Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are you talking about now? I mentioned prophets because that is what we are discussing. I did so to avoid meaningless comments about others that we are not discussing. I see no amount of clarification can prevent meaningless contentions. We are not discussing David, Samson, Alli, or Uthman. We are or were supposed to be discussing Muhammad. I guess that since he is indefensible that any other subject will is used as a diversion.
Oh nothing. Just pointing out the hypocrisy you have repeatedly shown throughout this thread.
The first part of your statement is certainly correct, the rest was wrong and made for effect. I could not have been hypocritical because Muhammad's actions, for which I gave evidence have not even been defended. This is more white noise. It is expected from Islam, anytime someone points out inconvenient FACTS about Islam or Muhammad the response is almost always instant hostility, unjustified assertions, person remarks, claims (but almost never demonstrations) of bias, historical non-sence, and occasional threats. If you resent the well deserved stereotype then stop being so typical. If you have anything to claim about Muhammad then bring it on, the rest of this color commentary is useless and not helping Islam (and it needs all it can get). I wish a civil discussion, not trivial and inaccurate assertions used as a diversion. Do you have any argument to post #368 at all because I am posting the next series of Muhammad's unjust violent attacks next and we have many to get through.Oh nothing. Just pointing out the hypocrisy you have repeatedly shown throughout this thread.
I can't keep track with who said what (only that no one has counter my claims about Muhammad). I do not think I said, that you said they set foot in Spain. You said Muslims had something to do with the renaissance. I showed that was not true in any meaningful way whether the Muslims had been to Spain or not. Another poster did claim that, and they are right. Islam's brief high-water mark occurred in Spain. That is where they first ran into those devastating Knights instead of nomads and primitives (excepting Constantinople). They were in Spain but even if you never said so, you did say they caused the enlightenment and they did not, though I am sure they had some little part in it. No list I looked at listed a single Muslim as having any major role in Europes scientific revolution.
I have never really made an argument that any religion produces science. It is however intuitive the think that the one true religion should produce very good scientists. It is also mandatory that if that books speaks to science that it be accurate. Outside this I make few claims and have only been responding to claims by others about science.
That would only be true if God was in fact trapped by circumstances. The Bible is full of God winning battles without any Earthly reason for victory. He scatters armies and annihilates empires without the need for human military effort many times. The only context a God can be limited to is his own personal revelation. The Biblical prophets and the stories about them are saturated with God's actions and demonstrations. Muhammad's are saturated with pettiness, jealousy, an almost moral insanity, human weakness and fear, inconsistency, and viciousness. Most lack even a logical motivation for Allah. Muhammad simply celebrates at times on hearing a man who was never ordered to be killed was hacked to pieces, he mutilated men that were no threat to anyone, and he even killed poets because he did not like what they said. It is not any God that deserves worship that would order those actions nor is there any evidence he did so. God of course has the right to kill but it is what context it is done that a prophet must be examined. If we were discussing the military merits of commanders then your context is appropriate but not a prophet of an almighty God. Ponder this: in the first 13 peaceful years of Islam Muhammad acquired less than 150 followers, in the next 10 blood soaked years he acquired about 100,000. Now our mission is to determine whether that is more consistent with a divine message from God or the fact that booty, power, and revenge made Muhammad and Islam grow. Christianity on the other hand exploded after its prophet (who never harmed a soul and was sinless) conquered death itself and while being persecuted by the most powerful empire on Earth. Which one looks divine? Mine based in the conquoring of death, theirs is based on causing it.
I wonder who those giants were. I wonder if any of them were Muslim.
I know, I know!fantôme profane;3325173 said:
The Muslims sure didn't. I will give the Arabs credit for the name but the core truths of algebra go back thousands of years before anyone ever heard of Islam. I have a math degree and know very well that even the ancient Egyptians knew much of algebra, and the Greeks composed the bulk of it. The Muslims simply added on to what the Greeks had already been doing for hundreds of years.fantôme profane;3325173 said:
Wikipedia is going to educate us into imbecility. The most famous theorem in algebra is the Pythagorean theorem. Pythagoras existed 200 plus years before Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. I guess someone should have told Pythagorus that what he was doing was ont invented yet. The Egyptians should have also been told because they were doing all kinds of things that Islam had yet to invent 2500years before it even existed.
Well done, 1robin. I was hoping you would catch that.
What is also interesting is that the fall of Andalusa also marked the major turning point in Islamic scientific achievement. Once Ferdi and Issy tossed them out of the Iberian peninsula the Islamic scientific establishment never recovered. From 1492 to today, the Islamic contribution to science has been meager, at best.
No, it was actually about 90% of all non-Bahai sites.
The most profound issues in human history written in archaic, prophetic and apocalyptic styles; may times symbolic cant help but produce differences of opinion. They exist in all subjects and issues. Logic is not what dictates doctrine. Miracles are not logical yet thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) have witnessed them. We hope we are resurrected from the dead. What logic is that based in? I did not mean that the same 90% agree on the same issues. I meant that on most issues 90% will have similar views. Each issue may have a different 90% and some are closer to half but most are almost universal. If this makes some difference to something I would be happy to take the views of the top commentators as representing orthodox Christianity.
I would say that is possible concerning maybe 50% of the prophecies about Jesus. However 50% of them can only apply to Jesus and that fact settles what the other 50% are referring to. It is hard to allow Jewish beliefs to affect anything because they have the greatest motivation for bias humanly possible. They killed God. Or caused him to be killed. Can there possibly be a greater motivation for bias even in theory. 1st century Judaism was notoriously static and unyielding and they pretty much rejected everything that challenged their views. If you tell me to what purpose you are using this for I might be able to give a more comprehensive reply.
Where is this "correct" history that allows you to claim this?
According to Baha'i everyone has distorted everything, but some guy who lived most of his life in jail and never performed a genuine miracle I am aware of and who is a virtual unknown in general, (scholars of even comparative religion seldom mention Bahai) has resolved everything without the benefit of rigorous and long training in scholastic environments. You can claim that, you may believe that, but I see no evidence for it. All the prophets who could demonstrate their supernatural source came from one line, neither Muhammad nor the Bahaullah belonged to it. They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My prophets were parting seas and coming back from the dead, until Muhammad or the Bab can do anything like this why in the world would I believe them. Can you post the exact nature of Christ as the Baha'i claim it to be?
I am aware of that and it makes no difference to the claim made. I said Spain because few would know what the Iberian Peninsula was. The final battles actually occurred in France but I saw no need for these peripheral details. The point still stands they were gone approx a hundred years before the enlightenment and lacked influence in Christian Europe long before that.
You do have me here though. My claims should have been concerning the end of Islamic expansion not the end of Islam in Spain. That occurred later. I guess I can give you that one as it was misstated. However the issue was Islamic influence on the enlightenment and in that my facts are absolute and undeniable. That was not even the original issue (it was used as a diversion). The actual issue was Muhammad’s unjustified violence (at Badr) in this case but I will soon post his next massacres and assassinations and hopefully they, not science or the Bible will be discussed.
I agree, however I had to clarify my claims about Islam and Spain in the previous post. I made comments about their defeat but applied it to their being driven out of Spain and that was incorrect.Well done, 1robin. I was hoping you would catch that.