I was reading a brief article entitled "What is the speed of time?"
by Mohamed Qasem(http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html).

It is an interpretation of two verses in the Qur'aan in light of Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. The verses are as follows:

"He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count."(32:5)

"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years." (70:4)

There appears to be a contradiction in that a "day" is 1000 years in one verse and 50,000 years in another verse. However, Qasem argues that these verses can be given a rational interpretation in the context of Einstein's theories of relativity.

I'm not trained in physics and so i would appreciate the opinion of someone who is trained in physics:

Is Mohamed Qasem's application of Einstein's theories in any way flawed?

Is Qasem correct to argue that the verses are not contradictory in the context of Einstein's theories of relativity?

You can find a number of translations of the same verses here: http://quran.com/32, but they are pretty much the same.

grateful

After that DISGUSTING stunt you pulled claiming your sister had been murdered I'm surprised you have the "chutzpah" to show your face here!

See:

Posted by grateful, Monday, 20 September 2010 10:02:43 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962&page=0

As it happens I am a physicist.

To quote another well known physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, I have this to say about your post:

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

(Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!)

And if you want to know what I mean by that expression see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli

>>However, this was not his [Pauli's]most severe criticism, which he reserved for theories or theses so unclearly presented as to be untestable or unevaluatable and, thus, not properly belonging within the realm of science, even though posing as such. They were worse than wrong because they could not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear paper: Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!">>

But of course anyone whose brain has not been addled by Islam already knows that.

In case posters don't get it grateful is playing the game of "scientific miracles in the koran".

Muslims believe the koran, as disgusting a compendium of seventh century garbage as has ever been assembled, was transmitted verbatim to their probably non-existent "prophet", Muhammad, by an "angel", Gibril. It is supposedly a message straight from "Allah".

The problem Muslims have is that the koran reflects seventh century scientific thinking which was often wrong. How could the creator of the universe get the facts about mammalian reproduction and geology so wrong?

The answer was to claim there are “scientific miracles” in the Koran – ie scientific information that was not known in the 7th century but has since been discovered by science. This occasionally fools the scientifically illiterate.

I can do no better than point to Ziauddin Sardar’s comments on this attempt to read scientific miracles into the koran. Sardar is a Muslim scientist. His comments were in response to a question I posed.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/06/answers_to_questions11.html

Sardar called this a “pestiferous fad”.

>>I think Bucaillism, as I call it, or ijaz (miracle) obsession as it is known in the Arab world, serves as psychotherapy. It confirms the faith of those in desperate need of reassurance, who refuse to accept that faith, by its very nature, requires a leap. It also serves as a substitute for real science. Science is conspicuous in the Muslim world largely by its absence. Bucaillism fills this empty space as emotional fulfilment. It is also a product of the recent emergence of creationism in certain Muslim circles.>>

As Sardar points out, the koran is no more “scientific” than the bible and the alleged miracles of the sort grateful has allowed himself to be bamboozled by is as much junk science as creationism.

To think I actually felt compassion for this guy!

AAAAAAAAARRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHH

On lighter note two amusing videos illustrated the quality of "science" in the ahadith and koran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvMEe_GHOXs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5nK2L1i7E

The first is an example of how Muslim fanatics twist science. Yes, flies, like many organisms, produce natural antibiotics. No, they won't cure AIDS.

In case OLO posters want to know the specific con grateful is trying to pull, here it is.

IT'S QUITE A COMMON ONE.

There are various inconsistencies (surprise, surprise!) about times and dates in the koran. For example the days of creation vary.

Now one of the astounding discoveries to come from special and general relativity is that TIME AS NOT ABSOLUTE. Time passes at different rates for different observers.

Viola! IT'S A MIRACLE! We see this in the holy koran. These apparent inconsistencies are really Allah’s way of showing us that time is not absolute. TAKE THAT YOU INFIDEL. Even your kafir Jewish scientists demonstrate the truth and beauty of the holy Koran!

THIS CON IS NOT EVEN ORIGINAL TO MUSLIMS. I have heard Christians use it in relation to Psalm 90 verse 4

For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

And not even the hint of an apology, grateful?

For shame.

DOH!.

Kinda makes the topic abit 'meh'.

Pericles,
No apologies are warranted.

People like steve prefer to foster hate (evident in the last posts), the sort of hate that lead to the death of my sister. For example, Steve, the "scientist", has among other things stated that Muslims (including myself) are child abusers. So no apology is warranted. Steve needs to learn some manners and if he has got anything to say to be prepared to support it with evidence.

Also, it is quite normal for Muslims to refer to each other as brother and sister. When addressing a Muslim woman it would be unusual for me NOT to address a Muslim woman as sister. My use of the term in the last post stressed the bond between Muslims which arises from common belief and practice, so no apologies are warranted on this score either.

Steve, I presume from your reaction that Qasem has given an accurate description of the Einstein's theory.

You are only kidding yourself, grateful.

>>Pericles, No apologies are warranted.<<

But if that is the way you feel, it is only you that has to live with yourself.

>>People like steve prefer to foster hate (evident in the last posts), the sort of hate that lead to the death of my sister<<

I'd be very, very careful, if I were you, as to whom you accuse of fostering hate. Particularly if you then proceed to link it with the death of your imaginary sister. It's all pretty low, really.

>>Also, it is quite normal for Muslims to refer to each other as brother and sister.<<

It is customary in Australia to refer to one's siblings as brother and sister. You caused considerable offence and hurt with your idiosyncratic usage, so "normal for Muslims" does not cut it, I'm afraid.

>>Steve needs to learn some manners and if he has got anything to say to be prepared to support it with evidence<<

It would be fruitless to point out to you the utter stupidity of this statement, given the sort of "evidence" you seem to think is relevant to a discussion in this forum.

Your history here is already littered with specious "social topics" such as drunkenness and gambling, or atheism and the economy, each designed to provide you with a platform for your proselytising.

Just be aware, grateful, that until you accept that a heartfelt and genuine apology is owed by you to stevenlmeyer, I will continue to remind you that one is due, and explain to the (probably very bored) other posters why it is necessary that you do so.

Pericles,

Let me be explicit. Using the term 'sister' personalises it and people should feel hurt when they see someone murdered as a direct result of someone expressing the same sentiments that Steve and others engage in. The person who stabbed the lady was doing so because of only one reason: she wore a hijab and in doing so, before and during the murder, he was expressing the same sentiments as steve. Why personalise it? I consider the hate-speak that you are defending and the steve insists is his right to propagate as increasing the threat to my family. Do i need to be any more explicit and list the females in my family who wear the hijab?

anyone, you've had your say. If you are interested in the topic please i'd be interested in your views.

Of course Einsteins special theory of relativity is applicable to the inconsistencies of a day being 1000 and 50,000 years in the Qur'aan.

Part of the theory being that time travels at different speeds from different view points, it can be applied to the verses you posted at the start of the thread.

Although if a new theory emerges in 50 years time, I'm sure it is possible that THAT theory can then be applied to explain another inconsistency in specific religious teachings.

grateful,
I have to agree with Steve that the Koran is a corrupted understanding of God, the universe and of spirituality.

avoiding shame by twisting the truth is an acceptable practice by many who practice Islam. The ends justifies the means.

Pericles

Thank you for taking up the cudgels on my behalf. I am afraid however that a certain proverb involving a deceased equine and a whip come to mind.

I shall not bother to defend myself against grateful’s wild accusations.

Grateful wrote:

“Steve, I presume from your reaction that Qasem has given an accurate description of the Einstein's theory.”

From reading Mohamed Qasem’s blathering he seems to have grasped that we now understand that time is not an absolute ON THE MACRO SCALE*. However his essay is too superficial for me to determine whether he understands the implications and under what circumstances you might have differences in time measurement.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

The point is his attempt to use relativity to explain inconsistencies in the koran.

This is pure BS

To repeat Pauli’s words.

Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!

See also Ziauddin Sardar’s comments on this “pestiferous fad”.

*NICNOTO wrote:

>>Although if a new theory emerges in 50 years time, I'm sure it is possible that THAT theory can then be applied to explain another inconsistency in specific religious teachings.>>

No need to wait 50 years. A theory of quantum gravity by Petr Horava is gaining much attention. See:

Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime
Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends SPACE AND TIME BACK TO THEIR NEWTONIAN ROOTS

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space

On the quantum scale, as opposed to the macro scale, time may be Newtonian after all.

Just as Einstein showed that Newtonian gravity was a special case of general relativity, so Horava may have shown that general relativity is a special case of quantum gravity.

What we may have is a hierarchy:

Horava gravity & space-time contains Einsteinian gravity & space time contains Newtonian gravity & space-time.

That’s the way physics progresses. Better theories subsume rather than replace existing ones. On the macro scale we shall continue to use general relativity just as we use Newtonian dynamics for most ordinary purposes. But on the micro scale probably not.

BIG OOPS

Back to the drawing board for Mohamed Qasem?

LOL

Note to Mohamed Qasem re my previous post.

Try this for next time

Hah, you stupid infidels. Those Jewish sons of apes and dogs and their Jewish controlled media have deceived you yet again. You should have stuck with the honest Christian Isaac Newton rather than follow the teachings of the deceitful Jewish Albert Einstein.

Of course time is absolute. How could you think Allah would have it otherwise?

As for the apparent discrepancies about time in the holy koran, there is a simple explanation. Following the teachings of the good Aryan physicist, Werner Heisenberg, we know there is an inherent uncertainty* in the measurement of physical quantities including time. The differences noted in the holy koran merely reflect these uncertainties.

This proves yet again that the holy koran is a verbatim message from Allah. How could an illiterate seventh century prophet know about the uncertainty principle when science only discovered it in the 1920s?

IT’S A MIRACLE!

*See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Thanks Steve,
the information is useful, the insults not.

Also Nicnoto makes a valid point.

Stevenlmeyer (or any other scientist):

So are these verses inconsistent with what we understand about the universe?

Here they are again:

"He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count."(32:5)

"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years." (70:4)

They could have been written about the Post Office.

This is just meaningless nonsense, grateful, and you know it.

>>Stevenlmeyer (or any other scientist): So are these verses inconsistent with what we understand about the universe?... "He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count...The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years."<<

(Apart from the fact that God doesn't exist, of course.)

Let's apply some logic, since science can only be silent on the topic.

If a "day" can in certain circumstances be equated to a thousand years, then a "year" will last 365,000 years. And if a "day" in other circumstances can be equated to fifty thousand years, a "year" will become 18.25 million years. Correct?

So, where else are there references in the Qur'an to the time-concept "year"?

Here's one

"And certainly We sent Nuh to his people, so he remained among them a thousand years save fifty years." 29:14

Let's see now... on the first scale that's 346.75 million years, and on the second - wow, a whopping 17.3 billion years. That Noah. Some guy, eh?

Clearly it makes no sense to have Noah older than the universe. What would he have used to build the ark?

What this does tell us however is that these random writings in the Qur'an that you have selected for us are, and can only be, pure metaphor. They were never intended to be taken literally - which you would need to do, if you were to give them any Einsteinian attributes.

They never had any relationship with science, and never will. Retro-fitting current scientific theory into 1400 year-old religious texts is at least pointless, and at worst, fraudulent.

Still waiting for that apology.

For a start - God is not a spatial being so spatial travel is nonsense.

LOL Bugsy & Pericles

I may as well put in my 2 cents worth.

What does “ascend” mean in this context?

And why only “heaven” and “Earth”. There are probably other life forms on other worlds.

Ascend may have had a meaning in the context of seventh century cosmology where people thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. Then everything off-Earth was, in a sense, “up there”.

These verses imply that Allah exists in the universe, that “he” has a definite location in space. Can that be correct? Can the creator of the universe exist inside his creation as a material being? Is there an “Allah point” in space?

Again this makes sense in terms of seventh century cosmology where it was thought the universe was the Earth enclosed in heavenly spheres. Then God and heaven existed, it was thought, outside the outermost sphere.

But given what we know about cosmology today these verses can mean almost anything.

And that’s why the question is meaningless. We cannot say whether the verses contradict what we know about the universe because they are so vague you can read whatever you like into them.

In the end the verses, as Pericles states, “…never had any relationship with science, and never will. Retro-fitting current scientific theory into 1400 year-old religious texts is at least pointless, and at worst, fraudulent. “

Bugsy is right. Perhaps they refer to the post office

im...gratefull..to/be allowed..to correct...an-error
[that/of people/selectivly...quoting..a holy text...out of context]

be it the torah/bible/or the quaran...bagdavita..or the works of budda/swedenberg...and so many of gods other messengers...sent/to guide/man-kind

qute/in context...<<32:4 It is Allah..Who has created..the heavens and the earth,..and all between them,..in six Days,

and {he}..is firmly established..on the Throne..(of Authority):

ye have none,..besides Him,..to protect or intercede..(for you):

will ye not/then..receive admonition?

32:5..He/rules..(all)-affairs..from the heavens/to the earth:

in the end will..(all affairs)..go up/to Him,
on a Day,..the space whereof..will be..(as)..a thousand years
of your reckoning.


32:6..Such is He,/the Knower-of..all things,..hidden and open,
the Exalted..(in power),..the Merciful;-


32:7 He Who/has..made everything..which/He-has..created most good:
He began..the creation of/man..with..(nothing more/than)..clay,


32:8 And made..his progeny/from a quintessence..of the nature
of...a fluid despised:


32:9 But..He fashioned/him..in due proportion,
and breathed..into him..something of..His*{own}..spirit.

And He/gave-you..(the faculties of)..hearing and sight
and feeling..(and understanding):

little thanks do/ye..give!

let/go..Al Ma'ârij
Surah/70...The Ascending-Stairways

70:1-3...A questioner/asked-about..a Penalty/to befall-The Unbelievers, the..{consequence/fruit/of}..which..there is none/to ward{its harvest}off,(A Penalty)..from Allah's..Lord of/the Ways..of Ascent.


70:4-5 The angels..and the spirit ascend/unto him..in a Day

[the measure whereof..is..(as)..fifty thousand years:}Therefore do thou hold/Patience,..a Patience/of beautiful..(contentment).


70:6 They see the..(Day)..indeed as/a..far-off..(event):


70:7 But We see it..(quite)..near....
{indeed..as/the same..eternal'day'...
as in the next-realms..there is no night/
life continues...on unbroken..by dawns..or sunsets..!


70:8=9 The Day/that the sky...will be like molten brass,..And the mountains..will be like/wool,
[lies 50.000 years...hence...!]

and...then

70:10..And no friend..will ask/after..a friend,
[for we are all brothers/sisters...
with the one father..[god]..who gave/us-all..life]


70:11..Though they will/be put-in sight..of each other,->>
[thus/even heaven/hell draw closer]..and

<<the sinner's/desire..will be:..[the wish/that he
Would[do]..that he could...
[to]..redeem himself..from the Penalty/of..that Day>>..[judgement-day]

the good-news...being...we can redeem/ourselves..from hell
simply by..'going..and sin-no/more

lets speak plainly
in 50,000 years time

there will be a 'day'...of judgment
[lasting 1000 years..of our mortal-rekoning]

those residing in the dark-hells
have thus a limited time to repent..their love of vile

make of it what you will
it is not god who will judge

recall satan/shall be set-free/from his pit for 1000 years..[bible]...[revelations]

so guess..who will be...the holy-host...[Lord of/the Ways..of Ascent]
in say 48,000 plus...years hence?

Given the absense of a denial I guess it is agreed that the verses are consistent with what we know about the universe.

Pericles: your Noah example seems to prove the point. the Qur'aan did NOT afterall say

"....it will ascend to Him in a THOUSAND YEARS, the extent of which is a WHOPPING 17.3 BILLION years of those which you count."

This would be inconsistent with what we know of the universe.

However, it says:
"He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in A DAY, the extent of which is a THOUSAND YEARS of those which you count."(32:5)

...and this is consistent with what we know.

Pericles are you a scientist?

There was a reference to Allah having a defined position. A traditional source of learning on the nature of Allah you can read the Aqueedah a-Tahawi
http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/aqeedahNotes.pdf.

You'll see from this that clearly Allah is not considered to have a position.

As for whether the earth is considered the only source of life in the universe, the following verse indicates that life exists throughout the universe:

"And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the living creatures He has scattered through them." (42.29)

There are no verses in the Qur'aan which state that the sun orbits the earth. There are verses which state that the sun follows an orbit and is not stationary. Is this inconsistent with what we know?

Philo and runner: when you are prepared to subject your scriptures to critical scrutiny or provide evidence to back up your remarks then perhaps you'll be in a position to be taken seriously.

Philo,

You stated that Islam has a corrupt understanding of God.

In the Aqueeda al-Tahawi (Imaan al-Tahwah lived from 843 or 853 to 935 ) the fundamental creed is laid out. It begins on page 5 (http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/aqeedahNotes.pdf)

There is also a video on youtube discussing the creed of Imam al-Tahwah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJlZeb_tdnY) and the background: how the need arose for a clear articulation of the fundamentals of Islam belief when Muslims engaged Jews and Christians in discourse.

Which part of this creed would you consider represents a corrupt understanding of God?

I got lost looking for the reference to grateful's sister. I was ready to step up in defence of grateful until I finally found it. When I did, I was horrified. I was ready to defend the practice of claiming kinship when none actually exists - many aboriginal kids I have worked with have laid claims to "cousins" who, in reality, have no blood connection at all. What grateful did, and what impact it had, is a whole different kettle of fish. I am aghast.

let/ye without sin not cast the first stone
i was once in the union
there we are all brothers

i was once talking with alp/member
he addressed me as brother

i once met a commie
he addressed me as brother

tell/me...brother steven
are the facts...grateful...pinted out[re his sister..incorrect?

there are many/that quote...out of context
eh steven

lets recall that you did
here

miss-quoted..[it seems part of your attack stradgedy]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#182382

we could go into the deaths of the 6 million
but as pointed out...of the deaths in bukenwald/prison camp..only one third were jew...lets not mentioon the bolchovics murder of 25 million xtians

oh what a wicked deciet those with adgendas/weave

that warsore ghetto...in palistein
where children/get cluster biombed.
and get white sulpher/burns
via us munitions

lets try to be nice

as jesus said
let ye without sin
not cast the first stone

recall he wrote in the dust...and they walked away..in shame
recall the words..he wrote?

'thou/shalt not murder'

this teaching..is worth recalling to any beast/animal
who dares throw stones..at others [equally gifted/to live..by god

[or those/people who insists..in stonning people..to death,..
even in this/day...in this age

none/of the..abrahamic-tribes..seem to get it

im sure its due/to the pain..of circumsision
triggering-off..genetical changes

[studies have revealed
early childhood traumas...warps the developing-mind]

seems research confirms...early-violence
triggers/later violence

stop abusing children..both of ya

ya think god...made boy-babies wrong?

the covenant was ended
when the masacre of those..recovering from the/rite
[were brutally murded...

when they/took..the circumsision...simply for love
in good-faith

on that day..ye ended the covenant
made the rite...a blasphemy

as jesus reveals
by their deeds/works..shall ye know them
well were seing..what your doing in/the one-gods..holy city

grateful,
God is spirit omnipresent and not a spatial being in a spatial heaven with many virgins waiting to welcome muslim martyrs.

Otokonoko,
let me repeat waht i said to Pericles
<<Pericles,

Let me be explicit. Using the term 'sister' personalises it and people should feel hurt when they see someone murdered as a direct result of someone expressing the same sentiments that Steve and others engage in. The person who stabbed the lady was doing so because of only one reason: she wore a hijab and in doing so, before and during the murder, he was expressing the same sentiments as steve. Why personalise it? I consider the hate-speak that you are defending and the steve insists is his right to propagate as increasing the threat to my family. Do i need to be any more explicit and list the females in my family who wear the hijab?

anyone, you've had your say. If you are interested in the topic please i'd be interested in your views.Posted by grateful, Thursday, 7 October 2010 1:07:53 PM>>

You probably do not realise the constant hate-speak that i have had to endure from stevenlmeyer just because i am a Muslim, including having my friends and myself ("most Muslims") being labelled child-abusers. No-one rebuked stevenlmeyer let alone demanded he apologise...not even Pericles.

Like i said stevenlmeyer shares the same sentiments as those expressed by the murderer. His words foster hate and demonises all Muslims and this threatens the security and rights for myself, my family and all Muslims. If anyone should be apologising it should be Stevenlmeyer and if anyone doubts my ability to admit when i'm wrong and apologise unreservedly they can consult David F.

much/is made of the messengers
while completly ignoring..the authority of the mess-age

the torah...and its translation[in part]..the bible
state's..6 days..of creation

as revealed in the above..suras
a day..in/spirit...equates..vairiable/measure in man-years

well..man has found..creation of day one/
must equate to millions..[of man-years]

<<32:4..It is/Allah..>>
and others say..jehova..or el
BUT BOTH/creeds...had no vowels...in the language..of their/times

so lets read-it as
LLH...or jhv...or simply..L..
<<Who has created..the heavens/and the earth,>>>

note/here..god did not..create HeLL
mainly..as god/is..the light/heaven
and as..science/reveals...the opposing/of..light=dark/hell

[lets ignore/science..cant detect/dark-matter..[ie hell]

the place where/those...rejecting the/light..
must-need..dwell

[for energy...once/created..cannot-be destroyed]

so..'l'..or..'llh'...or..'jhv'..created heaven/earth..
<<..and all between..them,..in six Days..>>..by-spiritual/measure..'days'

now....all between them..is the..4 spheres
astral..and the other realms..of assention
[or the/fathers-many/rooms..as jesus..{jss}...revealed]

[but lets call him..emmanuEL..mmnL...]
[to wit..god..with-{in}-us..{all}]

<<and..{he}..is firmly established..on the/Throne>>

now revelations/reveals..gods-thone..to/be..our heart

<<..(of Authority):>...
so the/heart..{love}..carries..the highest/authority

thus..<<ye have/none,..besides Him,..
to protect or intercede..(for-you):>>

of course/jesus..or anyone-else could
but god needs no intercessor...!

yet..from our brothers/sisters...who yet hate/
the christ..[and the rest-of/us}..can most-assuredly..interceed

<<will ye..not/then..receive admonition?>>
this..cannot be/of god..[admobnishin]
thus gabriel...says..this


<<in the/end..will..(all/affairs)..go up..!
..to Him,..on a/Day,..>>>

the'day'..of reckoning/judgment/harvest..
in 48+,000..earth-years

<<the space-where-of..will-be....a thousand years..[of your reckoning]>>

32:6..Such is-He,/
the Knower-of..all things,..hidden..and open,>>
hath he/not declared..it/in good-time..[ahead-of/time]

<<the Exalted..(in power),..the Merciful;-

32:7 He Who/has..made everything..which/He-has..created..most good*:>>

re/'it'=[good]...
all good..comes from god...
love/light/logic/life}..good/god

<<He began..the creation-of/man..with..(nothing..more/than)..clay..>>>[science/says,,soup/..prime-evil-soup]...<<And made..his progeny>>>

note...'HIS/gods*"...progeny

thus he/is father
and all of us/living
BROTHERS/sisters

from the/ONE father/one life-source

he made..our brother/adam<</from a quintessence..of the/nature
of...a fluid despised:>>>

a fluid...repulsive..to those in/spirit
it may-be aether...or astral-dust..or seeman
[im told-it smells/of..seman]..i hear its..even used in/seance's/apperitions..[who-cares]

god/ALONE..makes no mistakes
<<32:9 But..He..fashioned/him..in due proportion>>

with/fore-skin*,

<<and breathed..into/him..something..of..His*{own}..spirit.>>

life..CAN-ONLY..come from life..!

thus gods/living-spirit..is passed from man/man...
via LIVING-sperm..[life/from-life]

[energy cannot/be..created...nor destroyed]

<<And He/gave-you..(the faculties/of)..hearing..and sight..and feeling..(and understanding)>>..

and logic/life/light..and reason/love/grace/mercy/wonder/joy/contentment/peace/freewill...plenty

gifted equally..for..all*..to share/equally*

[are/we not..joint mortal-heirs...
of..our immortal-father..equally?]

<<little thanks do/ye..give!.

I suspect it may be you who is in denial, grateful.

>>Given the absense of a denial I guess it is agreed that the verses are consistent with what we know about the universe.<<

You know perfectly well that this isn't the case. And simply repeating it will not make it any more true, today, tomorrow or in another (insert your own timeframe here) years.

The verses you quote are metaphor. Metaphor is not science. You cannot therefore use science to prove a metaphor.

How do we know it is metaphor? Because applying it in a scientific manner to another, similar situation, from the same source, proves infeasible.

You even go so far as to admit as much yourself.

>>the Qur'aan did NOT afterall say "....it will ascend to Him in a THOUSAND YEARS, the extent of which is a WHOPPING 17.3 BILLION years of those which you count." This would be inconsistent with what we know of the universe.<<

Precisely. So the meaning of the word "year" is clearly variable, used as required by the author to make a particular point or deliver a particular message. As such, it can no longer be regarded as having a determined meaning - it is pure metaphor.

>>Pericles are you a scientist?<<

Can't you tell?

To the extent that I am not blinded by religious dogma, or motivated to promulgate my personal views about metaphysics to all and sundry, yes, I pass muster as a scientist.

You haven't forgotten that apology, have you?

Trying to weasel out of it by claiming "hate speech" is most unattractive, by the way.

Incidentally, am I right to assume that you were not born into a Muslim family?

Just curious.

stevenlmeyer,

That's interesting about Petr Horava"s theory - I don't understand much of the science, but I'm interested in hierarchal order, of which everything seems to be included.

A quote from Einstein: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

LOL Pericles,

I doubt grateful was born into a Muslim family. He does seem to have something of the zeal of the convert about him. In that way he's a bit like Dawkins. They just got converted to diferent things.

Most born Muslims I know are much more cautious about spruiking the so-called miracles of the koran just as most born atheists (like me) are more cautious about attributing ALL evil to religion.

Grateful

Consider the following paragraph.

>>I have an appointment in town for mid-day. I'm leaving at 11 am to cycle the 15 km from my house to the city. My usual time for the journey is about 40 minutes but I want to leave myself plenty of time.>>

Now does that paragraph contradict anything we know about relativity?

Does it contradict Petr Horava's theory of Newtonian time at the quantum level which DOES contradict Einsteinian relativity?

For that matter, does my paragraph contradict the phlogiston theory of heat?

The answer to all these questions is "NO".

From that paragraph you cannot tell whether I know the difference between the second law of thermodyanmics and the second coming of Christ.

And that's the point about the verses you quote. They may be great poetry in Arabic. If you believe in Allah they may tell you something about that probably non-existent deity.

But the verses tell you as much about relativity as my paragraph tells you about the workings of a diesel engine or the winner of the last AFL grand final.

The verses neither contradict nor affirm relativity because they have about as much to do with relativity as my bicycle.

So the short answer grateful is this.

These verses do NOT contradict relativity. Nor do they affirm it.

And my question to you is this.

SO WHAT?

What point do you think that proves?

Why should I care?

Is there anything in Othello that contradicts evolution?

Do Beethoven symphonies contradict Maxwell's equations?

Do any Beatles songs contradict the theory of continental drift?

Do you get my drift grateful? (Probably not)

Stevenlmeyer,
You make a good point. That's all i am seeking. I just wanted a critical perspective. No need for mockery and personal attacks grounded in prejudice.

Pericles was right about the apology. You'll find it at the end of the previous post. I made the mistake of posting and not returning and so did not read the subsequent responses until today. As i say in more detail there i apologise for the hurt i cause. It was obviously not intended.

Pericles,
Regarding your remarks about previous posts concerning alcohol. Being a former binge drinker and having the teachings of Islam extract me from the culture of booze and provide the guidance i needed, the motivation was not as simplistic as you make out. It was sincerely intended to convey a message that the booze culture is not inevitable and there are a lot of things Australians can learn from Isalm that would yield enormous benefits and save many lives.

In the previous post, David F's response was that i "make a good argument against Islam". In that case I should expell myself from this forum for a year or ten (earth time) and seek forgiveness from my Creator.

salaams

grateful,
Drunkedness is not Australian culture it originated in the Middle East around Turkey with Noah Genesis 9: 20. It is just that those that do not value their mind, body or their life binge drink with peers to relieve their pain.

I do not touch any alcoholic drink and have no desire of it. That does not make me a Muslim.

Nonie Darwish warns

In the Muslim faith a man can marry a child and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating marriage by 9.
A dowry is given in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. When a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

In the West World Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her.
It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and British Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children to the Shariah law.

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty away.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel.
He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing..

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed.

Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Built on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed.
Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West,such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

Maybe not, grateful.

>>Pericles, Regarding your remarks about previous posts concerning alcohol. Being a former binge drinker and having the teachings of Islam extract me from the culture of booze and provide the guidance i needed, the motivation was not as simplistic as you make out.<<

But I'm sure you are smart enough to see how it appeared consistent with a distinct pattern of behaviour on your part on this forum.

In a way, it's a pity that you needed religion to wean you from the booze. For my mate, the catalyst was his ex-wife's threat that he would never see his daughter again. The shock that such a threat might be real (it was, deadly serious) drove him to a week's binge, after which he committed himself to a clinic. Never looked back.

Highly effective. And the really good thing is that he managed to do it himself. Indeed, the very fact that he is able to acknowledge that he accomplished it entirely through his own will, is enough to ensure that he will never backslide.

Sadly, you will never be able to bring yourself to claim responsibility for your own journey to abstinence. It is actually a minor tragedy, that you might go through your entire life, believing that you owe it all to a non-existent metaphysical entity.

Which very, very much devalues what must have been an extremely difficult personal journey.

grateful the attempt to use einstein to explain cleqar contradictions may well work in closed circles but it's not an idea with any real meaning.

Re the use of "sister", I'll be more convinced of your sincerity when I see you admitting to the mongrels who fly plane full of non-combatants into buildings full of non-combatants also being your brothers. When you claim that those who stone others of your sisters to death for the crime of being raped by your brothers were also brothers.

While it's a claim of convenience it's a lie. If you want to claim kinship on the basis of faith claim it for all that happens in the name of your faith, not just when someone suffers harm at the hands of someone not of your faith.

R0bert

i...find/the need..to rebut
[or maybe/only verify,further/upon philo's statement..[re child-brides]

[..pointing out..this perversion
is/not-alone..limited to one belief/faith-system
[lest.we-forget/...priests..etc]

but..it's..ROOTS,..go deeper/
see/..settlements..in war-zones..in holy-lands

from
http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

I apologize..for/the'language'..which will appear..'here-UNDER'

from..The official/unabridged..Soncino'..Edition/of the..'Talmud*'..

published/in 1935..
quotations/with footnotes
from..the Soncino..Edition of/the...Talmud,(Book)

YEBAMOTH,60b."As R.Joshua,..b.Levi related:

`There was..a certain/town..in the Land of/Israel*
the legitimacy..of whose/inhabitants disputed,

and Rabbi..sent R.Ramanos who/conducted an inquiry
and..found in it...the daughter..of a'proselyte'....*
who was under the age/of three years..!and one day..,
and Rabbi declared/her eligible..to live with/a priest"

note..A proselyte..under the age of three years and one day
may be married*..by a priest...

And was married to a priest.
ie.,permitted to continue..to live/with..her...'husband'!

SANHEDRIN,55b-55a...:"What is/meant..by this?..

Rab said:..Pederasty with/a child..below nine years of age..
is not deemed/as..pederasty..with a child...above that.

Samuel said:..Pederasty with a child..below three years
is not treated.as with a child above that.....

55a)(he)..who commits bestiality,..whether naturally or unnaturally:
...or a woman..who causes...herself..to/be beastially abused,
....whether naturally..or unnaturally,..is liable to punishment."

(footnotes)"
(1)The reference is to..the passive..'subject'/victim..of sodomy...

As stated in supra..54a,
guilt is incurred..by the active participant
even/if..the former be a minor;..i.e.,less/than thirteen years old...

2)Rab makes..nine years the minimum;..
but if one committed sodomy..with a child..of lesser age,...
no** guilt,,is incurred..!...

Samuel makes three..the minimum...
(There are/thus..three distinct clauses..in this Baraitha.

why single out pederasty:..
in all crimes of incest,..the'passive'adult..does not incur'guilt'
..unless*..the other'party'is..at least..nine years and a day?

Hence the Baraitha/supports Rab's'contention'
that..nine years..(and a day)is the minimum/age
of the...passive partner..for the adult to be liable."

(emphasis in original,Ed.)..

Before giving..any more verbatim/quotations
from the.."sort*of book"..
from which..it is falsely/alleged..Jesus.."drew the teachings''..

In'official-statement'..made by Rabbi Morris..N.Kertzer..
that the Talmud"...IS THE LEGAL CODE...
WHICH FORMS THE BASIS/OF..JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW..
AND IT..IS THE TEXTBOOK..USED..IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS"...

Please bear/this..in mind as/you..read further.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

PERVERSIONS/..ABOUND...IN ALL FORMS..OF BELIEF/DIS-BELIEF..SYSTEMS

to blame...the belief-system...is absurd...

its individuals..perverting to good/true...into perversion..individually...thats the real-issue

Discussion threads like this one are utterly useless and pointless.

We have bigots on one side arguing with bigots on the other side. Each trying to score their points and each not the least bit interested in different viewpoints. Each convinced that they are right, and each convinced if you don't agree with them you're wrong. Each having the same opinion before the thread started, and each having exactly the same opinion after the thread has finished.

What a waste of good internet space.

one under god,
I have an Orthodox Jewish Nephew trained in Israel for seven years graduating from University as a Rabbi. He was not allowed to marry till he had finished his Rabbinical studies and he spent two years intern in the USA and they chose several adult girls suitable as being a possible wife for him to meet and choose one from.

It is more like Mohamet studied the 7th Century Talmud since it was composed during his time and in his country and it was from there he gained his attitudes of legitimizing child molestation.

Incorrect Rudy.

No 'discussion' or 'thread' is useless or pointless.

The very concept, as I see it, from OLO and Forums, is for people to learn and grow from other peoples' participation and viewpoints, whether we agree at the time on those viewpoints or [not].

How else is one able to learn and grow, not reading or sharing viewpoints? People who give of themselves are also learning from others in the process, whether they commence posting with a set agenda or otherwise.

If you stay tuned in to OLO long enough, you will realise [as I do] that there may be a few little things learned; one being that we do not know it all, despite life experiences

grateful,

I will defend with great fervour your right to use the term 'sister' in reference to people who are not blood references. And I respect the fact that your grief at the death of this figurative 'sister' is genuine. I am, on occasion, caught up with grief for people with whom I have no connection whatsoever. I respect your ability to establish and sustain empathy. I do not believe, however, that your grief is equal to the grief you would feel had you lost a sister you had watched grow up, with whom you had shared all the greatest joys and most terrible moments of your life. With that in mind, I fully understand the disgust your post caused. As a matter of inter-cultural understanding, which I am sure you embrace, I think it is only fair that you ensure that your meaning is clear when calling someone your sister in a society that does not understand or relate to the different meaning you have for the word. We may be ignorant, but as a world citizen and an advocate of your faith, it is your responsibility to enlighten us. There are few things that enrage people more than finding out that somebody has drawn your sympathy under false pretences - either intentionally or otherwise.

Otokonoko,
Yeh, i figured that out. Thank-you for the good advice anyway :-)

Pericles,
Unlike your friend I did not have to be threatened. Instead the environment changed in which i rejected one lifestyle for something better: a lifestyle that did not require booze as a requisite for "fun". Drinking gradually became something that was not "fun" and something i did when away from the Muslim community (where of course it is not socially acceptable to drink) until i completely lost to desire or interest. I may have moved away from booze without becoming Muslim but it would have been harder due to the social pressures to drink. My argument was that it is not rational for a society to be exerting these pressures if it believes more harm than good comes from alcohol. Because of my own experience, i believe Islam offers some very good practical lessons in helping our kids lead more constructive lives.

Also can i offer an 'outsiders' perspective on your approach: Your derision in the earlier topic (totally motivated by the fact that i was Muslim and not based on anything i had to say) and in the above post reflects an unwillingness to think outside your own pre-constructed world-view and results in intolerance and a pre-occupation with "intention". You may know some science but your approach to views that contradict your own is not scientific.

The purpose of the current post (as well as others) was to invite critical scrutiny of statements made in the name of my own faith. In the current post I asked scientists to critique a view of a Muslim regarding some verses of the Qur'aan and its relation to scientific knowledge and did not put them forth as "the truth". I think i got my money's worth from steve (a refreshing change) but not yourself because of your attitude.

Philo,
The fact that you cannot support your statements with serious scholarship says it all (try Esposito "Who speaks for Islam?" or Lewis "Islam: the Religion & the People").

Sorry, grateful, that angle doesn't work on me, I'm afraid.

>>Your derision in the earlier topic... reflects an unwillingness to think outside your own pre-constructed world-view and results in intolerance and a pre-occupation with "intention"<<

That's a pretty weak stance when it comes from someone who is so completely imprisoned by their pre-constructed world-view that they feel compelled to frame every "question" in that light.

It's not even as if it is your own pre-constructed world-view - it was put together by someone else, for the sole purpose of telling you how to run your life.

Which is why I explained to you that it was such a shame that you attribute your change of heart on alcohol, to your conversion to Islam. It is precisely that which has imprisoned you, and rendered you incapable of independent thought.

>>Unlike your friend I did not have to be threatened<<

The threat was the catalyst for him to work out for himself, that what he was doing was destructive. Most people will tell you that to bring a person to self-awareness is the only way to break the cycle of delusion in which alcoholics live. Genuine, fully-dependent alcoholics, that is. Not just those who call themselves alcoholics as a form of attention-seeking.

You described yourself as a "binge-drinker", who "required booze as a requisite for 'fun'". That is not at all the same as being an alcoholic.

>>The purpose of the current post (as well as others) was to invite critical scrutiny of statements made in the name of my own faith.<<

It would probably be a good idea, then, for you to explain this as you frame the "question". Instead of trying all that disingenuous social researcher schtick.

<<It would probably be a good idea, then, for you to explain this as you frame the "question". Instead of trying all that disingenuous social researcher schtick.>>

See what i mean about "intention". I am a social researcher so perhaps that explains why i apply the same methods to my faith.

You're so focused on judging others intention you cannot sit back and simply say, OK wheres the argument, is it rational?, is there evidence? Instead, you say OK here's a "godbotherer", he's here to preach, lets give him a serve a la Dawkins. A scientic approach would be to rely on reason and evidence. Resorting to mockery and derision and passing judgement over people's intention is a sign of weakness and failure.

Grateful

Apology accepted.

I am glad you were able to stop binge drinking – if indeed you were a binge drinker as opposed to someone who occasionally had a bit too much. I’m afraid I’m not inclined to take your statements at face value.

Grateful

There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always trade-offs.

You live in a society that allows Muslims to tell atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Zionists etc that they have it all wrong, that Islam is the only true religion, that Christian scriptures have been corrupted.*

Those rights and my right to say that Islam is equine fertiliser are two sides of the same coin, the right to free speech. You cannot have one without the other. Islam along with ANY belief system or ideology is a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

Get that? Islam is a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

Just as Gerald Serrano has the right to display a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine I would have the right to, for example, draw Muhammad, your probably non-existent “prophet”, sucking the sex organ of a pig. Those are the rules of a secular democracy. Freedom includes the freedom to be gross.

You might complain that such a cartoon would be in terrible taste. I agree which is why I, unlike Serrano, would not mock other people’s religious symbols. I don’t believe in gratuitous insults or in hurting people without reason. But I shall defend the right of anyone to publish such a cartoon.

I do loathe Islam. However I think the problem is not Islam but people who confuse an abhorrence for Islam with racism and so end up appeasing a hateful ideology. It is appeasing Islam rather than Islam itself that I see as the problem.

If you don’t want to see me write these things you are free to ignore my posts or, indeed, to eschew this forum. However I suspect that, like so many Muslims, you enjoy feeling offended. I think it makes you feel important.

*by who?

<< I don’t believe in gratuitous insults or in hurting people without reason.>>
LOL!
So what was reason for saying that most Muslims abuse children? Or does this suggest you owe an apology?

..and steve, nor did you respect my right to speak and express an opinion when you targeted me for no other reason than i was a Muslim with questions completely off topic (eg. Victorian laws). Whhen i ignored the question (because it was off topic) you harangued me saying i supported a dictatorship and when i answered with as honest an answer i could give you questioned my honesty (in other words you didn't get the answer you wanted).

These were deliberate and calculated and demonstrate that your statement that you are "not inclined to take your statements at face value" has nothing to do with anything i have recently said but because of my religion. In other words you have a deep seated prejudice. To attribute your behaviour to anything else is grossly disingenuous (a favourite word on these forums).

[Deleted for arguing moderation decisions on forum and for not being prepared to abide by the same word limit others do.]

Grateful,

You allege I wrote “...most Muslims abuse children?”

You suggest I owe an apology for making such a statement.

Please quote my PRECISE WORDS and POST A LINK along with the time and date of the post containing the offending statement. I shall review what I ACTUALLY wrote and decide whether any apologies are appropriate.

Grateful, to those of us that live in the real world, your lack of balance and dishonesty about Islam and its teachings is insulting. You push an Islamic agenda as if not indulging in alcholic beverages was the only import thing in life. It is even more insulting that you waste time trying to "prove" that the Quran is some sort of coded scientific text when there are matters of hate, pain, violence and suffering that could be more profitably addressed.

Are you aware of the vile things that are said in the Quran about non-Muslims? Do you think we are lower than animals? Tell me, Grateful, do you know how Muslims treat non-Muslims everywhere they dominate?Wouldn't ending Muslim hate and discrimination against non-Muslims be a more fruitful discussion that pseudo-miracles that you so-much want to believe in? These two questions would cause any sane, moral person to pause before he attempts to enlighten the unholy masses about the so-called scientific wonders of an 8th century illiterate war lord.

Rather than waste time on the "miracles" of 32:5 and 70:4, why don't you just explain verse 9:111 to us stupid infidels. Tell us exactly that Allah is saying to his faithful.

G'day. Kactuz

PS: By the way, don't forget that in paradise Muslims will get to booze it up - well that what the Quran says.

Oh yes, Grateful, it IS because you are Muslim AND because of what you say.

Do you not think we don't know how Muslims treat women - errr - your sisters? You call then "sisters" but treat them like like second class citizens. Do you think that use of a simple word makes up for forced veilings, forced marriages, honour killings, acid-throwing, sexual abuse, legal restrictions, and so on? What kind of people are you?

As you say, a scientic approach would be to rely on reason and evidence. It also requires that facts and rules be applied equally. Muslims, it seems, demand high standards and tolerance from others, yet do not themselves lift a finger in this respect. You want us to respect your right to say stupid things, yet any question about the Quran or Mohammed is met with utmost violence. Islam is a one-way street. It gets worse, if you had actually read the hadith (I assume you haven't), I could certainly ask why you think Mohammad to be a great moral example, given the stories in the traditions. In fact, why should any non-Muslim believe or trust any Muslim given those stories, written by Muslims - not just any Muslim but friends and followers of your dear prophet?

This isn't mockery and derision, but important questions that Muslims need to consider - but I won't hold my breath. So when you Muslims have solved the "how to treat others" problem or even the "how to treat women" issue, then feel free to enlighten us on relativity and quantum physics

grateful,

I went cycling. Then I went out for dinner with friends. I came back. I logged on to see whether grateful was able to substantiate his claim that I wrote “...most Muslims abuse children”.

And what do I find?

Nothing!

De nada!

Zilch!

grateful,

I think you owe me ANOTHER APOLOGY – this time for your false accusation.

LOL

Dear Steven...(and...amazingly...Pericles) you blokes have done a wonderful job of trying to deal with poor Grateful.

At least Pericles (to my shock, wonder and amazement) has attempted to understand something of those 'ancient obscure holy books'

//What this does tell us however is that these random writings in the Qur'an that you have selected for us are, and can only be, pure metaphor. They were never intended to be taken literally - which you would need to do, if you were to give them any Einsteinian attributes.//(Pericles)

Pericles.. on the particular passages Grateful cites..I tend to agree.
But for legitimate hermeneutic reasons...not mere desire for them to be a certain way from my (Christian)theological perspective.

The Quran also says in surah 18:86 the following:

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water":

This is where you will find Grateful ducking and weaving, squirming and fidgiting..... because if this is NOT "Metaphore" it is hopelessly silly.

But for Steven's sake..on the issue of "Muslims are child abusers" as accused by Grateful...no...most are not. The Quran however does permit what we would call 'child abuse'.
Surah 65:4 permits a prebupescent child to be 'married, consummated and divorced" So..it is correct to say "Islam" permits.....etc.

You can also observe just how much the human mind can be irrationally effected by conversion to Islam.....Grateful is a perfect example. Sad but true.

Hence..while your energy and efforts are laudable, they are also pretty much a waste of your limited time on this earth..the damage has been done and only divine intervention will save Grateful.

Still waiting grateful.

Where did I write “...most Muslims abuse children”?

Now it becomes clearer.

>>I am a social researcher so perhaps that explains why i apply the same methods to my faith.<<

But that still doesn't make it excusable.

>>You're so focused on judging others intention you cannot sit back and simply say, OK wheres the argument, is it rational?, is there evidence?<<

That is where you and I will never agree. To me, if your intention is to highlight this or that aspect of your religion, the question itself is automatically freighted with deceit. For the simple reason that it is based not upon a normal, abstract, unbiased sense of enquiry, but on the desire to proselytise. As proof of this, the history here shows that any and every attempt to inject rational argument has always been met with a retreat, by you, into rationale-by-dogma and answers-by-faith.

>>A scientic approach would be to rely on reason and evidence. Resorting to mockery and derision and passing judgement over people's intention is a sign of weakness and failure<<

A scientific approach does not permit the asking of questions that are so loaded with presuppositions that they cannot stand on their own two feet.

And it is only in your imagination that I resort to mockery and derision. What you get from me is what you deserve - the unmasking of your intentions, in order to provide context to what are otherwise pointless, and meaningless, questions.

It looks once again as though you are in apology deficit, too.

All very sad, really.

Uh oh. Boaz is shocked.

>>Pericles (to my shock, wonder and amazement) has attempted to understand something of those 'ancient obscure holy books'<<

Claiming that this-is-metaphor while that-is-gospel-true has been one of the tricks you have played on this forum for many, many years. It should therefore come as absolutely no surprise to you whatsoever that I point out this argumentation-flaw consistently, regardless of which particular evangelist is performing the pea-and-thimble antics.

But what is this I hear?

>>You can also observe just how much the human mind can be irrationally effected by conversion to Islam.....Grateful is a perfect example. Sad but true<<

It is the discordant croaking of the Christian-evangelist pot calling the Islamic-convert kettle a subtle shade of jet.

Behind the mental barriers that your religion has built for you, you are completely unable to see how completely the exact same irrationality guides your own posts.

Sad.

But true.

ALGOREisRICH

It should not surprise you that Pericles knows a thing or two about ancients texts. It turns out that atheists and agnostics outscore Christians when it comes to bible knowledge.

See:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/10/atheists_know_more_about_religion_than_the_religious.html

>>Why is anyone surprised at the findings of a new survey of American religious knowledge, released last week by the Pew Forum, which demonstrate that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than the religious do? The only religious groups comparable to atheists in general religious knowledge are Jews and Mormons. Atheists even know more about Christianity than American Christians.

I find this totally predictable, because most atheists today (this may not be true a generation from now) were raised in some religious tradition and found it wanting. What do you do when you are unsatisfied with the religious answers you are getting? You start reading about religion. You start investigating other religions. And eventually, if you read enough, you may find yourself agreeing with Thomas Paine, who declared in The Age of Reason (1793), "My own mind is my own church." But, by the time you are through reading a lot of those supposedly sacred books that contradict one another while proclaiming that they possess absolute truth, you tend to have learned a lot about various religious beliefs.

Atheists and agnostics, like Jews, are much more highly educated than the general American public, and the survey found a strong correlation between level of education and religious knowledge (among the religious as well as the nonreligious). >>

See also:

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

I have little doubt that atheists and agnostics know more about the koran and ahadith than most Muslims.

Hi Steven

I have to agree. It is an ongoing source of sadness to me to hear the bleetings of many 'sheep in the street' on their faith position or knowledge.

Many Christians, in my own church as well... have seldom been challenged re their faith, perhaps because they have been rather conveniently or selectively secretive about it.

I regularly 'drop' things on people in my own fellowship which challenge them... but often they simply seem to be on another planet intellectually, or.. if you connect a few dots and they suddenly 'see' it......they then glaze over because they feel powerless to do anything about it...or... you can almost see the bible verse "be in the world but not 'of' it" churning over in their minds, thus justifying political/social apathy.

But Steven, I would love to see your insights re a thread I'm developing..

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4024

I think once it becomes more clear, you will enjoy it..

I'm wondering who the first person will be who 'tweaks' to where it's going :)

Re Pericles, he is a walking contradiction...partly fact and partly fiction. When debating 'me' he has "no interest in obscure ancient texts", I suspect fear is at work there... but debating Grateful ?aaah.. he comes to life :) But debating grateful is like debating a rock...so I don't know why he expends so much wasted energy.

WOOPS...almost missed that Pericles.

I was expecting some kind of 'pot/kettle' thing from you, but as usual, you use that to mask your own polemical duck/weave approach on matters of Biblical knowledge and interpretation.

You know as well as I do, (if ur honest) that the Bible contains many forms of language and style. You know jolly well that a 'parable' is not mean't to be taken 100% literally on a point by point basis, and that when Jesus says "If your eye sins, gouge it out" is not mean't literally... You also know that a clear 'command' "Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations" is absolutely unambiguous and is to be taken 100% literally.

So, sorry old son, you cannot play the 'mask and hide' game with me, I know you too well.

You can identify 'metaphor' where poor gullible Grateful cannot.. but of course he has a 'convert zeal' agenda in proving his newfound faith position to be valid... as much for his own peace of mind as anything most likely.

But when it comes to other portions of the Quran ...such as the clear and unmistakable 'permissions' of Surah 65 or 'commands' in Surah 9 you suddenly become 'blind freddie' ? come-ON mate...you are playing a shell game.. "where is it..this one?" when you know where it is all along.

As to faith, your choice is your choice... but as to understanding literature, you can do much much better..simply by being honest and not calling a stick a rock and so on.

So..how about it ? Let's have some consistency and honesty on understanding documents eh? You don't have to agree with what they call on people to do....but you should at least be able to work out 'what' they are calling people to.

Come on down to Quintus Fabius Maximus :) should prove entertaining.

You give yourself far too much credit, Boaz.

>>Re Pericles, he is a walking contradiction...partly fact and partly fiction. When debating 'me' he has "no interest in obscure ancient texts", I suspect fear is at work there<<

A couple of corrections to your muddled thinking are required.

The "no interest" that you detect is entirely consistent, whether discussing your prejudices and logical shortcomings, or anyone else's. The deliberate selection of verses in your (collective) "special books" serves only to highlight the delusions under which you (collectively) live.

Your suggestion that fear may be at work is a fascinating one. Given that I have been completely even-handed in my analysis of dubious text-selection, what precisely is it that you believe that I fear? I guess it can only be the fear of being "left out" of the faith that you (collective) religion-evangelists seem to believe is an essential component of life on this planet of ours.

On that score, please be completely reassured. As stevenlmeyer predicted, I was one of those who went to "church schools", sung the hymns, recited the prayers. I even accompanied my mother to evensong every so often. Just until I was able and willing to think for myself.

Fear, I can assure you, does not come into it. Unlike for you guys, who are constantly being told to "Fear the Lord". Until, presumably, it becomes second nature.

>>But debating grateful is like debating a rock...so I don't know why he expends so much wasted energy.<<

What you fail to realize, Boaz, thanks to your unflagging self-importance, is that it is precisely the same experience, debating with you.

Nor do I consider either of you to be "wasted energy". It is only by questioning you, and discovering the way that you each rationalize your beliefs, that I learn about the subtleties and nuances of über-religious thinking.

Unfortunately, you folk have a disproportionate level of influence on the way the world turns, so it is essential for the rest of us to remain fully alert to the latest developments in your attempts at control-freakery.

Oh how quickly you prove me right, Boaz!

Delightful.

>>You know as well as I do, (if ur honest) that the Bible contains many forms of language and style. You know jolly well that a 'parable' is not mean't to be taken 100% literally on a point by point basis, and that when Jesus says "If your eye sins, gouge it out" is not mean't literally... You also know that a clear 'command' "Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations" is absolutely unambiguous and is to be taken 100% literally... But when it comes to other portions of the Quran ...such as the clear and unmistakable 'permissions' of Surah 65 or 'commands' in Surah 9...<<

It is simply remarkable, how you are so comprehensively unable to see what stares you in the face. That you cannot see, for example, that a decision on whether the injunction "If your eye sins, gouge it out" is commandment or metaphor, remains absolutely and entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Only those who are already steeped in the mythology will automatically squeak "metaphor, metaphor". And at the same time will select verses from their enemy's scripture and protest "clear and unmistakable command/instruction" over those they feel places their opponents in the worst possible light.

The contradiction inherent in this quite blatant and deliberate interpretation/misinterpretation of ancient texts simply does not occur to you, does it.

It is nothing more nor less than wilful self-delusion, Boaz.

The fact that you are unable to bring yourself even to discuss these things rationally is the perfect measure of how little control your religion allows you to have over your own critical faculties.

>>As to faith, your choice is your choice... but as to understanding literature, you can do much much better..simply by being honest and not calling a stick a rock and so on<<

That's hilarious. Throwing stones at people who don't believe in the same ancient texts that you do is now "understanding literature".

The funniest obfuscation yet. And that is some achievement.

Unfortunately, I am not a physicist ... in spite of trying to understand its laws, to me it is like 'fairies at the bottom of the garden'. This is no reflection on physicists, whom I greatly admire. My uncle, an astrophysicist and atheist, claimed he saw God in the beauty and elegance of a physics equation. I suppose God is different things to different people.

Does the Qur'aan influence the study of science in the Islamic Middle East. Does anyone know if science taught in these areas is 'bad science,' ... such as creationism, as many fundamentalist Christians subscribe to.

Evidence of this type would indicate to what degree Qur'aanic influence is detrimental to scientific enquiry in the modern world. Is the Qur'aan taken literally by educated Muslims?
There are numerous interesting theories about the origins of the Qur'aan.

Hi Danielle,

Yes devout Muslims take the koran literally.

Yes they are creationists.

See for example:

http://www.bookglobal.net/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=4&cat=

This book – largely a rehash of Christian fundamentalist BS with an Islamic slant - was written by Harun Yahya.

See: http://www.harunyahya.com/

Devout Muslims do not accept evolution.

Western scholars are slowly unraveling the true origins of the koran. See for example:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/03/28/the_origins_of_a_holy_book/

The project is called Corpus Coranicum

Dear Pericles... an interesting encounter.

I will grant you one point though, -however I will use different and more precise terminology to express it.
That point is:

//you cannot see, for example, that a decision on whether the injunction "If your eye sins, gouge it out" is commandment or metaphor, remains absolutely and entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Only those who are already steeped in the mythology will automatically squeak "metaphor, metaphor".//

Now.. I agree that one needs at least a basic knowledge of how people communicated ideas in the time of Jesus in order to comprehend the meaning of such sayings.

Fortunately, that single saying of Jesus is not 'The Gospel' and when the Gospel is proclaimed, it is accompanied by education, teaching, discipling. During such, the meaning of those sayings is passed on, by those who have had the training and education to know about them.

Now this is where you come unstuck. It seems to me that your own lack of theological training, causes you to seek refuge in simply mocking or ridiculing that which you don't understand.

Now in my case, I can apply the 3 yrs of formal training and the years of personal experience and interaction with 100s of Muslims to the matter of 'understanding holy writ'. You should bear in mind that my own training was not a case of "sit there, shutup and THIS is how it is". No....much much better than that. We studied extreme liberals and extreme conservatives and how to identify flaws in arguments...oh.. we also studied 'the facts' :)

So..when I single out a 'verse or 2' such as say.. Surah 23:5-6 which is giving the express permission for a Muslim male to use his captive women as sex slaves (literally) you can bet that I have it right.

Muslim apologists in the west naturally take issue with that, but for understandable political reasons.

Danielle

Your uncle has a point. The real world that science is slowly uncovering is so much more weird and wonderful and AWE INSPIRING than the FAKE world in which religious fundamentalists IMPRISON themselves that I actually PITY them. Their religion SHRIVELS THEIR SOULS.

Look at grateful.

Relativity reveals amazing and unexpected insights into the nature of the world we inhabit; insights that are truly stranger than fiction. Humans cannot make this sort of stuff up.

Is relativity the last word? Probably not. Like all major scientific theories it is most likely one more STEPPING STONE on the path to a more perfect understanding. But it is the best we can do for now and what it reveals about the nature of space and time is astonishing.

Does grateful try to grasp these completely unexpected insights relativity reveals?

He does not.

Instead he purports to try and relate it to seventh century claptrap.

POOR GRATEFUL.

But it is not only in the field of physics that we make extraordinary discoveries. The more we learn about the functioning of a SINGLE CELL the more bizarre life appears. Danielle, every cell in your body is mind-blowing both in its complexity and in the precision of its operation.

And what does the probably non-existent “prophet” of Islam say?

>>Bukhari Book 026, Number 5562:

'Amir b. Sa'd reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) commanded the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures.>>

But geckos have the ability to regenerate lost tails. If we could understand how they do it we may be able to regenerate lost limbs.

Would someone who really understood the intricacies of gecko physiology say something this inane? Are these the words of a “prophet” with a direct line to the creator of the universe? Can you imagine the “most perfect of God’s creations” saying anything of the sort.

Danielle,
Poor grateful. Poor fundamentalists.

Pity the poor fundamentalists and their DAMAGED SOULS but NEVER try to appease them.

I suspect we've travelled this road many times before, Boaz.

>>Fortunately, that single saying of Jesus is not 'The Gospel'<<

And my question, as always, is "so why do you not have the common courtesy to apply the same rules to other scriptures?"

>>when the Gospel is proclaimed, it is accompanied by education, teaching, discipling. During such, the meaning of those sayings is passed on, by those who have had the training and education to know about them<<

Naturally.

Without this constant, internal, closed-loop reinforcement, the writings themselves would quickly become just another historical document, among many. The specific selection of the current Gospels was for precisely this purpose, as you know, and any documents that provided unsanctioned observations and commentary were summarily suppressed.

>>...your own lack of theological training, causes you to seek refuge in simply mocking or ridiculing that which you don't understand<<

I see it differently.

My own lack of theological training leaves me free to decide upon these matters with an open, unindoctrinated mind.

And for the record, I don't mock the documents themselves, only those people who have been trained to see them from a very narrow, highly constrained viewpoint.

>>I can apply the 3 yrs of formal training and the years of personal experience and interaction with 100s of Muslims to the matter of 'understanding holy writ'.<<

Of course you can.

The only thing that you clearly cannot do, is to view them without the massive preconceptions that your own propaganda machine has created over the centuries.

You may think that this leads to 'understanding holy writ', but I suspect that this may just be yet another of the illusions that you live under.