapers is quite different from what you said in your earlier post, and does not support it.
What happened to your good intention of doing research to back up your views before you posted them?
i see no contradiction in those two statements at all? where was your problem?
is osama’s god and dubya’s god the same person? was not the evil-doers evil deed done in the name of god, as was reported?
faith-based dubya is turning the entire mideast into a flaming hell, all in the name of his god, while osama levels the world trade center, in the name of his god. don’t you see a little irony in that?
do you want me to post actual dubya quotes from the newspapers to back up my thoughts on the daily news? hey i will do what ever it takes to make you happy, i am here to serve.
Hi biker
I didn’t say your statements contradicted one another; I said they didn’t support one another. The statement that Osama bin Laden claims to be acting in the name of God does not support the statement that God is responsible for the WTC massacre, unless you make the assumption that what bin Laden said was correct, and that he was indeed carrying out God’s will in destroying the WTC. Which I don’t. And neither, I think, do you. Mangetout puts this rather more pithily than I can.
Yes, it is ironic that both OBL and GWB invoke the name of God in support of what they are doing, but it is hardly novel. War leaders frequently do this, but wars would happen whether they did it or not. I don’t think this is a (religious) faith-based war, no matter what either side may claim. It mainly has to do with (on OBL’s part) political objections to the power and role of the US in the Middle East in general and in the Arab world in particular and (on GWB’s part) defence of the US against external terrorism, and the maintenance of its influence in the Middle East.
You asked earlier if we believed what we read in the newspapers. Well, in times of war (and not just then) what political figures say to us through the newspapers is frequently not the whole truth, and is sometimes an outright lie. Accepting at face value the statements attributed to OBL and GHB as to their motives in this conflict doesn’t count as “research”; research involves a critical assessment and evaluation of the material offered to you.
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of doing something in God’s name (or anyone’s name, for that matter) in the context of biblical culture. It seems that Biker understands it to mean calling out someone’s name, and attaching it to your action. So, from that meaning, I could say, “I burn this village in the name of Biker.” Unfortunately for Biker, his own reasoning would in that instance pin responsibility for the village’s fate on Biker, rather than on me.
In biblical culture, “in the name of” is synonymous with “by the will of”. Thus, it is insufficient to assign responsibility for an action to the person whose name is invoked, unless that person did, in fact, will the action. A person acting in the name of another person is, biblically, acting by proxy.
Jesus says, “Ask for anything in my name, and I will do it for you.” Biker would take this to mean that a person could say, “Jesus, I really want that new car,” and Jesus promises to put it in your driveway. Given his ignorance of biblical culture, which is doubtlessly owning to his dearth of biblical research, Biker’s amphiboly isn’t really surprising.
Whereas Mister V presented a plurium interrogationum (i.e., he demanded a simple answer to a complex question) Biker commits an ignoratio elenchi (that is, he draws the wrong conclusion from the premises he states).
If something is to be done in the name of God, then it must be done by His will. In other words, something done by God and something done in His name are indistinguishable in origin. Jesus (Who is God) has said, “By this will all men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.” Any action that does not originate from the Spirit that spoke those words is not done in the name of God.
Biker, it is time for you to declare whether your interest is in debating or witnessing. Either is allowed in this forum, but rest assured that most of us, theist and atheist alike, can readily tell the difference.
Libertarian has addressed your logical fallacy (BTW, ignoratio elenchi is not a Latinate slam on you but the name of a logical fallacy which he defined and asserts that you committed.)
Both Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush profess belief in the same deity, understood in radically different ways both from each other and from me and the others in this thread who claim faith in Him. Whether either is acting “in the name of” that God – in the sense that Lib defined what that means and that most of us would understand the phrase to mean – is a question that would provoke a lot of argument. (Contemplate, if you will, my claim to act “in the name of” Bill Gates – and whether any bank would respect my draft on his account, payable to bearer, on the basis that I claimed to be acting “in his name.” If I were truly his agent, I would have papers showing me to be duly appointed and would be able to act only insofar as he gave me instructions to do so. While God is not in the business of handing out written powers of attorney, the Bible specifies what those who claim to be acting in His name ought to be doing – and bombing either the World Trade Center or Kandahar are emphatically not among the duties listed.)
Yeah, I see a lot of irony in anybody who claims God’s authority backing whatever social or political agenda he or she happens to favor. In the few cases I see a valid ground for what they’re doing, they’ve tied what they’re about to their understanding of what God’s instructions, as spelled out, are. Whether that understanding is itself accurate is, of course, also debatable.
wow, double my trash back.
i am 99% sure, without searching for any news item to back me up, that osama believes, in his heart, that god gave him the power, the authority and the means to level the world trade center.
in my simple little view, this is what religion does for mankind. without osama’s devout belief in god, the world trade center would still be standing.
you can quote all the biblical phrases and latin metaphors you want, but i think i am closer to the truth.
Well, you know, it’s always the one percent that bites you in the ass.
Oh, and by the way:
Where was it that you saw the news item quoting Usama Bin Laden as saying that Jesus Christ is God?
“Simple” is too mild a term for that view. Even the word “simplistic” would be way too mild.