Guest User lookism Colonel Resurrected muslim islam MOSQUE

a guest
Mar 21st, 2019
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. BY @"Colonel Resurrected"
  3. It's a shame your so piss poor at reading between the lines then
  5. Once you realise that God exists, and that he is One, and infinite in all his attributes; there is no place to oppose Islam for it carries with it a clear message with proofs for those who are open-minded.
  7. Do you really think you came from nothing? Deep down inside... do you really believe that? God exists. And God is One. And God is infinite in his attributes.
  9. Your conflating physical matter which is inherently contingent on external causes, to something which does not need to be contingent, by definition. In other words, in the context of a timeless transcendent state, there is no requirement of contingency. Contingency applies to observable phenomena, not metaphysical constructs
  11. Meaning, God doesnt need to come from something because he trancends universal laws of contingency. the only way to argue out of this is to claim that something observable escapes contingency, which is an absurdity.
  13. You have two options. Believe that everything literally came from nowhere, or believe that there is an a-contingent first cause that transcends physical laws of physics and logic. Only a fool would choose to believe the former. Its clear the idea of a first cause is the most reasonable position to take.
  15. Muslims do not reject the observarional fact that Jesus was crucified. The predominant opinion in Islam is that God made it appear to the disbelievers that Jesus was being crucified by changing the face of another. This was to hide Jesus's ascension to heaven. So we do not reject historical fact at all.
  17. The rules of reason are by necessity certain. The certainty pf abstract concepts like numbers and the rules of reason cannot be compared to the essence of an existential thing.
  19. Also, using something certain to ascertain God's certainty, doesnt attenuate the certainty of the conclusion in any way. Full certainty is full certainty, regardless of the antecedent to that certainty
  21. Also, the requirement of subjective certainty in God, doesnt necessarily necissitate establishing 100% certainty in proof. 100% subjective certainty can alternatively be attained by establishing the overwhelmingl probability of God's existence, with faith taking it the rest of the way. Certainty is a subjective thing, unlike proof. My position is that it is overhelmingly likely on the proofs that God exists, but that it cannot be 100% proven. However i have full subjective certsinty based on the overwhelming probability, with my faith extending that 'reason to believe' into full certainty.
  23. I suppose what i meant to say was certain to the best of human perception of reality. There are certain inductive presuppositions that we have to make in order to arrive at any conclusion. Im speaking on the premise that these inductive presuppositions are accepted. I see nothing but an assetion that the twin arguments kf causation and co ntingency are bad arguments. They may not be certsin arguments, sure, but they are enougjh to establish certainty flowing from acceptance of basic inductive premises
  26. More to the point, they help establish the threshold of reasomable faith. That is by far the most important part... more so than being inattentuable or acting as a certain proof.
  28. Ill have a look at the link tomorrow.
  30. Thanks for the links, i am interested in the problem of induction and the nature of empricism. All fascinating topics. Im glad to find someone on here with half a brain
  32. I feel like im talking to mindless zombies on here most of the time
  34. How does history demonstrate Jesus of Nazareth being crucified, in any way other than in inference from his outward presentation
  36. The Satanic verses orginate from a history book complied by early historians of Islamic history. The authors of these histories expliclty mention at the start of their books, that the content mentioned within is an aggregate of all possible information about Islamic history, regardless of its authenticity. So, much of the content of these histories contained information likely to be false, according to the authors themselves. The methodology used by Islamic scholars to prise apart truth from falsehood was in the science of transmission. This is a whole, dedicated science within Islamic academia. As muslims we are obliged to affirm content that the scholars of transmission have analysed to be reliable. The rest we reject or simply do not affirm. The Satanic Verses are an example of a story mentioned in the eclectic history book, and was determined by the scholars of transmission to be an unreliable event
  38. You are right that the stort you mentioned relating to Jesus in the Quran was found in one of the Gnostic gospels. If you recall, Islam affirms that there is truth and falsehood in the various Gospels. Islam didnt limit this afrirmation to the canonical gospels of orthodox Christianity. Ratherr, we view the early Church Fathers' assignment of canonicty to be an unreliable representation of the truth of Christ. So, for us there is no superiority over the so-called canonical gospels, and the apocryphal ones
  40. So, we believe that there is likely to be truth in both thr canonical and Apocryphal Gospels. Naturally, this could include the story you mentioned. The Quran makes no claims about offering unique of new information on Christ that wasnt mentioned before.
  42. For a secular analyst of Islamic history, it offers an insight into the influences that shaped Muhammad's understanding of Christ. For us, its simply neither here nor there
  44. I concede that the historical crucifiction of 'Jesus' is a historical fact. The claim regarding Thomas however, is far from it. Shroud of Turin ill have to look into. The empty tomb is irrelevant. Assuming that the Islamic narrative is accurate, the empty tomb could obviously still have occured, especially of God's replacement for Jesus on the cross wasnt a real human.
  46. I havent got time to read the books. Im sure they dont offer any information that i cannot access more succintly
  48. Ok. Whats the gist of it though?
  50. I agree with these things though. I agree that jesus' 'resurrection' was a historical fact
  52. I cannot speak for the individual itens mentioned, but i agree with the historiciry of what appeares to be jesus resurrevction. I believe that it offers a convinving argument for the truth of the Abrahamic message. One of the many convincing arguments in favour of abrahamic faith
  54. Correct. And none of that conflicts with the historical fact that outwardly, his death and resurrection occured
  56. Its one of many arguments that i believe really established a high probability of Abrahamic message being true. To me it is as clear as day
  58. I will look into the Shroud point. I wont read the book, id rather that you gave me the gist of what it holds
  60. As a muslim, j dont believe in the veracity of Isiaah, so it is no proof for me. But i suppose the argument is that it predates Jesus and prophecises certain things about him
  62. Are there specific, monointerpretational references to an actual (not perceived) crucifiction of christ? Bear in mind, as Muslims we dont necessarily oppose a form of resurrection of christ. Where we would necessarily differ with christians is in thr character of that resurrection. So to be wielded as an argumentf against us, Isiah must contain unambigous, specfic references to an actual (and not perceived) crucifixtion
  64. The Quran is the Speech of Allah and is therefore uncreated. The writing of said Speech is created and fallible. Literacy in those times was very low. It would be astonishing if therr were no mistakesz not the other way around
  66. Where is the specific reference to Christ here? Even if it is Christ, it doesnt necessarily refer to the Crucifiction itself. We agree thay christ was persecuted, we only dispute the fact of crucidiction
  68. Youre also assuming a literal interpretation where the OT is replete with superlatives and metaphors for experince
  70. We consider the OT to have a divine origin, but the cureent content of which is not fully divine
  72. I think your attempt to prove Islam wrong on this point is very misdirected. I am with the Christians in their claim against secularists regarding the historicity of the crucifiction and resurrection
  74. See my last comment. I would be the one actually supporting what youre writing, thats the irony of this
  76. Sure, but im going to bed. I will reply in the morning. What do you have to say about the Divinity of Christ? To me, it is the biggest absurdity of Orthodox Christianity. I am however, fair in that i feel like Christianity isnt necessarily tied up with the idea of Christ's divinity. So i fault the interprtaimtive faculties of 3rd century church fathers, not the faith itself
  78. I dont actually have much to say about the faults of Christianity when isolated from its renditions later on. In fact, Islam's claims are mostly with regards to the later as opposed to the faith itself
  80. Oh people! Heed the call of the Noble Prophets! Heed the words of our Master Jesus, our master Abraham, and our master Moses! Abandon your false god, material worship. Before its too late, and your soul is lost forber
  82. [img][/img]
  83. [img][/img]
  84. [img][/img]
  85. [img][/img]
  86. [img][/img]
  87. [img][/img]
  88. [img][/img]
  90. [img=806x511][/img]
  92. [img=806x543][/img]
  94. [img=806x605][/img]
  96. [img][/img]
  98. [img][/img]
  101. Brother please, spare a muslim 72 virgins
  104. [img][/img]
  105. [img][/img]
  107. I am not, no. However, I visit Pakistan frequently as it borders my father's homeland of Kashmir. Kashmir is occupied by the cow-worshippers! It is only a matter of time before my father's homeland is returned from the hands of the cow-worshippers to the hands of the Monotheists. Into the hands of those that declare that there is no god except God, and that Muhammad (upon whom be peace), is his final Messenger!
  109. My mother's homeland is the rolling hills of the British Isles. The land of Celts and resisters of Roman tyranny. The Roman Empire which our master Umar swept aside! I am certain that my Celtic ancestors would have declared the Unity and Oneness of God, had they received the message. The Italian tyrants made sure our glorified religion never reached the corners of Northern Europe. My mother took on the burden of her people and accepted the testimony of our Master Muhammad (upon whom be peace).
  112. Brother please, use your brain a little. I said that my father's homeland is Kashmir, and my mother's homeland is the British Isles. So I am half English/Welsh, and half Kashmiri.
  114. All Kashmiris REJECT India and anything related to Indian tyranny and oppression. We are a totally different, Islamic people who were invaded and occupied by Indian cow-worshippers! We have nothing to do with Indians and we are under occupation! We want our independence and out freedom. Kashmiris are closer ethnically to Afghans than to Indians. My fathers family case is a bit more complicated though because it's not clear whether we are indigenous Kashmiris or not. It is possible that we have some Indian Rajasthani blood in addition to Kashmiri, but it is unclear from the history.
  116. [img][/img]
  118. Prophet Mohammed raped A'isha at age 9
  120. [video=youtube][/video]
  122. Islam is Satan worship
  124. [img][/img]
  126. [img][/img]
  127. [img][/img]
RAW Paste Data