Allah made everything in pairs.

[MastaBlaster]

whats up, bin trashbin. you know, its stupid how you cut down a post with questions in the beginning, which are answered in the middle or end of the post.
im gonna do the same with your post just to annoy you hahaha

Saying that everything is created in pairs is telling us about need and interconnection?

yes

Who told you that?

mighty quran

How did you create this arbitrary bridge?

context of verses, unlike what you do when you arbitrarly cut part of a sentence without looking at what the surrounding verses say

The earth is a person with needs?

no its a thing in need of its pair to fulfill its existential goal

Water and life are people with goals?

no they are things in need of eachother to fulfill their existential goal

What is the name of the cow that told you about her needs and goals?

her name is "la vache qui rit"

I'd like to speak to her

she lives in belgium now, thats her website http://www.lavachequirit.be where you can find her contact number

Verse please?

move your lazy butt. verses 2 & 3

What about the many mutual needs between 3 or more people?

they exist of course

Needs and goal fulfillment do not just come in pairs

they start at least between 2 things

It really cracks me up

take it easy with crack

How do you lie to yourself like this?

this aint no lie, so i dont know what u talkin about

Doesn't it bother you in the least?

yeah you're buggin me a bit with your basic questions, sticky zombie

Can't you see why this is why people think Muslims are such liars and don't trust them?

my friend is muslim and works for a huge investement group. people trust him with millions, so again i dont know what u talkin about when you say people dont trust muslims

the Quran doesn't say Allah makes us test ourselves..he doesn't already know that or else otherwise he wouldn't need to test us

God knows all things, including what is in your heart 29:10-11. we are tested in order to bring into the realm of reality our true potential because God doesnt reward/punish for potential alone. The test brings into the realm of reality all latent potentials of perfection and defect and allows the person to express this potential in action. God is Omniscient but does not merely reward and punish people on the basis of His knowledge, He does so on the basis of their deeds 67:2"Who created death and life that He may try you-- which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving".
-the believer needs to reveal his faith through tests & trials. faith + deeds go hand in hand, the absence of one annuls the other
-the unbelievers needs to reveal his unbelief through tests & trials too

you're flying too low

Simple enough, right?

extremely simple and logic

All you are doing is inventing completely unsubstantiated nonsense

believe what you want, and interpret the quran following your low desires as long as you wish but make sure you do not die in your present state of rejection

Doesn't it bother you to have to do this?

dont know what you talkin about

Then why doesn't it say "help" each other?

it says it. "they are GUARDIANS of eachother..". see also 3:104 or 5:2 if you want mr stubborn

It certainly is not very difficult to say

true

All the Quran had to do was to say that it made male and female so that they could help each other and be dependent on each other.

this is what it says in the 2 verses i showed you. you want other verses mr stubborn? check 2:187 which portrays men and women as "libas" or garments of tranquility to eachother. they need eachother for protection against evil

But instead, we have it saying that Allah created ALL things in pairs. It didn't have to say ALL and the verse would be just fine without it.

no it wouldnt be because ALL THINGS have needs in order to exist and the only self-suficient being is Allah.

That's because the author thought this was true or else he never would have made a misleading blunder like this

it would have been a blunder if the author had omitted ALL as it would have contradicted His Supremacy over creation

especially considering that the author is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful and perfect.

He is all the things you mentionned, and more

So after all of this inventing

im not an inventor, i tried inventing some new cooking recepies the other day and my friends said it sucked. and regarding the topic, i have context, and all the surrounding verses in my favor while all you have is a few words isolated from a sentece in order to build up plenty of wild assumptions

and this giant smokescreen you have attempted

i dont smoke, maybe its the thick fog in front of your eyes because you drinked too much yesterday at the irish pub

the problem still comes down to the fact that it used the word ALL when it wasn't required at all in order to get it's point across.

the word ALL was required, and the point of the verse is clear, in context

next

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

whats up, bin trashbin. you know, its stupid how you cut down a post with questions in the beginning, which are answered in the middle or end of the post.
im gonna do the same with your post just to annoy you hahaha

Saying that everything is created in pairs is telling us about need and interconnection?

yes

Who told you that?

mighty quran

Where? This is your invention.

How did you create this arbitrary bridge?

context of verses, unlike what you do when you arbitrarly cut part of a sentence without looking at what the surrounding verses say'

All the surrounding verses tell us is what Allah does, send down rain etc.....

The earth is a person with needs?

no its a thing in need of its pair to fulfill its existential goal

How can it have needs? Are you telling me it's a cognizant entity with goals and a sense of fulfillment?

Water and life are people with goals?

no they are things in need of eachother to fulfill their existential goal

How can a non cognizant entity called water have any goals, even existential goals? And life, isn't even an entity at all, so that's even worse. Life is a concept of the mind that gathers together actual things that exist and puts them together into a concept or idea called "life". Only the objects of life exist, but life itself does not exist except as a concept created by the mind. I'm really not sure what is the matter with you.

What is the name of the cow that told you about her needs and goals?

her name is "la vache qui rit"

That's right, you can't answer it. Your ideas begin to sound silly when we ask the question the way I did above. You don't know anything about a cow's goals. Perhaps the only thing we can say about a cow's goal is that it seeks to preserve it's existence, just like any other creature. Do you mean to tell me that before human began riding horses, that wild horses felt that their existential goal of being ridden by humans was not met and therefore they felt unfulfilled?? Do you know how hard it is to break a horse? This is all falling apart on you.

I'd like to speak to her

she lives in belgium now, thats her website http://www.lavachequirit.be where you can find her contact number

Obviously you have no answer for the absurdity I have pointed out. How do you just make this stuff up for yourself without thinking that something's wrong?

Verse please?

move your lazy butt. verses 2 & 3

What about the many mutual needs between 3 or more people?

they exist of course

Well then there's nothing significant about pairs as you attempted to say. Pairs are not indicative of cooperation because cooperation often happens in groups much larger than pairs where multiple members can all need all of the other memebers. So again, your entire invention is falling apart.

Needs and goal fulfillment do not just come in pairs

they start at least between 2 things

But it's talking specifically about pairs, when pairs are a very small part of the concept of cooperation, so again, your idea is turning into invented nonsense.

It really cracks me up

take it easy with crack

No, it really IS funny. Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about having to go to the inventive lengths that you have to go to?

How do you lie to yourself like this?

this aint no lie, so i dont know what u talkin about

You don't think it's a lie because you are able to lie to yourself to tell yourself that it isn't a lie. Get it? Get it?

Doesn't it bother you in the least?

yeah you're buggin me a bit with your basic questions, sticky zombie

Basic questions that you can't answer properly. Every time we go to examine any of your ideas, they always fall apart.

Can't you see why this is why people think Muslims are such liars and don't trust them?

my friend is muslim and works for a huge investement group. people trust him with millions, so again i dont know what u talkin about when you say people dont trust muslims

I was talking about religious discussion. I'm sure that there are plenty of decent, honest Muslims about most matters of life, but when it comes to religious discussion, nobody is more willing to lie than Muslims. Nobody. I can't tell you how many different angles I have heard on this site, but I have never seen a group of people who are so consistently willing to make up whatever they can imagine with little or no regard for the truth or even intellectual integrity. Seems like nobody ever teaches Muslims about intellectual integrity. Often, when Muslims give excuses, they don't even really care whether the excuse is true or accurate, they just care if the excuse works. That's all that really matters.

the Quran doesn't say Allah makes us test ourselves..he doesn't already know that or else otherwise he wouldn't need to test us

God knows all things, including what is in your heart 29:10-11. we are tested in order to bring into the realm of reality our true potential because God doesnt reward/punish for potential alone.

Nice try, but i did not talk about punishment, I talked about testing. It clearly says that Allah tests us to SEE who is worthy. It does NOT say that Allah tests us to SHOW US who is worthy. Do you want to me to bring the verses? Once again, nice try, but it failed. Boy, you sure have a lot of stories don't you. It's a shame that none of them add up

The test brings into the realm of reality all latent potentials of perfection and defect and allows the person to express this potential in action. God is Omniscient but does not merely reward and punish people on the basis of His knowledge, He does so on the basis of their deeds 67:2"Who created death and life that He may try you-- which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving".
-the believer needs to reveal his faith through tests & trials.

Who is the believer revealing his faith to and why does he need to do it? Can something that is already known be revealed? Think about that.

faith + deeds go hand in hand, the absence of one annuls the other
-the unbelievers needs to reveal his unbelief through tests & trials too

you're flying too low

No, you're just not very educated philosophically. You really honestly don't see the problem, do you. Who is the non believer revealing his unbelief to and why does he need to do it? When you answer that, you'll see the problem. That's why you're not going to answer that.

Simple enough, right?

extremely simple and logic

Well. logic says your answer didn't work, and i explained exactly why.

All you are doing is inventing completely unsubstantiated nonsense

believe what you want, and interpret the quran following your low desires as long as you wish but make sure you do not die in your present state of rejection

Ya, know what? Make sure you do not die unless you accept Jesus as your savior. See? Anybody can do that. So where are we at? Do you see what a pointless statement you made? And you're not even listening to a single thing you're being shown. I don't think you are capable of that. I suppose it's too painful.

Doesn't it bother you to have to do this?

dont know what you talkin about

Then why doesn't it say "help" each other?

it says it. "they are GUARDIANS of eachother..". see also 3:104 or 5:2 if you want mr stubborn

But it doesn't say that in the verse that speaks about all things being created in pairs. Nice attempt at the old switcharoo. See? See what you just attempted?? I asked you why the verse that talks about all things being created in pairs didn't mention one single thing about help or cooperation, and surely it easily could have. So again, this is merely your arbitrary invention.

It certainly is not very difficult to say

true

All the Quran had to do was to say that it made male and female so that they could help each other and be dependent on each other.

this is what it says in the 2 verses i showed you.

But those verses are not intrinsically related to the one we are discussing. You are trying to divert the attention away from the verse in question and move the focus to other verses that might make your point, and you got caught.

you want other verses mr stubborn? check 2:187 which portrays men and women as "libas" or garments of tranquility to eachother. they need eachother for protection against evil

Saying that men and women help each other does not directly relate to ALL things being created in pairs. You really take a lot of liberties and make massive leaps, don't you. I don't think you even care whether your inventions are true or not, if they are merely remotely possible, then that's good enough for you, as long as it suits what you need it to be.

Now, let's review how you play the little shell game. When you need it to be talking about cooperation, you invoke other verses about man and woman and relate them to "pairs". So in that case, you need it to be the cooperation between two people, man and woman and man and woman of course relate to male and female sexes. But, when that doesn't work, you switch the meaning to be about an entity and it's needs. so that would mean it's not talking about men and women or the sexes, it's talking something much larger, an entity and it's needs. Well, if that's the case, then it's not talking about the sexes, so why would you invoke verses that talk specifically about the relationship between a man and woman?

I'm going to ask you a very clear question that I doubt you will clearly answer. When it talks about pairs, is it talking about male and female in nature, or is it talking about an entity and it's need (has to be singular if we are talking about a pair)? Male and female sexes and an entity and it's need are two very different things so it can't mean both. So which is it? And if we scratch the meaning of male and female sexes, then we don't need to bother with the verses about the relationship between men and women that you tried to introject. You have to pick one. You can't play a shell game and swap things out with each other as you need to.

But instead, we have it saying that Allah created ALL things in pairs. It didn't have to say ALL and the verse would be just fine without it.

no it wouldnt be because ALL THINGS have needs in order to exist and the only self-suficient being is Allah.

So "needs" translates into "pairs". How absolutely amazing. And the more amazing part, is that I think you actually believe this. Wow!!!

So, let's see. We have a tree. And a tree needs water, and water needs a tree to hydrate, so there's the pair, right? That's why it said pairs. But wait, I forgot, a tree needs sunlight too. So would the tree's survival needs be described as something that has anything to do with pairs, or is it now something that has a threefold relationship? Oh, wait, I forgot. A tree needs the soil too. So now we're up to 4. Whoops, it needs CO2 also, so now we're up to 5. Doesn't look like the concept of pairs is a very good explanation of the survival needs of a tree. In fact, the concept of pairs seems to have very little to with the survival of a tree. So therefore, once again, we are staring at a blatant invention on your part that simply doesn't add up at the end of the day. How can you make all of this stuff up and think there is nothing wrong with doing this? where is your sense of integrity?

Come on, let's be honest with ourselves for once, ok? Why shouldn't anybody interpret that verse to be speaking of the male and female sexes? The only reason anybody has to go through even 1/4 of the acrobatics that you are going through is because if you don't, then a potential error is exposed. Otherwise, you wouldn't even bother with all of this highly unlikely nonsense and would merely interpret it at face value. But see, you NEED it to be something else. So this verse was talking about the pair which consists of you and your need for the Quran to be error free. Boy, you really are quite the character aren't you. I'd like to say that you are the most blatantly inventive Muslim I have ever ran into, but you have some very stiff competition from other Muslims that have come here. You just wouldn't believe some of the things I've heard.

[MastaBlaster]

mr stubborn bin trashbin,

so ya think you gonna drag me in a useless discussion? i explained you the context of these verses where "all things are made in pairs", i showed you how they speak of the interrelation of various phenomena, and various creatures and other things. i showed you in the quran that all things have an existential goal for which they were created, they need at least their pair in order to fulfill that goal. no, its not because they have more needs that it contradicts this notion, do any of the verses about things being made "in pairs" 43:12,36:36,13:3 have the word ONLY? does it say that the things were made ONLY IN PAIRS? and where do these verses even speak of reproduction, which was the argument of the first poster on this thread?? hahaha
even if these things dont reach their goal it doesnt change anything to the fact they are bound to their needs as it is linked to their existential goal.
when i referred to life being in need of rain, i meant the living things.
and about the cartoon network example of horses dying before humans started riding them, how do you know their existential goal for which they were created at that time was not different?
and no, man and women being in need of eachother does not contradict entities with their existential goals and needs. its the same theme of necessary cooperation between all things created, the only independent entity being God.

and the part about the test. i frankly dont know what are you still talkin about on God's omniscience, after i showed you that Allah knows what is in every heart and that the goal of tests is to bring to the realm of reality our latent potentials of good and evil so that the day we are raised, we will have no arguments as to what we "would have done" in a certain situation.
anyone can say he is a believer but the extent of his belief will only become manifest when he is confronted to a certain situation or test. success = faith + deeds.
here is another verse for you (as if all those i gave were not sufficient hahaha). in 3:140-143 which came in the conteext of the battle of uhud, it reminds the believers how some of them were ready for martydom when they went to defend their faith and families at the battlefiel, but when they came face to face with death, they turned their backs. So how then can it be possible for them to enter heaven merely because of that desire without being tested, and their true potential actively brought into the realm of reality?

Every time we go to examine any of your ideas, they always fall apart

hahahaha

[holypigballs]

make pair can. made man woman. that aslo a pair one. made many things pair pair.

[Pragmatist]

make pair can. made man woman. that aslo a pair one. made many things pair pair.

You are not very good at this English stuff are you.

[holypigballs]

no good. littal bit english. can?

[Pragmatist]

make pair can. made man woman. that aslo a pair one. made many things pair pair.

But not ALL thats why the koran and allah is WRONG

[piscohot]

-we are in need of the earth for a "resting place" and the earth needs us to fulfill its goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair
-life needs the water pouring down from the sky and the water needs life in order to fulfill its existential goal, therefore forming a pair
-we are in need of the cattle for transport and the cattle need us to fulfill their goal, therefore forming a pair

You are picking up Ahmed's bad habits, Mastabater. You are becoming shameless in making up stories.

Water and fishes are a pair. Water and humans are a pair. Water and plants are a pair. Water and waterfalls are a pair. Water and my car's radiator are a pair.

Man and horses are a pair. Man and camels are a pair. Man and motorcycles are a pair. Man and cars are a pair. Man and submarines are a pair.

Tell us, Mastabater,

Was Muhammad and his 13 wives a pair too?

[Cassie]

do any of the verses about things being made "in pairs" 43:12,36:36,13:3 have the word ONLY? does it say that the things were made ONLY IN PAIRS?

It's the word "ALL" that's the dead giveaway.

036.036
YUSUFALI: Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs ALL things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge.

[Pragmatist]

-we are in need of the earth for a "resting place" and the earth needs us to fulfill its goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair
-life needs the water pouring down from the sky and the water needs life in order to fulfill its existential goal, therefore forming a pair
-we are in need of the cattle for transport and the cattle need us to fulfill their goal, therefore forming a pair

You are picking up Ahmed's bad habits, Mastabater. You are becoming shameless in making up stories.

Water and fishes are a pair. Water and humans are a pair. Water and plants are a pair. Water and waterfalls are a pair. Water and my car's radiator are a pair.

Man and horses are a pair. Man and camels are a pair. Man and motorcycles are a pair. Man and cars are a pair. Man and submarines are a pair.

Tell us, Mastabater,

Was Muhammad and his 13 wives a pair too?

Don't know about MastaBater but when I look at cows I think of milk and steaks seems he likes to ride them and I am dying to know what a cows 'goal' is and even more interested in finding out how MastaBater KNOWS what a cows 'goal' is.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

mr stubborn bin trashbin,

so ya think you gonna drag me in a useless discussion?

No, I think I'm being very thorough and clear as I point out the problems in your statements piece by piece

i explained you the context of these verses where "all things are made in pairs"

Here's some context for you.

22:5 (Y. Ali) ....... thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).

23:27 (Y. Ali) So We inspired him (with this message): "Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance: then when comes Our Command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take thou on board pairs of every species, male and female,

31:10 (Y. Ali) He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs.

35:11 (Y. Ali) And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs.

36:36 (Y. Ali) Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge.

42:11 (Y. Ali) (He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves,

43:12 (Y. Ali) That has created pairs in all things, and has made for you ships and cattle on which ye ride,

50:7 (Y. Ali) And the earth- We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and produced therein every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs)-

51:49 (Y. Ali) And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction.

53:45 (Y. Ali) That He did create in pairs,- male and female,

78:8 (Y. Ali) And (have We not) created you in pairs,

Clearly, pairs means male and female, not your attempted scam.

, i showed you how they speak of the interrelation of various phenomena, and various creatures and other things.

You showed me what was strictly your own invention and I told you exactly what was wrong with it in no uncertain terms. Just because you can invent something doesn't mean it should automatically be accepted. I deal in the world of "probable". You seem to deal in the world of "possible", where you seem to think that if there's a 2% chance your scenario could have happened, then everybody is supposed to accept that as the answer. Bunk.

i showed you in the quran that all things have an existential goal for which they were created, they need at least their pair in order to fulfill that goal.

What is the other half of the pair for the mountain? What a complete baloney artist you are. But that's ok. I'm patient. You can keep shoveling it and I'll take it apart piece by piece

no, its not because they have more needs that it contradicts this notion, do any of the verses about things being made "in pairs" 43:12,36:36,13:3 have the word ONLY? does it say that the things were made ONLY IN PAIRS?

If I have a collection of groups of people, some in groups of 5 some in groups of 4, 3, 2 (pairs) 6, 10...... Would you call this a collection of pairs because the smallest group is a pair? Would you say that you have grouped these people or this collection into pairs? is it a collection of pairs? Of course not. However, if I say that the class has been divided into pairs, then yes, I can usually assume that it means all groups are groups of two or pairs or else it wouldn't have said this. Look at the cross eyed, twisted logic you are attempting here. and you have no idea how similar you are to so many other Muslims that have naively attempted this sort of BS here.

and where do these verses even speak of reproduction, which was the argument of the first poster on this thread?? hahaha

Read all of the verses I quoted where it mentions pairs and tell me who's laughing now.

even if these things dont reach their goal it doesnt change anything to the fact they are bound to their needs as it is linked to their existential goal.

A horse did not need a man to ride it in order to exist and do it's thing of being a horse. What ye say about that one? Is it mutual cooperation or slavery? See what happens when you invent baloney? There's always going to be big fat holes in it.

when i referred to life being in need of rain, i meant the living things.

Is this a one to one couple relationship? A pair? Living things is a concept. There are things that exist and live, and then the idea of all of these things together representing "living things" is a concept. So if the rain has a relationship with living things instead of "life" as you said, which one of the living things is the compliment to rain in the pair? You can't compliment a human concept called "living things" to the rain because that's just a concept not a living thing, so you now have to pick which one of the living things complete the pair. Obviously, this isn't possible and is all starting to sound like utter nonsense. That's because your idea was utter nonsense but you didn't think it through carefully enough. You're not a particularly good philosopher. And holy? Well, I think the only thing holy about you is your underwear. Those mosque moths will get ya every time.

and about the cartoon network example of horses dying before humans started riding them, how do you know their existential goal for which they were created at that time was not different?

Is that what the horse decided? I remember Mr Ed saying something different on TV. I really can't believe the level to which this conversation has sunk to, but that's all anybody has to do with you. They just have to have a little bit of patience and stick with your idea and keep analyzing it, and it always falls apart.

So according to you, the horse decided that it was finally time to actualize it's true existential goal and start willingly allow men to capture it and enslave it. All of that kicking and screaming while the horse is being broken is just an act the horse puts on that is part of it's existential goal as well.

ermmm.....ummmmm....uhhhh....ARE YOU SERIOUS????

and no, man and women being in need of eachother does not contradict entities with their existential goals and needs. its the same theme of necessary cooperation between all things created, the only independent entity being God.

I knew you wouldn't answer my question directly. That's because you are a Muslim. I have experience with this. I asked you whether pairs meant male and female or a thing and it;s existential goals because it can't mean both simultaneously. One is about goals and needs, the other is a physical characteristic of nature, which is male and female throughout almost all species.

and the part about the test. i frankly dont know what are you still talkin about on God's omniscience, after i showed you that Allah knows what is in every heart and that the goal of tests is to bring to the realm of reality our latent potentials of good and evil so that the day we are raised, we will have no arguments as to what we "would have done" in a certain situation.

So what you are clearly saying, is that the test is not for Allah but instead we are really testing ourselves. The test was for ourselves so that WE can realize what we are made of. Well then why don't we try the actual verse rather than what you invent. I'll quote the verse, and then I'll change the verse so that it can mean what you say. Let's have a look.

18:7 (Y. Ali) That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct.
18:7 (M. Blister) That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that they may test themselves - as to which of them are best in conduct.

See what we had to do to the verse to make your idea work? We had to change it. Why? Because the verse didn't say what you claimed it was saying. Here's some more

29:3 (Y. Ali)We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false.
29:3 (M. Blister)Those before them did test themselves, and They will certainly know those who are true from those who are false.

Did you see what we just had to do to that verse to make your idea work? Did ya see it? Did ya see it? And you probably don't even care and are inventing excuses for your excuses as you are even reading this right now. I know the profile.

34:21 (Y. Ali) But he had no authority over them,- except that We might test the man who believes in the Hereafter from him who is in doubt concerning it: and thy Lord doth watch over all things.
34:21 (M. Blister) But he had no authority over them,- except that He might test himself who believes in the Hereafter from him who is in doubt concerning it: and thy Lord doth watch over all things.

That one was so far away from what you're saying that I couldn't even properly salvage it like i did with the prior verses. I'd have to rewrite almost the entire sentence to make it work.

47:31 (Y. Ali) And We shall try you until We test those among you who strive their utmost and persevere in patience; and We shall try your reported (mettle).
47:31 (M. Blister) And you shall try youself until you test those among you who strive their utmost and persevere in patience; and you shall know your reported (mettle).

Wait a second. Seems like the person who reports their mettle is the person themselves, right? So why would they be testing their own report. Ah, but it's NOT them testing theeir own report, it's Allah testing their report or whether their claim or idea of being worthy is actually true or not.

7:25 (Y. Ali) ......that Allah may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His apostles: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will).
7:25 (M. Blister) ......that you may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His apostles: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will).

5:94 (Y. Ali) O ye who believe! Allah doth but make a trial of you in a little matter of game well within reach of your hands and your lances, that He may test who feareth him unseen:
5:94 (M. Blister) O ye who believe! Allah doth but make a trial of you in a little matter of game well within reach of your hands and your lances, that you may test who feareth him unseen:

All of these verses clearly tell us that Allah tests so that he may know who is truly worthy and who is not. They don't seem to say anything like what you are suggesting. So why shouldn't this get chalked up as merely another invention of yours? It doesn't say "I will allow them to test themselves", it clearly says "I will test them". Look at the baloney artist at work.

anyone can say he is a believer but the extent of his belief will only become manifest when he is confronted to a certain situation or test. success = faith + deeds.
here is another verse for you (as if all those i gave were not sufficient hahaha). in 3:140-143 which came in the conteext of the battle of uhud, it reminds the believers how some of them were ready for martydom when they went to defend their faith and families at the battlefiel, but when they came face to face with death, they turned their backs. So how then can it be possible for them to enter heaven merely because of that desire without being tested, and their true potential actively brought into the realm of reality?

Every time we go to examine any of your ideas, they always fall apart

hahahaha

It's not really funny, it's actually embarrassing to watch. So Allah can't allow them into heaven until Allah first tests them. Why test? To make sure they are worthy, otherwise, there's no need for a test. Nowhere does it say Allah allows us to test ourselves and instead it clearly says Allah tests us so that he may determine who is worthy and who is not. And the only reason for ever testing anything is because one is not 100% sure of something and therefore needs it proven to them via testing.

[Pragmatist]

And of course we must not forget that allah is all knowing and predestines everything. In fact he knows before you are born if you will be a believer or not so no need to test at all is there. Also this buffoon allah says that HE seals the minds of non believers so they cant believe in him. Then he says he will punish in eternal hellfire all those who don't believe in him making allah evil,illogical and sadistic. Quite clearly Mohammad was no good at logic and did not think things through very well when he invented allah and his book. They both exhibit all the characteristics of Old Mo himself, stupid, illogical, misogynistic, anti semitic, violent and evil. Still waiting for your answer on a cows 'goal' Mastabater dont run away from the question.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

And of course we must not forget that allah is all knowing and predestines everything. In fact he knows before you are born if you will be a believer or not so no need to test at all is there. Also this buffoon allah says that HE seals the minds of non believers so they cant believe in him. Then he says he will punish in eternal hellfire all those who don't believe in him making allah evil,illogical and sadistic. Quite clearly Mohammad was no good at logic and did not think things through very well when he invented allah and his book. They both exhibit all the characteristics of Old Mo himself, stupid, illogical, misogynistic, anti semitic, violent and evil. Still waiting for your answer on a cows 'goal' Mastabater dont run away from the question.

If Allah knows before he even creates someone, that this person will end up being tortured in hell, and Allah can decide not to create this person, but decides to create them anyway, then the clear conclusion is that Allah created this person with the express knowledge of and intention of this person being tortured in hell. If Allah KNOWS that this person will end up in hell, and Allah knows everything, then there is no possibility that one can avoid hell, because Allah is never wrong. And Allah knows that there is no possibility of this person avoiding hell because Allah's knowledge of the future is perfect, but Allah created this person anyway.

I love watching Muslims go into contortions or even convulsions when they attempt to understand philosophical axioms, and invent things to try and cover up for themselves problems in the Quran

[MastaBlaster]

come on, relax.
look i decided to change your nick from bin trashbin to mister cut-and-shred-each-post-into-pieces-in-order-to-make-it-look-like-i-have- something-smart-to-say-
even-though-everything-has-been-answered-in-the-first-post-so-this-reveals-how-confused-i-am-but-i-have-to-go-on-anyways-in-order-NOT-to-give-the-impression-
that-a-muslim-argument-is-winning,

WOW you got a long nickname hahaha, anyways

No, I think I'm being very thorough and clear as I point out the problems in your statements piece by piece

all you pointed out is what a confused individual you are after a muslim has just hat-tricked you

Here's some context for you...

get lost man, you showed no context, only isolated verses as usual to build all your assumptions.

22:5,31:10,36:36,50:7 all have the same context as 43:12 and the same message of interrelation between all things as i explained in my 1st post. its also interesting to note that "zawj" in these verses are accurately translated as "every kind" by pickthall and shakir, instead of "pairs" which is why your peanut brain is extremely confused.
35:11,42:11 speaks of human pairs of males and females. so where does this contradict the notion of cooperation of all things? a human male and a human female are not different entities with basic existential goals, like all things created by God per 87:2-3?
23:27 speaks of noah being ordered to gather 2 of every pair (male and female) of animals around him. same thing as above.
51:49,53:45,78:8 says that all things were made in pairs. this does not speak of sexual mates and does not remotely contradict the notion of interraction to fulfill a thing's existential goal.

Clearly, pairs means male and female

not always, and even when it does, so what. who said the contrary

What is the other half of the pair for the mountain?

everything has a purpose, nothing was created in vain. thats the basic teaching of all religions, because God is full of wisdom and does not indulge in vain and purposeless activities this is why all things have a goal. are you saying mountains dont have any natural, basic purpose, that they dont provide shelter for example, as one of the many things?

If I have a collection of groups of people, some in groups of 5 some in groups of 4, 3, 2 (pairs) 6, 10...... Would you call this a collection of pairs because the smallest group is a pair?

no, because again, nowhere does it say that things were made ONLY IN ONE PAIR. they need at least one pair to fulfill a basic existential goal and if they need more than that to satisfy more needs it does not contradict these verses because things were not made ONLY IN ONE PAIR.
and even if we take your cartoon network example of the tree that needs the sun, the CO2, the soil etc. to live, it still does not contradict the notion of pairs.
-the tree needs sunlight for a specific photosyntesis chemical reaction and the sun needs the tree to fulfill this basic existential goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair
-the tree needs CO2 for another specific photosyntesis chemical reaction, and the CO2 needs the tree to fulfill this basic existential goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair
-the tree needs the earth for nutrients and the earth needs the tree to fulfill this basic existential goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair

if you have many needs to live, you still form a pair with each single source answering a specific need

Someday, you might come back here and read some of the stuff you attempted in horror.

hahahaha..i like horror movies

im sure you got spanked all over the muslim net and all you have left is FFI thats why you take this virtual life so seriously. if you dont fight islam, you probably dont have anything left to do, lil' Mustafa Qok hahahaa

Read all of the verses I quoted where it mentions pairs and tell me who's laughing now

some do, some dont -like the verses of the opening post to which my "hahahaha" was directed at-.
those who do speak of genders like 35:11,42:11,23:27 do not contradict the notion of cooperation of all things, forming basic pairs

A horse did not need a man to ride it in order to exist and do it's thing of being a horse

the view of religion is that nothing was created in vain. the quran rightly says that all things have basic existential goals and need at least an external pair to fulfill that goal

Is this a one to one couple relationship? A pair? Living things is a concept

you're boring, living things include the fungus spreading in your panties as well as plants

Obviously, this isn't possible and is all starting to sound like utter nonsense

yeah, ever since you came to this thread, along with your lost girlfriend that you're parading in your avatar ahahah

The horse decided that it was time to actualize it's true existential goal and start willingly allow men to capture it and enslave it

no, read again what i told you and dont reply right after coming back from the irish pub. how do you know their existential goal for which they were created at that time was not different?

ARE YOU SERIOUS????

yeah im serious...about what? dont know if we're talking about the same thing

I knew you wouldn't answer my question directly. That's because you are a Muslim. I have experience with this.

dont be a bitter, bad loser because you got probably spanked in muslim forums hahahah

I asked you whether pairs meant male and female or a thing and it;s existential goals because it can't mean both simultaneously

it can mean both simultaneously and i already answered this above and before


the part about the test, im sorry but i cant do more to help you, if you think you got it right good for you


next
(if you wanna reply, put all the mocking in a seperate thread as it constitutes 99% of your lil' arguments hahahaha)

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

come on, relax.
look i decided to change your nick from bin trashbin to mister cut-and-shred-each-post-into-pieces-in-order-to-make-it-look-like-i-have- something-smart-to-say-
even-though-everything-has-been-answered-in-the-first-post-so-this-reveals-how-confused-i-am-but-i-have-to-go-on-anyways-in-order-NOT-to-give-the-impression-
that-a-muslim-argument-is-winning,

WOW you got a long nickname hahaha, anyways

No, I think I'm being very thorough and clear as I point out the problems in your statements piece by piece

all you pointed out is what a confused individual you are after a muslim has just hat-tricked you

Here's some context for you...

get lost man, you showed no context, only isolated verses as usual to build all your assumptions.

My verses were more related than yours were. Let me explain something to you bozo. Context means the surrounding verses, it does not mean other verses that are like it many chapters away. It means what is being said surrounding the actual verse. Everything you tried, involved plucking other verses from other parts of the Quran and arbitrarily related them and called them context. They are not context, at most, you can call them related verses, so get your stinking terms down correctly. Now, as far as using related verses, my verses used the word pairs, yours didn't. i clearly showed that when the Quran refers to pairs, it overwhelmingly seems to be referring to male and female of all species, not the hare brained fairy tale you're making up. Just because you can imagine it, doesn't mean it's there. Just because you need it to be there, doesn't mean it's there. If the Quran meant what you suggest when it referenced pairs, then it clearly could have said so, but in each case, it clearly points to male and female, and I have conclusively shown this. And when in doubt, just look at the stinking verses with plain common sense and you'll see it. My interpretation takes no acrobatics or explanation at all. That's because it's true. Inventions require acrobatics.

22:5,31:10,36:36,50:7 all have the same context as 43:12 and the same message of interrelation between all things as i explained in my 1st post. its also interesting to note that "zawj" in these verses are accurately translated as "every kind" by pickthall and shakir, instead of "pairs" which is why your peanut brain is extremely confused.

You say "in these verses". I assume you mean in the verses you just referenced above. OK, 22:5, 31:10 and 50:7 can be thrown out as they were the least significant of the verses I quoted anyway, and even have a parenthesis added by Yusuf Ali. 36:36 remains in the list, as do all other verses I quoted.

35:11,42:11 speaks of human pairs of males and females. so where does this contradict the notion of cooperation of all things? a human male and a human female are not different entities with basic existential goals, like all things created by God per 87:2-3?

Pairs means male and female. Saying that Allah created creatures in pairs so that they will know each other or cooperate with each other talks about WHY they are in pairs or perhaps the purpose of putting them in pairs, but not of the fact that they are in pairs and therefore it doesn't change the meaning of the word pairs. This is nothing but an attempt at a baseless extension to the meaning of the word. It meant male and female regardless of WHY Allah created things in pairs and the rest of the verses left on the table where it clearly and expressly uses the word pairs, demonstrates that for us. The reason why something exists or is performed is not the thing itself. They are not one in the same. But see what you attempt? See how you try to extend it any way that you can?

Pairs didn't mean pairs, pairs meant the reason why pairs were created. See how stupid that sounds? But that's actually what you are attempting once someone isolates your attempt and breaks it down.

23:27 speaks of noah being ordered to gather 2 of every pair (male and female) of animals around him. same thing as above.
51:49,53:45,78:8 says that all things were made in pairs. this does not speak of sexual mates and does not remotely contradict the notion of interraction to fulfill a thing's existential goal.

Dear moron, have I not continually referenced the words male and female rather than sexual mates? Yet another stupid attempt. Man you'll pull anything out of your pocket won't you. Don't you care?

Clearly, pairs means male and female

not always, and even when it does, so what. who said the contrary

Even if pairs meant both male and female AND the entity and it's needs in a deeper sense, your entire argument has still failed, because if it meant male and female, which it does, regardless of what additional meanings you want to invent, it is an official error. How could you be so dumb as to not see that one coming?

What is the other half of the pair for the mountain?

everything has a purpose, nothing was created in vain.

Purpose is not instrinsically related to pairs, and one can have many purposes.

thats the basic teaching of all religions, because God is full of wisdom and does not indulge in vain and purposeless activities this is why all things have a goal. are you saying mountains dont have any natural, basic purpose, that they dont provide shelter for example, as one of the many things?

Mountains have many purposes, not just one. So this pair thing is really a non starter.

If I have a collection of groups of people, some in groups of 5 some in groups of 4, 3, 2 (pairs) 6, 10...... Would you call this a collection of pairs because the smallest group is a pair?

no, because again, nowhere does it say that things were made ONLY IN ONE PAIR.

they need at least their pair to fulfill a basic existential goal and if they need more than that to satisfy more needs it does not contradict these verses because things were not made ONLY IN ONE PAIR.

If I say that I have separated my group into pairs, what do you think i am telling you? What would be your expectation? You are merely attempting acrobatics at this point.

and even if we take your cartoon network example of the tree that needs the sun, the CO2, the soil etc. to live, it still does not contradict the notion of pairs.
-the tree needs sunlight for a specific photosyntesis chemical reaction and the sun needs the tree to fulfill this basic existential goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair

But the sun wasn't only created for that, and trees MUST have water as well, so what's this junk about pairs?

-the tree needs CO2 for another specific photosyntesis chemical reaction,

That's now the third thing

and the CO2 needs the tree to fulfill this basic existential goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair
-the tree needs the earth for nutrients and the earth needs the tree to fulfill this basic existential goal for which it was created, therefore forming a pair

if you have many needs to live, you still form a pair with each single source answering a specific need

Rivers have many simultaneous feeds. OK, look, that's enough of the little philosophical diversion. I'm going to put this point blank to you and end this discussion.

1) you have already admitted that pairs also means male and female and have suggested that the verse means both male and female, AND an entity and it's existential purpose. Once you admitted the Quran also meant male and female when it referred to making all things in pairs, the Quran fell into error and you lost the discussion.

2) I'm going to describe the precise logical fallacy you have committed. You replaced the meaning of the word "pair", with an explanation as to WHY someone created everything in pairs, which is so that they will cooperate with each other. See how the point quickly gets re-focused? See the little hocus pocus? The little shell game? Well I do. Suddenly, the error is gone because the original point or questgion has been twisted and re-focused. WHY something is created or what purpose it fills is not the same as WHAT that thing or word is or means. A pair is a pair and any reason for a pair being created is completely independent of it's actual definition or meaning. That is an entirely different matter that involves many additional things. That is a FACT. But this is PRECISELY what you attempted to do and you got caught with your pants down. And you wonder why people think Muslims are so shifty and dishonest when it comes to religious discussion?

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

And here's how a Muslim admits he doesn't have an answer to the problems clearly illustrated

the part about the test, im sorry but i cant do more to help you, if you think you got it right good for you

That's the kind of people Muslims are. Sorry you ran out of inventions, Masta Blister.

[Cassie]

51:49,53:45,78:8 says that all things were made in pairs. this does not speak of sexual mates and does not remotely contradict the notion of interraction to fulfill a thing's existential goal.

Whatis the interaction to fulfill an asexual organism's existential goal?

[MastaBlaster]

Context means the surrounding verses, it does not mean other verses that are like it many chapters away

and i showed you both, verses from the surrounding context as well as other verses speaking of the same topic

you have already admitted that pairs also means male and female

i didnt admit anything, since its something i never denied

Once you admitted the Quran also meant male and female when it referred to making all things in pairs, the Quran fell into error and you lost the discussion.

only in your wetdreams bin trashbin, only in your wetdreams.
the verses talking about male and female pairs do not say that all things were created that way (pairs of males and females) and the verses saying that all things were made in pairs do not say anything about males and females but refer to an entity and it's existential purpose as the surrounding verses clearly show. this is why you decided that "OK, 22:5, 31:10 and 50:7 can be thrown out as they were the least significant of the verses I quoted anyway,"

But this is PRECISELY what you attempted to do and you got caught with your pants down

you're gonna hate muslims more when you see me pants down, lil Mustafa Qok hahaha
about your point 2), reword your paranoid paragraph about me inventing stuff, take the verses i used to support my "inventions" and prove my "inventions" wrong using verses from the mighty quran

and i gave you your own example of the tree with many needs and proved that if a thing has many needs, it still form a pair with each single source answering a specific need this is why you decided that "OK, look, that's enough of the little philosophical diversion"

and im sorry for you that you didnt understand anything about the concept of test in islam..

[Cassie]

the verses talking about male and female pairs do not say that all things were created that way (pairs of males and females) and the verses saying that all things were made in pairs do not say anything about males and females but refer to an entity and it's existential purpose as the surrounding verses clearly show. this is why you decided that "OK, 22:5, 31:10 and 50:7 can be thrown out as they were the least significant of the verses I quoted anyway,"

You're making up the 'existential purpose' as a limb to the 'pair', aren't you?

Please answer how 51-49 applies to an asexual organism?

[MastaBlaster]

51:49,53:45,78:8 says that all things were made in pairs. this does not speak of sexual mates and does not remotely contradict the notion of interraction to fulfill a thing's existential goal.

Whatis the interaction to fulfill an asexual organism's existential goal?

hi,
you ask this question because you assume, like the opening post of the thread, that verses speaking of all things being made in pairs also imply that these pairs must reproduce sexually. but this aint the case, its just a baseless assertion not supported anywhere in the verse or the context.
i dont know what is the existential goal of an asexual organism and i dont care, but the fact remains that it has needs and it forms a pair with each single source answering a specific need.