the seat of thought and intention

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Of course, man's essence is his soul. In 71:17-8 the Quran parallels the growth of man out of the earth like a plant does, in a context of providing reasonable proof for the Resurrection for just as he was originally raised from dust into an elaborate and wonderful creation, so to will he be brought back to life to face his reckoning. As said in 38:71-2, Allah announces to the angels that He will create a mortal, and that when this mortal becomes complete with the spirit from God, to prostrate before him. The last step of human evolution is thus linked in the Quran not only to its physical completion but also to mankind having being filled with a spirit to become God's vicegerent 2:30. Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72 and it is this spirit coming from Allah and breathed into Adam for the first time, inspiring him the understanding of good and evil, something the HB states was supposed to remain hidden from mankind as shown a few posts back, that creates the human thirst for guidance and worship, fulfilling the goal for which man was created; the worship of God. A similar notion can be found in the Hebrew Bible in
Ecc12:7"The body reverts to the dust that it was before, and the ru'ah returns to God who gave it".
Now as to the issue of the prophet's enemies being alluded to in the Quran.

The most prominent evil personalities and groups of people, in the nations prophets and messengers were sent to, those whose behavior and rejection were most violent towards the prophetic message and the prophets themselves, were always pointed out by the prophets and scriptures of their specific time, with the prophets calling for God's curse and punishement to be inflicted upon them either in this world or the next, as well as the vindication of the righteous. The Quran sometimes mentionned them implicitly as in 96:9-19 above, or explicitly, as with Abu Lahab in Sura Lahab, but everytime, the exposition of their evil traits serves as a threat and warning to future people.

Among many Biblical similarities there is the case of the prophet David against Nabal and Doeg 1Sam25:39,Ps52, David's long-winded curse of Esau and his descendants who is implicitly meant
Ps109:8-15"May his days be few, and may someone else take his office of dignity. May his sons be orphans and his wife a widow. May his sons wander, and [people] should ask and search from their ruins..."
or the implicit mention of a group of people
Ps58:1-12"O God, smash their teeth in their mouth..Let them be rejected..The righteous man will rejoice because he saw revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked. And man will say, "Truly, the righteous man has reward; truly there is a God Who judges on earth".
See also Ps63:9-12,69:22-29 or Ps137:8-9 in reference to the Babylonian oppressors
"Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock"
or also Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar alternatively implied by the prophet Habakkuk who calls on God to destroy them throughout the chapter (Habakkuk2).

Since the subject has been raised, it would be worthwhile mentionning another such case in the Quran, one often pointed to by Judeo-Christian critics, where an individual's evil, sinful traits are exposed in order to lead the audience to distancing itself not only from the person in question but also from anyone bearing those immoral characteristics
68:10-16"Do not at all yield to any mean swearer of many oaths, who is a slanderer and a backbiter, a hinderer of good and a transgressor, utullin/(connoting bad tempered, vengeful, coarse in manners, and shameless), and above all zanim/(connoting one known for his ignobleness and meanness), only because he has abundance of wealth and children. When Our Revelations are recited to him, he says, "These are tales of the ancient times." Soon We shall brand him on the snout".
Because he thought he was a man of high prestige, his nose has been called a snout, and "branding him on the snout" means disgracing him. The same idea is repeated elsewhere when speaking of the same kind of person to whom outward appearance is everything, and how the scorching wind of Hell destroys the skin, ie that most prominent aspect on which his entire personality is built and leaves him ugly. In the Hebrew Bible, with immense despise, God addresses Sennacherib of Assyria through the prophet Isaiah
2Kings19:28"I will place my ring in your nose and My bit in your lips".
See also Isa37:29 or Ps3:8 all speaking of severe and humiliating disfigurement of the wicked, a metonym for utter abasement.

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

@sum

The forelock is part of the forehead which is the meaning of the Arabic nasiya.

The soul is only affected by spiritual matters. One can either nurture or degrade it, see sura shams. A hardened heart is one that becomes impenetrable by spiritual matters, no matter how capable his intellect/aql is
2:74"their hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah".
Only those people can reach the right conclusion from their observation, who are inclined to believe. A God-conscious, believer in the unseen sees confirmation of a Day of Resurrection in the cycle of life and death around him 43:11. These kind of verses mentioning the obvious signs around man, almost always contain the same phrases explaining that the spiritual implications of these signs can only be perceived by those who already incline to the Truth, the spiritually aware, believers in the Unseen
3:190-1"in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand, those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth".
By definition, belief in something is a firm state of mind that does not require the manifestation of the thing in question, but this does not mean that the belief is beyond reason. For example it is much more unreasonable to assume that the world is the product of chance than of a purposeful design, especially when all the signs mentionned in the Quran, from those surrounding us every day and at each instant, down to those present in our own selves, do point in such a way to the inevitability of Judgement Day and of an afterlife, that it would be entirely unreasonable to think otherwise. There is a reason why almost every such verses are accompagnied by prases explaining that these signs are for those who use their intellect, or as stated in the Hebrew Bible in relation to the truthfulness of its message
Prov8:9"They are all true to the understanding one, and straight to those who find knowledge".
Humans believe things everyday without seeing them so long as these things agree with their intellect and reason, only animals devoid of intelligence need to see to believe. For example an animal will rarely heed a warning until he sees the threat and flees, while a human can reason and hearken the admonitions and prepare for all eventualities.

As stated in a previous post, anyone has a soul, whether he accepts it or not and among the signs of its existence is the self-reproaching conscience, ingrained in all people, making them originally perceive the basic moral limits of behavior whenever they overstep them, as well as man's ability to perceive the existence of an intelligent design (with the most reasonable of all being the Islamic model, in all objectivity). Not a single culture is devoid of these 2 examples, among others the Quran speaks of, except when they willingly cease hearkening these inborn hardwired spiritual mechanisms. It is well known that genetically, humans are programmed to to see life forces – a phenomenon called hypersensitive agency detection – everywhere we go, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Scientists say this might be an ancient defense mechanism that helped us avoid concealed danger, such as lions crouched in the grass or venomous snakes concealed in the bush, but that it also made us "vulnerable" to inferring the existence of invisible agents, such as a benevolent God. That mechanism, labelled "System 1" also encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul. For these reasons, many scholars believe that religion arose as “a byproduct of our cognitive disposition”, ie it would be cognitively unnatural to not believe, which is why atheists must fight against that natural urge to believe in an existence with a purpose, that they are a part of something bigger, that life isn’t completely futile. Even those who explicitly describe themselves as non-believers, still harbor superstitious and non-rational thought processes.

It is the general guidance refered to 20:50 and instilled in all humans without exception.

sum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by sum »

Hello Eagle

Your quote -
The soul is only affected by spiritual matters. One can either nurture or degrade it, see sura shams.

There is no soul as it is a figment of man`s imagination and so you can neither nurture or degrade it. Have you any actual proof of its existence?

Your quote -
Only those people can reach the right conclusion from their observation, who are inclined to believe. A God-conscious, believer in the unseen sees confirmation of a Day of Resurrection in the cycle of life and death around him 43:11.

This could be wishful thinking by the gullible. The Koran is no reference source as it was written by Muhammad. Have you proof otherwise?

Your quote -
By definition, belief in something is a firm state of mind that does not require the manifestation of the thing in question, but this does not mean that the belief is beyond reason.

I agree but you must also agree that because a belief is not beyond all reason then it does not indicate that it is factual. Do you agree with this?

Your quote -
As stated in a previous post, anyone has a soul, whether he accepts it or not and among the signs of its existence is the self-reproaching conscience, ingrained in all people, making them originally perceive the basic moral limits of behavior whenever they overstep them,

I keep telling you that there is no soul. As far as a "self-reproaching conscience" is concerned then please explain why the Golden Rule is absent in Islam towards non-muslims and so they are to be fought and subjected to inferior status and legally unequal to muslims? Does this offend your conscience? Muslims can therefore have no twinge of conscience when non-muslims receive unequal treatment yet muslims receive the same legal rights as non-muslims in the West because the Western culture follows mainly that taught by Jesus. The muslim would have no twinge of conscience when the non-muslim receives unequal legal treatment but the non-muslim would have a troubled conscience if the muslim received unequal legal rights in the West. Muslims and non-muslims have different standards for their conscience and in the muslim`s case it all results from Islamic indoctrination and mind programming from birth onwards which eliminates the Golden Rule with regard to non-muslims.

To use your phrase the "self-reproaching conscience, ingrained in all people" must be inborn but then what happens? Quite simply, this ingrained self-reproaching conscience is re-wired by the Islamic indoctrination to serve the purpose of Muhammad and his seventh century Arab imperialism which will also give him power, wealth and women.

Open your eyes, Eagle, or are you going to stay in a state of denial for all time?

sum

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Islam takes the golden rule to a higher, more comprehensive level as previously explained viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18223&hilit=Diamond#p238468" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure, reasonable belief doesnt render it factual, and neither was belief ever meant to become so, so as to not compromise the whole purpose of life, as stated in the Quran; spiritual growth using one's own innate spiritual sense of perception. Bringing the unseen to the seen makes spiritual growth impossible. In the last revelation to mankind, during the account of creation, God describes how it was precisely that aspect of human life, the capacity to translate material perception to spiritual language, then grow spiritually is what awed the angels and made them bow to Adam in acknowledgment of his potential superiority over them. The unseen isnt veiled from angels and are therefore compelled to accept these higher realities that are factual to them. That is why the Quran (and the HB, contrary to the Greek Testament) teaches that angels have no freedom of choice.

That belief in the unseen (God, angels, revelation, resurrection, hereafter) can never become factual doesnt make it unreasonable and in fact it is the disbelief in such concepts which is the weaker position from a rational perspective, for the reasons previously mentionned, including genetic.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

Islam takes the golden rule to a higher, more comprehensive level
That is ridiculous.

There is no such thing as the golden rule in Islam. A Muslim must hate and if practical fight all non-Muslims, not for anything they do but because of what the believe. See 9:30 and similar verses. It is a reoccurring theme in the Qur'an, varying only in the intensity of the hate. A Muslim may not have non-Muslims as friends. He may lie to them and break promises made to them... and so it goes on, a whole litany.

Muslims certainly never treat people as the want to be treated. They haughtily presume they are everybody else's superior and ruler.

And even with each other, there is no "golden rule"... There are some people "worth" many time the "value" of others. There is an Arab-non-Arab division with the "raison head" black people at the bottom of the pile, and within that hierarchy there men and women are not equal.

So when a Muslim man beats his wife with a stick, as the Qur'an commands, should the wife merely suspected of being "disobedient", he treats her as he want to be treated, eagle?

It really is quite mind-baffling that you seriously suggest there is any moral compass to be found in the rants of a medieval Arab warlord, murderer and sex addict.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Mughal
Posts: 871
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:45 am
Location: i/g
Contact:

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Mughal »

manfred wrote:
Dear manfred, it is true that word QULOOBUN means hearts but it also means brains or minds or beings or personalities or selves and so on and so forth.
Dear Mughal,
no it doesn't.

and I like the "and so forth".... juts in case you want to to mean chicken soup, should the need arise.

Regards and all the best
Dear manfred, the way I am reading your posts gives me reason to think you are stuck with idea of how people used to use word heart in time long ago. I think what you are not realising is the fact why they used word heart for heart or mind or whatever. Is it because they thought it was an organ that pumped blood in the body or was it because they thought it was an organ wherein resided soul or consciousness or being or that it was the seat of thoughts and intentions? People of old at times gave things names due to what they thought were their functions and at times because they simply labelled things so that they could talk about them with each other but they discovered their functions later on when they became more knowledgeable about them.

In fact people could only name things and discover their functionality later or they could discover their functionality first and then name them but in either case it does not matter much in usage of language because we can know how it all comes together. Even in case of naming things for labels first or even after assuming functions of things and naming later they kept on changing their minds about them that is how there came about various uses of certain words. There is no any other explanation even possible for using the same word for meaning so many different things. If you have one please share.

The other thing in that case we need to know is, did they name head due to its function or just for naming it? We do not really know 100% why people called a certain thing by a certain name. This is why we cannot use name reason to discredit the quran either. Yet another thing which I see you are not realising is that any book that had to come from God for human beings had to have same words as used by people in it but it had to express thoughts of God. This again is a very important point to realise because thoughts of God and people have to be very different from each other due to differences in their level of knowledge about them.

You are saying that because people used to use a word in a certain way therefore the quran is using that word in the same way therefore it proves the quran is following thoughts of people instead of people following thought of the quran. First of all people do not know why they did what they did at times or why they do what they at times or why they will do what they will do at times in time to come. So your assumption that people used a certain word only and only one way is mere assumption on your part. If we look into dictionaries people have been using a word in a lot of different ways so what made them do that? This is why there is no escape from what I have explained about origin and use of human language.

Moreover if we accept these facts then we know people lacked knowledge about things but God did not. For example, God calling the earth, earth means a very different thing than a person calling the earth, earth. It is because God knows each and every thing about the earth and that is why he is calling it earth and that is what he means when he uses word earth but not so a person. Likewise when God uses word man it means a very different thing than a human being calling a person man. God knows man inside out but a human does not therefore God has different thoughts about man but a human being has different thoughts in his mind about man depending on what one has come to know about him so far.

Your objection is God should have explained things to people in the quran so that they did not make any mistakes in understanding his revelations but that is not the reason for which God created people. He created people so that they show their own creative abilities by themselves so that they could appreciate greatness of God as a creative being as independent human beings with least possible input from God. Had God explained all things to people then they could not fulfil that purpose. Now if you will put all these like points together you will come to know why revelations of God are the way they are ie books hinting at things and leaving things at that so that rest of things are worked out by people themselves. This is why there is great reward for people in hereafter. It is because this involves very hard work by people. If God had done everything himself then what will be reason for such a great reward for people and more than that what will be the reason for which God could have created people with ability of choice and decision making as babies knowing nothing at all?

In short in this world God has left everything for people to do all God has done is provided them with means to help them accomplish his assigned mission. This is why we find it very hard to live in this world because intervention of God is as good as almost none at all. Had God been obvious and asked us to believe in him and do as he says who could do anything opposite to that at all? This is why we need to look at the project of God as a whole and then draw our conclusions. My ideas are very new so they will take time to sink in minds of people. Most people have very wrong concepts about God and things that is why they are totally confused.

regards and all the best.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

the way I am reading your posts gives me reason to think you are stuck with idea of how people used to use word heart in time long ago.
Call me old fashioned, but to understand an old text you need to use concepts just as they were at the time of writing. You are changing what it says by changing the use of words and phrases.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

sum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by sum »

Hello Eagle

Just to clarify matters, do you actually believe that Adam and Eve existed as real people? If you do, then did any other people exist at this time?

sum

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Yes Adam existed, the Quran does not say he was the first human being, rather the first to receive God's spirit which turned him into a spiritually accountable creature. As well, he was chosen for prophethood 3:33.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

So who did Adam prophesy to as there were no other "spiritually accountable" human being around? And I suppose he was "given a book" too, right? Where is it? What did it say?

Also, some basic Hebrew for you: "Adam" = "human being".

So if he was THE "human being", what were the others?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Sure, all names in semitic languages have a meaning, including Adam, who was, according even to Jewish understanding, a prophet. That however does not make the individual less of a real human being.

A prophet does not need to prophecy and communicate God's will to a crowd to have legitimacy. Again, Adam was not the first evolved human, others existed, but he was the first human endowed with the spirit, and others followed simultaneously or very shortly after.

As to having a book, it is interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam, Malchizedek and Abraham viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=40#p238550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

Eagle wrote:Sure, all names in semitic languages have a meaning, including Adam, who was, according even to Jewish understanding, a prophet. That however does not make the individual less of a real human being.

A prophet does not need to prophecy and communicate God's will to a crowd to have legitimacy. Again, Adam was not the first evolved human, others existed, but he was the first human endowed with the spirit, and others followed simultaneously or very shortly after.

As to having a book, it is interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam, Malchizedek and Abraham viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=40#p238550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:lotpot:

Have you been drinking?


1) Adam is not a name.
2) Adam was not a real person. but a character in an allegorical story about creation and the rise of sin.
3) Adam did not write any Psalm. That is as daft as saying Harry Potter did.

And a "prophet" does not need to have any message or audience? Like a carpenter does not need any wood or tools?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Adam is the name of a real prophet who wrote a book like all prophets, even according to the Jewish tradition.

Nobody spoke of a complete lack of audience, but of the initial absence of a large crowd. A prophet's legitimacy isnt compromised by a temporarily restrained audience, or the temporary lack thereof.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

"Adam" is not a name.... for goodness sake, look it up. There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics. And while SOME Jewish people as well as SOME Christians have a belief in a "real" Adam, the idea he was a prophet is entirely Muslim.

Somehow a whole range of biblical characters, some real and some fictional, are re-cast in the image of Mohammed, and suddenly they all "received" a book from "Allah".... His shelves in heaven must be pretty bare...

You also said that Adam was the "first human with spiritual responsibility"... this means obviously that any presupposed others (which are not mentioned by the Qur'an, obviously, as that text assumed they did not exist) COULD NOT be the target audience for this alleged "prophet", Adam, because they were unable, according to you, to process any "message". It would be like preaching to a bunch of cats....
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

frankie
Posts: 2612
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by frankie »

Eagle wrote:Adam is the name of a real prophet who wrote a book like all prophets, even according to the Jewish tradition.

Nobody spoke of a complete lack of audience, but of the initial absence of a large crowd. A prophet's legitimacy isnt compromised by a temporarily restrained audience, or the temporary lack thereof.
Eagle
Adam is the name of a real prophet who wrote a book like all prophets, even according to the Jewish tradition.
Incorrect, "Adam" is just a metaphor for the first human being, the story of creation is just that, a story, put in such a way for human comprehension.

You are just repeating the Islamic view, which is proven to be a false one.

Metaphors cannot be prophets or write books.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

And something else...

you called this Adam the first human with "spiritual responsibility"...

The biblical story has something to say about "spiritual responsibility", it is one of the main topics in the whole story:

How did Adam get this spiritual responsibility?

From EVE! She had listened to a half-truth whispered to her by the antagonist in the story, the "snake": Disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit, and you will be like God, in that you understand good and evil."


What the "snake" of course failed to mention are the consequences of this course of action: With knowledge comes responsibility. If you know good and evil then you can be guilty.

God then did not as such "punish" Adam and Eve, but he left them to the consequences of their actions. They had to leave paradise, where all was provided for them, and instead fend for themselves. In seeking to be "like God", they were given responsibility for themselves and their actions. A mild "sentence"... imagine Adam really had been given God-like powers and the responsibility that comes with that... that would have been an unmitigated disaster.

In disobeying God, all they achieved is distancing themselves from Him, and making their own lives harder.

So, eagle, these "others" you mention who did not do what Adam did, why would they be forced out of paradise? Or were they created to suffer, anyway...? The ones you say how had to listen to Adam, who had set a bad example anyway, but without the ability to understand... why would Allah do that?

If they did not leave paradise with Adam, then Adam could not have preached to them.
If they did, however, then Allah is unjust and cruel.

Somehow your version of the old story is a confused at much of the stuff Mohammed churned up.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Adam was a real person and a prophet, according to Jewish orthodox belief, not "some". And he is even credited with writing part of the psalms. As explained, only the Biblical version of the account of creation with Adam being the first ever human being is at odds with science. The Quran's version is that he was the first to receive God's spirit, very shortly after, others among his contemporaries followed. There are implicit references to this. And the Quran, contrary to the Bible, doesnt say the garden they were expelled from was in paradise, all the while making it clear that the creation of a mortal was meant to fill the earth.

No matter what triggered Adam's desire to eat from the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil, the fact is, that it was against the divine will, which is why they were expelled following their acquisition of moral conscience.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

Orthodox Jews are not all Jews.

And a fictional character cannot write a psalm. The authorship of the psalms is complex, and there are several authors from different ages. King David MAY possibly written one or two as well, but not as many as bear his name.

And I have never heard anyone telling me Adam wrote the psalms... So "prophet" David got given a second hand book? Shame on you Allah... you should be more original.

One psalm can even be traced back to Akhenaten, the "heretic" Pharaoh of Egypt. His "ode to the sun" certainly was used as source to write a psalm.

So, eagle, again, no "book handed down" to David... that is just old Mo's fairy tale.

And the Qur'anic creation story "matches" science...? How many day did it take eagle? What was Adam made of? Why does the the Qur'an disagree with itself on these points, and what does that suggest about its reliability as a scientific document?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by Eagle »

Sure a fictional character cant write a thing. But a true propnhet like Adam did. He didnt write the whole of the psalms and neither did anyone say so.

So which contradictions are there in the Quranic creation account?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: the seat of thought and intention

Post by manfred »

and we are still waiting with baited breath to meet your two bodies, or a least an explanation thereof...

Do we need two eagle accounts, you think?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply