Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Religion on SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IN_GOD_I_TRUST who wrote (1151)	9/25/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1542

This is very extensive and appears to be impressive research. My wife is from Cairo Egypt. She has a PhD in Engineering. Your friend is paranoid. There are Churches everywhere, there are every kind of people, and they mix and discuss issues freely. Christian holidays are celebrated, etc. etc. It is the closest thing you can find to western society, in the Middle East. I took a few lessons in Arabic language, it is pretty easy to learn. If there were...ANY...disputes over where the little dots and squiggles were meant to be placed in fourteen hundred years by Arabic Language scholars including from the non-Muslim sector. This kind of research would be an eye opener. Remember, copies are still archived of the texts as they were before the diacritical points were used. Your friend isn't saying the text is false, he is using a gigantic propoganda ploy to get acceptance by people who are marching on the Christian Crusade. I can see why your friend wants to remain anonymous, this is a clear agenda meant to mislead ignorant but willing participants. Any third grade Arabic student would laugh at this. It has nothing to do with his fear of persecution over his religious beliefs. As I've said before I'm not a scholar, and in this particular area I am pretty close to ignorant. I have been following your discussion with Raymond and respect the approach the two of you have taken. That is, attempting to authenticate your positions with the "plain truth" which can be varified through scripture and authenticated historical documents. This seems like a breach. The reason I put quotes around the "plain truth" above, is that a rediculous arguement could be made that in the English language there are several kinds of plains. There is plane, there is plain, and there are homonyms. So, is the real meaning of "plain truth" obscured. If a foreign group wanted someone to take exception to our doctrines and writings and tell non-English speaking people that Americans must believe the truth is brought in the Airforce One "plane, and move through our language to deliberately disuade their folk it could easily be done. An linguistic propoganda campaign would be easily successful if it was aimed at people who's inkling was one of prejudice against Americans. Why because such people tend not to question even the obvious when it supports their position. No, the real meaning of the "plain truth" is not obscured for English speaking people. The language clearly represents and confirms for each of us what is in our hearts and minds by its intended use. This is not a rediculus example it is equal to this persons anonymous presentation. You are not doing something good the World or you Christian mission, in promoting it. Like in the example I gave above; the Christian, non-Arabic group needing to justify their position that the Quran is not the word of God, would find this presentation sufficiant and not want to question it, but only if we presume they are not persuing the truth at all cost and that they are strengthening their geo-political position at all costs.

To: IN_GOD_I_TRUST who wrote (1151)	9/25/1998 1:20:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1542

<<One of the common claims which many Muslims make is that the Holy Bible is "hand made", implying that it has been corrupted and changed bu man.>> Yes, many (All) Muslims, and most Christian scholars. <<The Bible is widely available in its original texts, both Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, for any and all who want to research it.>> If you mean "The Bible" as in the text of "The Word of God," show me where I can find the original texts that were authored by God. When you show me this text I will accept it as authentic, if I can see undisputable evidence that the text as it exists in this "original form" is made up of God's statements to us and that it is a complete book of God's message to us. I want to have undisputable evidence that the author (God) gave this text to a specific person (messenger)or persons to be delivered to us and that it has been protected from translations which add to, take away, or include inventions on its meaning. I've seen your book, and I've talked to your priests and scholars. The King James Version does not meet my criteria, nor do the references you gave as original text. Because, there is an adherence to using a go-between in your community, I also don't know if you and I could ever see eye to eye on this because you would have to give up the go-betweens to ever have the clear sightedness to see beyond your worldly alliances. This is a fundamental conflict that is not likely to be resolved here. I think you know what I mean by go-between, but I will explain myself any way. For us no one is allowed to communicate for us with God. Our judge is God alone. Any believers, including messengers have been permitted only to give us clear warning and messengers have been strengthened to live as examples of the way to God. That's it, no pope, priest, minister, scholar, brother or friend can bless me, or forgive me (except obviously for a personal behavioral offence) during or at the end of this life, or contribute to that act. The job is taken. It's God's job. God is all powerful and needs no partner. I fear my God and his judgement. I fear nothing else and no one else and I worship nothing else. From a Muslim perspective I have to love Jesus, and consider the life of Jesus to be the way to salvation. The conclusion to be drawn from the Christian perspective of salvation, is that I have nothing to fear (I'm saved). For Muslims it is different. The purpose in life for a Muslim is to struggle, persevere in our trials and tribulations, seek Gods guidance, strength, forgiveness and mercy. The purpose as I understand it for Christians is 1)you should convince everyone else they are already saved, and 2)do what ever you want. Now when I read the KJV I saw a great deal more than that, but it all seems to go to mush when the Christianity Label needs to back it up. If there are more standards that are universally Christian please correct me. I've tried to identify even one or two in the past but when put to the test by the Universal Christian stance, they don't hold up. Even the Golden Rule becomes foggy for me here. Does it mean like in Islam "Love for your Brother, what you love for yourself," which is Gods religion. Or, does it mean tolerate everything, never judge peoples behavior. As long as the Hustler magazine publisher declares John 3:16, let him out of prison early so he can get back to work. I think it is used both ways and the Church(s) don't have a clear position that is obvious and universal. I would pick the first one and reject the second one but I don't speak for Christianity.

To: IN_GOD_I_TRUST who wrote (1151)	9/25/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1542

<<May you allow me to share with you this short study on the grammatical problems in the Arabic text of the Quran. The English reader may not fully recognize the importance of diacritical points in the Arabic language. We will cover this in our study. To begin, it must be emphasized (as has been done) that the Quran was originally written in the Arabic language WITHOUT DIACRITICAL POINTS, as this was the nature of Arabic writings at the inception of Islam.>> Any third grade Arabic student could see through this. The Quranic texts are clear, authenticated, and undisputably verified as maintaining pure and original meaning (By Islamic and Non-Islamic Scholars, repeatedly, generation after generation over 1400 years). I'm sure this anonymous author knows it. Notice he doesn't claim the meaning was changed, he only claims language scholars if they wanted to could have done this or that and thus corrupted it, through grammatical trickery. Rediculas, if you know much about how the Quranic texts, and the Hadith were authenticated you also know this would have been impossible to get away with. Again, with his background I'm sure he knows that. The extent that he went to in order to reach his conclusion, clearly should show everyone that it is not an attempt to perform true analysis or research. It is an attempt to exploit an ignorant audience. This is not offensive to Muslims or Arabs, except by the obvious intent to deceive. Its not aimed at us, it is aimed at the Christian community. <<This article was received from one of our Christian brothers living in Egypt who chooses to remain anonymous due to the very real threat of of Islamic retaliation. He is native Egyptian and Arabic is his native language. >> Buyers beware, this guy is an obvious creepy, coniving, manipulator. He is playing on your lack of information about Islam, Arabic, and Egypt. What a con artist. He is not worried about what may have happened in Quranic History. Look at his grammatical manipulation for a calculated result. NO educated person would buy this. As I said previously, in Cairo there are Churches everywhere, the government doctrines declare religious tolerance, Muslims and Christians are welcome to discuss their issues openly. They freely associate and mix every where in the culture. The reasons for his anonymity have nothing to do with his fear of Islamic retaliation. Propagandizing to bolster, and bandwagon a movement is very dangerous, but it is most destructive to the movement itself in the long run. You're calling him a "Christian Brother." See, here is an example of what I was refering to in my last post. There are no standards as long as the Christian movement is advanced and in the process the Christian movement demonstrates a shedding of principles. Really Steve, this is amazing. Did I miss something? This is way beneath what I followed in your previous posts.

To: IN_GOD_I_TRUST who wrote (1151)	9/25/1998 4:57:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1542

<<Remember, the original Quranic language was not punctuated. Punctuation was added later by non-divinely inspired laymen who were fluent in the Arabic language and nothing more. This confession is very logic for us, the Christians. But if this was the confession of Muhammad and his Quran, what would then be the outcome? Ponder, think, then decide. It is fascinating to consider that the story of the Quran can be given a completely different direction and the history and religion of Islam can be turned over by just one diacritical point.>> From your perspective this might actually contain Christian logic at its best. Why? Because, the history of your book, culture, and teachings is reflected right here. Poetry, with no claim to divine authorship is included in your book. The only claim is that the person given credit for the poetry believes in God. Historical text, again with no claim of divine authorship is included. We don't even know who the authors of these texts were. There are letters from members of the Christian movement there too. Again no claims that God told them to give these words as a message to the world. But they had some historical significance so in they go. And there are plenty of things that were passed down as historical record by word of mouth. throw that in and say its Gods Words. The Words of God given to his messengers are also in the text, but in this case we have no way of knowing if they are authentic, complete, incomplete, or accurate, because we don't know who the original person was who was setting this stuff down in print and under what circumstances. There is plenty of religious text that is comparable to the text included in your book but it didn't make the cut. So its not in the Bible. At the time of the great compilation, there were already many Christian sects living in contention (as they do today) over what God intended as the (Christian Word of God) so, a group, representing one powerful sect sat down and took all of the literature they could compile and selected a small sample out of the stuff that supported their groups position and it was a done deal. There is a great deal of specific, authenticated, historical and Christian literature to support the description I just gave of the creation of the Christian Holy Bible. There is no evidence that God authorized that particular collection. There is a great deal of evidence that through the peer pressure of the ages, everyone is pressured to just go along with it, and crusade for it. Since then, of course there have been major conflicts throughout the world disputing one version or another from among the Christian Sects. Of the more that seventy DIFFERENT "authorized" versions now in existence, you can not claim authentication of any of them as the complete unadulterated Word of God. God didn't authorize any of them or they wouldn't be different. It doesn't look like voting or majority rule works out in this case. Or, if you did you would have the majority of the Christian community disputing it. So, you could say you believe it, but you can't say its Christian in the sense the Christians universally believe it. So, you want to make a point that the same things are true of the Quran. Sorry, it isn't text that was discovered laying around later to be studied in new translated languages to try to get at its original meaning. It wasn't compiled and voted on as representative. Every kind of text that may have some barring on the message contained between its cover wasn't added to it. It was delivered as the Word of God, only the Word of God, nothing less and nothing more. From the moment it was delivered it was clearly understood and conveyed to believers. These people committed it to memory and recitation. The requirements for the articulation of every phoneme of the recitation has been authenticated from the moment of its delivery into the world. The science of preserving the traceability of every aspect of it to authenticate it is extensively verifiable from many sources from the beginning of its delivery until now. I'm really more akin to discussing your Christian perspective that this, because to knowledgeable people there really has never been anything found in the Quran that is criticizable by people who believe in God. The closest criticism thats ever gained any following is that Mohammad plagerized from the Torah. That argument doesn't really pan out either. Be careful, your eternal soul is being weighed in the balance here. It is one thing to seek knowledge of the truth through a healthy educational discourse. I can stand on my statements regarding the Holy Bible and I can find academic support for those statements from within Christianity and from secular literature. I don't think that in and of itself discounts for Christians any of their principles of faith. When you begin to speculate or attack something out of a sense of patriotism or affilial loyalty, make very sure up front that it is not Gods Word. Your eternal soul does depend on it. Are you sure you can back up your claims against the Quran? You might need to in front of God on judgement day. We're not talking about which club membership everybody would benefit from most here. If not 100% convinced, I would hold off on critisizing the Quran until you are, and until you have irrefutable evidence. If it is the truth, as I believe, and you are missrepresenting it and discouraging others from considering it, your soul will be held accountable on judgement day. If however, you are convinced God did not send this message to human beings through Mohammad, I will consider your critique.