| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2006 04:05:30 PM |
| Object: |
A few questions about Mohammed |
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
....did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
....did he let his wife die?
....did he let every single male heir that he had die?
....did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 06:08:05 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 07:47:15 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 05:03:01 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something?
If God commanded you to blow yourself up with a bomb, would you
submit? The ones that do so think that God commanded it.
So did Son of Sam, for that matter.
That has little to do with the nature of Islam.
Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
Given how little you know about Islam, your opinion is less than
interesting.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 10:24:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 11:00:45 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
-- cary
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people. At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 05:07:50 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people.
Every 9/11 victim and every Katrina victim, etc. fits that category?
At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
By destroying their cities with hurricanes? Or were there no people
that trusted in Christ in the entire city of New Orleans?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Feminazi Cuntkins" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 05:26:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:07:50 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org>wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people.
Every 9/11 victim and every Katrina victim, etc. fits that category?
At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
By destroying their cities with hurricanes? Or were there no people
that trusted in Christ in the entire city of New Orleans?
Well of course there were; chiefly concentrated in the French Quarter.
FNC, give me beads!
--
Poco, a menudo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
17 Feb 2006 05:50:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:26:19 -0600, Feminazi Cuntkins wrote
(in article <nc2av11366bkdimqlh755f783v0vplbh02@4ax.com>):
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:07:50 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org>wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people.
Every 9/11 victim and every Katrina victim, etc. fits that category?
At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
By destroying their cities with hurricanes? Or were there no people
that trusted in Christ in the entire city of New Orleans?
Well of course there were; chiefly concentrated in the French Quarter.
FNC, give me beads!
Not until you show - oops! - wrong country.
Gray Shockley
--------------------
When all you've got is a hammer,
everything else looks like a nail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
20 Feb 2006 12:02:58 PM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.C01BBD51003790C9F0284550@news.giganews.com> writes:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:26:19 -0600, Feminazi Cuntkins wrote
(in article <nc2av11366bkdimqlh755f783v0vplbh02@4ax.com>):
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:07:50 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org>wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people.
Every 9/11 victim and every Katrina victim, etc. fits that category?
At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
By destroying their cities with hurricanes? Or were there no people
that trusted in Christ in the entire city of New Orleans?
Well of course there were; chiefly concentrated in the French Quarter.
FNC, give me beads!
Not until you show - oops! - wrong country.
Oh, they can do that every day up there. In fact, I believe
there's some kind of socialist subsidy for doing so.
Back at the ranch here in Arizona, by contrast, the Lege
is working on a bill to protect women who breast-feed
in public from being hit with an indecent exposre rap.
Apparently in some jurisdictions they could, technically,
even be charged with a felony if they scar some poor minor's
psyche with the sight of a fully-loaded nipple. We
try to shield our kids from the primal knowledge
that they are mammals just as long as we can.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
20 Feb 2006 09:51:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:02:58 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:
Not until you show - oops! - wrong country.
Oh, they can do that every day up there. In fact, I believe
there's some kind of socialist subsidy for doing so.
Back at the ranch here in Arizona, by contrast, the Lege
is working on a bill to protect women who breast-feed
in public from being hit with an indecent exposre rap.
Apparently in some jurisdictions they could, technically,
even be charged with a felony if they scar some poor minor's
psyche with the sight of a fully-loaded nipple. We
try to shield our kids from the primal knowledge
that they are mammals just as long as we can.
-- cary
Are Udalls Arizonians?
My buddy, Chas, was up in an Udall's's office (House? Senate?) one day doing
the pix for a story and when he got all his photo stuff together, Udall
grabbed a bunch of it and walked him down to his car.
Now /that/ guy had to be /weird/!
++ gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
21 Feb 2006 10:06:31 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.C01FEA6A00AEF8B6F0284550@news.giganews.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:02:58 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:
Not until you show - oops! - wrong country.
Oh, they can do that every day up there. In fact, I believe
there's some kind of socialist subsidy for doing so.
Back at the ranch here in Arizona, by contrast, the Lege
is working on a bill to protect women who breast-feed
in public from being hit with an indecent exposre rap.
Apparently in some jurisdictions they could, technically,
even be charged with a felony if they scar some poor minor's
psyche with the sight of a fully-loaded nipple. We
try to shield our kids from the primal knowledge
that they are mammals just as long as we can.
-- cary
Are Udalls Arizonians?
My buddy, Chas, was up in an Udall's's office (House? Senate?) one day doing
the pix for a story and when he got all his photo stuff together, Udall
grabbed a bunch of it and walked him down to his car.
Now /that/ guy had to be /weird/!
The Udalls are greatly admired Arizonians. For good reason.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
21 Feb 2006 10:16:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:06:31 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dtfdq7$lrr$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <0001HW.C01FEA6A00AEF8B6F0284550@news.giganews.com>
grayshockley@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:02:58 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:
Not until you show - oops! - wrong country.
Oh, they can do that every day up there. In fact, I believe
there's some kind of socialist subsidy for doing so.
Back at the ranch here in Arizona, by contrast, the Lege
is working on a bill to protect women who breast-feed
in public from being hit with an indecent exposre rap.
Apparently in some jurisdictions they could, technically,
even be charged with a felony if they scar some poor minor's
psyche with the sight of a fully-loaded nipple. We
try to shield our kids from the primal knowledge
that they are mammals just as long as we can.
-- cary
Are Udalls Arizonians?
My buddy, Chas, was up in an Udall's's office (House? Senate?) one day
doing
the pix for a story and when he got all his photo stuff together, Udall
grabbed a bunch of it and walked him down to his car.
Now /that/ guy had to be /weird/!
The Udalls are greatly admired Arizonians. For good reason.
-- cary
The funny part of the story is that they stopped to rest and Chas snapped a
pic and that was the one they used for the book cover, after the usual
3,546,876 that had been taken in the office.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Feminazi Cuntkins" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
17 Feb 2006 06:42:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:50:09 -0600, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com>wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:26:19 -0600, Feminazi Cuntkins wrote
(in article <nc2av11366bkdimqlh755f783v0vplbh02@4ax.com>):
Well of course there were; chiefly concentrated in the French Quarter.
FNC, give me beads!
Not until you show - oops! - wrong country.
That's legal 365 here.
FNC, though not always clement that often...
--
Poco, a menudo.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 11:03:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1140109245.227502.168230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
-- cary
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people. At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
So God had arranged things in advance so that there were no
faithful Christians in the Twin Towers? Or that all of the
600,000 Americans who died in the 1918-1920 influenza
pandemic were without exception sinners or the doubting?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
20 Feb 2006 02:20:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:03:43 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt2b9f$7so$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1140109245.227502.168230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed
in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
-- cary
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people. At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
So God had arranged things in advance so that there were no
faithful Christians in the Twin Towers? Or that all of the
600,000 Americans who died in the 1918-1920 influenza
pandemic were without exception sinners or the doubting?
-- cary
Secret sinners, everyone of them.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
20 Feb 2006 02:19:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:00:45 -0600, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote
(in article <1140109245.227502.168230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something? Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history as a wooden one.
But aren't you the one of the opinion that everything from 9/11
to blizzards is because God is letting the devil run amok
with history?
-- cary
With a significant difference. I say that God lets the devil do that
to sinful or doubting people. At the same time, I've had a consistant
message for years that God acts on behalf of those that trust in
Christ.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
Hitler lost.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
20 Feb 2006 02:18:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:47:15 -0600, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote
(in article <1140097635.543182.286120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Most of the world's religions have nothing to do with "salvation".
Islam is about submission to God, not because it will lead to
"salvation", but because it is the right thing to do.
lojbab
Wait...still confused. The right thing is to blow yourself up or bomb
something?
Well, I'm not familiar with blowing oneself but the bombings, I sure am. You
mean like the little girls who were murdered in Birmingham, right?
We /are/ talking about the Fundamentalist Christian Terrorist Organization,
the Ku Klux Klan, right?
Also, it appears their god is about as involved in world
history
Ah, so it's /your/ "god" that is responsible for WW2, the Holocaust, WW1,
Korea, VietNam, Algeria, the subjugation by your god's Communist countries,
guerilla wars, tsunamis, earthquakes, the Oakland Raiders, France, tooth
decay and broken hearts?
as a wooden one.
As an "wooden what"? Are you talking about a Crucifix?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
I getting confused here. Are you giving reasons why the XPian Gob should be
ridiculed and why no one should believe in this quack?
Oh, and I forgot to tell you how impressed I am of your putdown of John the
Baptist. You're so much more impressive and, oh!, so much more important and
arrogant.
I'd imagine that if it were you and Salome, she'd ask for just the little
head.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Now my own suspicion is that the
Universe is not only queerer than
we suppose, but queerer than
we *can* suppose.
- J B S Haldane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
15 Feb 2006 04:28:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
15 Feb 2006 10:01:41 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
So, your claim would be that God didn't protect John the Baptist. I'll
agree with that, since John had temper issues. Even Jesus said that
John the Baptist was less than the lowest in Heaven. That being said,
why would Mohammed's children die..and wife...and father..and
gradfather...and so on around him. Was there anyone that God protected
around him? The point being, if God wouldn't stand up for their
prophet, why do Muslims think Allah would stand up for them?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
20 Feb 2006 01:47:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:01:41 -0600, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote
(in article <1140062500.960676.217200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
So, your claim would be that God didn't protect John the Baptist. I'll
agree with that, since John had temper issues. Even Jesus
2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine;
and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept
the good wine until now.
2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested
forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his
brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and
the changers of money sitting:
2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of
the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money,
and overthrew the tables;
2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my
Father's house an house of merchandise.
"IN GOD WE TRUST":
Motto on the Paper Money of the
United States of America,
circa 2006.
said that
John the Baptist was less than the lowest in Heaven. That being said,
why would Mohammed's children die..and wife...and father..and
gradfather...and so on around him. Was there anyone that God protected
around him? The point being, if God wouldn't stand up for their
prophet, why do Muslims think Allah would stand up for them?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 05:06:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:28:49 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt09v1$g7p$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed
in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
Wrong!
He was ahead.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
16 Feb 2006 10:23:08 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.C019B8CA00027B1CF0284550@news.giganews.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:28:49 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt09v1$g7p$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide Eyed
in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
Wrong!
He was ahead.
++ gray
Did I ever mention what Nabokov said about translation?:
What is translation? On a platter
A poet's pale and glaring head,
A parrot's screech, a monkey's chatter,
And profanation of the dead.
(he went on for another 1 5/7 sonnets, but I like that bit all
by itself)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
18 Feb 2006 12:44:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:23:08 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt28tc$su0$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <0001HW.C019B8CA00027B1CF0284550@news.giganews.com>
grayshockley@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:28:49 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt09v1$g7p$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed
in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
Wrong!
He was ahead.
++ gray
Did I ever mention what Nabokov said about translation?:
What is translation? On a platter
A poet's pale and glaring head,
A parrot's screech, a monkey's chatter,
And profanation of the dead.
(he went on for another 1 5/7 sonnets, but I like that bit all
by itself)
-- cary
That's why, of course, to read The Prophet . . . . . . . . .
++ gray
[And that's not even bringing up folding space to IX.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chancellor_Goth" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
18 Feb 2006 12:52:54 AM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C01C1E650004E48DF0284550@news.giganews.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:23:08 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt28tc$su0$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <0001HW.C019B8CA00027B1CF0284550@news.giganews.com>
grayshockley@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:28:49 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt09v1$g7p$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed
in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
Wrong!
He was ahead.
++ gray
Did I ever mention what Nabokov said about translation?:
What is translation? On a platter
A poet's pale and glaring head,
A parrot's screech, a monkey's chatter,
And profanation of the dead.
Nabokov wrote about a paedophile... is it true Mohammed had a 9-year old
"wife"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed |
18 Feb 2006 03:54:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:52:54 -0600, Chancellor_Goth wrote
(in article <dt6g87$9uv$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>):
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C01C1E650004E48DF0284550@news.giganews.com...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:23:08 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt28tc$su0$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <0001HW.C019B8CA00027B1CF0284550@news.giganews.com>
grayshockley@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:28:49 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dt09v1$g7p$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wide
Eyed
in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Well, Gods just seem to do that sort of thing sometimes:
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and
apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
( Luke 11 49-50 )
Or I suppose you could ask that John the Baptist guy. Last
time anyone saw him, he didn't appear to be going anywhere.
-- cary
Wrong!
He was ahead.
++ gray
Did I ever mention what Nabokov said about translation?:
What is translation? On a platter
A poet's pale and glaring head,
A parrot's screech, a monkey's chatter,
And profanation of the dead.
Nabokov wrote about a paedophile... is it true Mohammed had a 9-year old
"wife"?
That would be even tackier than the Christian guy (singer? preacher?) who
married his 13-year old cousin - this was a year or two ago.
Ya know, of course, how insecure males who want their mates to be virgins
are? I mean - after all - I'm not very good but I'm in /Mississippi/, for
goodness sake.
When I go to the PlayBoy Mansion, I can park in the Handicapped Zone.
I mean - after all - the first time I got all hooked up with a Yankee Woman
instead of a Southern Girl, SHE told me it was perfectly acceptable for me to
be a little bit slow.
As a matter of fact and/or fiction, she told me that the slower I was, the
happier she'd be.
I learned to be /really/ slow. She smiled a lot.
It's simply amazing what a growed-up woman can teach a rural boy when SHE is
enjoying herself.
I mean - after all - when non-smokers in a three-block radius light up, you
know - oops! - this is a family NG.
You know that smoking can cause lung cancer and that the smile and the
cigarette are not /directly/ linked and, even if they are, it is nice to face
death with courage but it's lots better to face it with a smirk.
When Jehovah, Natasha, Claude and Fraud say, "Wipe that smile off your face
and ya break out in convulsions of laughter and merriment, neither god nor
his buddy, anti-god, are in charge anymore, and them if they can't
take a joke.
Or the converse. Or sumthin'.
Or - as someone of one of the other genders remarked - if you wake up that
way, you oughta do sumthin' with it.
Those who expressed confusion were sent, instantly or regular grind, to
remedial sex education for those of the non-Christian, non-Nazi,
non-communist, non-frigid, non-Republican group of those for whom sexual
ecstasy were possible.
As for the Party in Power (this week), as soon as one understands that *****
"Ya like my gun, eh Big Boy - Cheney is the sexual magnet of the Republican
Party, you start to see what's not happening. Anywhere. To anyone. Under any
circumstances.
***** Cheney is, pretty much, the zucchini of politicos. You could stay alive
on it but why bother?
Is that all there is?
When a political party has George Bush43's intelligence and ***** "You"
Cheney's morals, there are several questions that might be asked.
One, of course, would be, "You really don't understand, do you, wacko?"
Then - of course - there's the women's rhyme passed from generation to
generation that states, "Once you have a man, you'll never vote or want a
Republican."
And as a Independent connoisseur of The Art once (or a couple of times),
stated: "When I want a quiet evening, I dominate a Republican. When I want
excitement, I surrender to a Dom - oops!, "Dem"" Oops! "Mistress and/or
Master".
When your non-smoking mother-in-law lights up . . . . . . .
Read the UseNet postings of Republicans.
Then, read the UseNet postings of men and women.
Democrat: "I've got some new ideas. A few of them involve chandeliers."
Republican: "I'm sick and tired of this insescent demand for sex! You wanted
sex year before last and I told you then, you're immoral for wanting sex
unless we want a baby. You want to WHAT!!! Only a Democrat would do something
perverted and unnatural and erect as that. Wait!! Where are you going? What
Democratic "func-tion? Huh? What? You aren't supposed to /like/ it, you're
sposed to, occasionally - every year or three - give into my unChristian
sexual drive."
"What do you mean, you've been ashcrofted? It's nasty if those "things" are
showing. They make me think of my Republican mama and that Democrat that used
to sneak in when she wanted to sin before God and her three neighbors
standing in line who wanted a bit of Democrat in the old Republican."
"Yes, I want our daughter to be a 'good girl' and stay away from promiscuous
sex and I want her to marry a Republican so that she'll never know the
thrilling ecstacy of sex gone wild and the overwhelming passions that course
through my body and I am /certainly/ not going to tell her about
Democrats!!!!"
"I fear that she will be exposed to other than the MacDonalds of the mind.
Only a filthy sex-obsessed Democrat would think of taking my daughter just
like they (oops!) take me and one even took me to Burger King for a fling and
I'll never forget the deep and sensual feelings of a double right where I
wanted it."
"Did you know - that with Democrats - there are other ways of doing ""it"?"
"It's not that Republicans are senseless boobs with no positifve factors but
that Republicans - let's just come out and say it - are no good in bed. Or on
the back seat. Or in the kitchen. Or in the backyard. Or up on the roof. Or -
have I ever told you about Democrats and chandeliers? Well, you have to be
pretty limber because this involves - OOPS! - a Republican, aka virgin and/or
really bad at sex- is coming and, since he's just 47, he'll tell his mommie
if sex is mentioned."
"Are all Democrats good in bed? Of course not! Some are drab and boring and
unentertaining. I just don't know what they do for the other 14 hours of the
day!"
Democrats are certainly not /all/ great in bed. Unless one compares them to
Republicants, of course.
Those nasty Democrats are led on by "nekkid broads with tits" while
Republicans take comfort in the sensuality and "Come hither" raw sex that
George W C Bush43 elicits in "True Believers".
[Fruitcakes, in other words.]
Think of a female George Bush. Hold that thought. Wipe your mouth, brush your
teeth and use mouthwash. No one, but nobody, throws up like that! Quit it!
Stop! I'm going to call you a Republican! That's better. QUIT IT, DAMN IT!
Oh, okay - anything to stop that incredible vomiting! Sex - Democrats -
Orgasms - Perversions. Now, do you feeel all better? OH!! You /certainly/ do.
Why don't we go somewhere and try a little cross-species democratizing. AH,
YES-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I'll vote Democratic forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"This has been a paid commercial advertisement brought to you by "Women Who
Are No Longer Republicans But Are Now Co-Dependent Sexual Playthings and
Loving It."
and
"This has been a paid commercial advertisement brought to you by "Men Who Are
No Longer Republicans But Are Now Co-Dependent Sexual Playthings and Loving
It."
If you look at George Bush and you think "sex", . . . . . . , . . . . . . , .
.. . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . .
.. , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . .
.. . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . .
, . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . .
.. . . , . . . . . .
And what if your wife did?
Gray Shockley
------------------
Theatre is Life;
Film is Art;
Television is Furniture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed & His Other Son |
20 Feb 2006 12:37:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0600, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote
(in article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
Hm,m,m - was he the guy whose death scream was,
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Gray Shockley
-----------------------------
Oh, we get lots of those here
but, he!, he's or first lawyer!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: A few questions about Mohammed & His Other Son |
20 Feb 2006 11:12:00 AM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0600, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote
(in article <1140041130.879321.76370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
I want to know how Muslims justify something. This is an honest
question, since it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. If Mohammed
was supposed to be the major prophet of Allah to ever come, why...
...did he let his father, grandfather, and others die when he was
young, as they tried to care for him?
...did he let his wife die?
...did he let every single male heir that he had die?
...did he let him die an early death (earlier than the Biblical
guarentee of a long life)?
I really want to understand why it was that Muslims think Allah was
unable to save Mohammed, but he is suppose to be able to save them.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
Hm,m,m - was he the guy whose death scream was,
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
The ONLY one destined to suffer for all. Don't you get it yet?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
