Is this inconsistency in the Quran evidence that it is man made?

[Thurisaz]

The only thing you exposed is that you are a dumb fuck who believed the folk tales of bronze age shepherd tribes or the delusions of a 7th century warlord.

When the "dumb fuck" accusation comes from barely literate nincompoop who has no ability to apply reason or evidence, I guess I'll survive. In my atheist days I would have called your bullshit out too, simply because you were a fucking embarrassment. Or to pagans, whichever you prefer mr. there are no gods but take a look at Thor's hammer.

You can't really prove a negative

Sure I can. 2+2 isn't 5 because it's 4. You're too short for this ride and you only keep embarrassing yourself if you continue.

but to even suggest that all the allegations made by the religious (from reincarnation to the 72 virgins) are equivalent to stating that there is no god, then you are a knuckle dragging taliban moron too afraid to come to terms that,

You don't even try defending your bullshit so there's little reason to dignify that with a response, no matter how many times you reiterate it.

yes, you will die some day, no one will eventually remember you, the only meaning in your life is provided by yourself and that we are irrelevant in this wonderfully cold and pitiless Universe...

I'm a former atheist and understand the emotional attachment to personal pride and mental imagery of "cold, hard facts". I understand it a lot better than you, because I know that image to be a result of wishful thinking, nihilism and pride instead of acceptance of how little you know about reality. You have no sense and no humility, which is why you're completely useless.

 

[Wyrm]

When the "dumb fuck" accusation comes from barely literate nincompoop who has no ability to apply reason or evidence, I guess I'll survive. In my atheist days I would have called your bullshit out too, simply because you were a fucking embarrassment. Or to pagans, whichever you prefer mr. there are no gods but take a look at Thor's hammer.

The alt-right Trump voter that believes in a barely collated string of conflicting books from the first century decided that I'm an embarrassment. I guess you're too dumb to understand the concept of archetypes.

Sure I can. 2+2 isn't 5 because it's 4. You're too short for this ride and you only keep embarrassing yourself if you continue.

Yes, after that sentence I'm the one embarrassing myself. That's another example of a faith based statement.

You don't even try defending your bullshit so there's little reason to dignify that with a response, no matter how many times you reiterate it.

You can't even properly understand or address the point. But its normal: you looked at Trump and thought "you know what? this is what this country needs"

I'm a former atheist and understand the emotional attachment to personal pride and mental imagery of "cold, hard facts". I understand it a lot better than you, because I know that image to be a result of wishful thinking, nihilism and pride instead of acceptance of how little you know about reality. You have no sense and no humility, which is why you're completely useless.

Humility, yes, you seem to have in spades. Tell me there: do you take the faith based approach in everything in life or just in innocuous forum shit talk? Because if you do I might have a bridge to sell you.

And don't forget: next time you get sick please, oh please, take the faith based healing approach. The world will be better for it.

 

[ncordless]

It's a book on Earth with words in it. Therefore it, and the ideas in it, are man made.

 

[Squarechoke]

Fixed.

So you're saying that Christianity's holy book consists mostly of things only meant for a different religion? That's one of the strongest accusations of Christianity being stupid that I've heard.

 

[Thurisaz]

The alt-right Trump voter that believes in a barely collated string of conflicting books from the first century decided that I'm an embarrassment. I guess you're too dumb to understand the concept of archetypes.



Yes, after that sentence I'm the one embarrassing myself. That's another example of a faith based statement.



You can't even properly understand or address the point. But its normal: you looked at Trump and thought "you know what? this is what this country needs"



Humility, yes, you seem to have in spades. Tell me there: do you take the faith based approach in everything in life or just in innocuous forum shit talk? Because if you do I might have a bridge to sell you.

And don't forget: next time you get sick please, oh please, take the faith based healing approach. The world will be better for it.

The problem about being intelligent enough to correctly anticipate your constant doubling down and projecting without addressing any point or defending any of your inanities is that there's absolutely no reason to not ignore you. Said and done.

 

[Prutfis]

I'm no Muslim apologist, but if contradictions in the holy books are suddenly a dealbreaker, then every religion is gonna need to close up shop. Not just the snack bar.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Thurisaz ignoring people when he can't answer questions then proclaims his super intelligence. Haha so predicable.

 

[mrbaapt]

(4:82) If it [Qur'an] had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

1. (9:71) The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another.
2. (41:31) We (Angels) are your protectors in this life and in the Hereafter.
3. (2:107) Do you not know that... you have not besides Allah any protector or any helper?

Therefore the Qur'an is not from Allah?

 

[8KresniK8]

*looks at book* hmm, what made this book?

what makes books?

people make books.

Its a man made book, didnt even need to open it. Problem solved motherfuckers.

 

[meauneau]

i understand perfectly what you did. Either its A or B and it cannot be both A and B and choosing either A or B would contradict the quran. I presented you with C which correctly answers your question (which in of itself is incorrect)

You still haven't answerd my request. Both statements could be false or only one of them false. What is it, both false or only one? If the latter then which? Very simple request.

When I ask whether A or not-A, and you reply that B, then you are implying that neither A nor not-A are the case.

When I ask whether A (only god helps muslims) or not-A (it is not the case that only god helps muslims), and you reply that B (god is the supporter/friend of muslims) or whatever you are rejecting both A and not-A (both false).

no the translators of the quran provide the best translation in their opinion. this is why multiple translations are not exactly the same. i.e.

So they cannot agree on whether it is supporter, friend, protector or helper. The context cannot help determine the exact meaning?

we are going in circles again. the verse says there is no wali other than Allah. the word Wali can have multiple meanings based on the context.

Right, so in the context of (2:107) Do you not know that... you have not besides Allah any protector or any helper? Is there an exact meaning? Surely it doesn't mean many things at once, this would be absurd.

thus both I and God can say we are someone's Wali. I as in his Wali (friend) and Allah his Wali (protector) and then the can also say he is our Wali in this province (governor) and then another person says I am also your Wali (as in he is my son named Wali).

I understand this. Bank can mean where we save our money or the land side of a river. Different contexts different meanings, the word is polysemous. But then the context determines the sense. But this is a red herring. As I asked above, what is the intended meaning given the context?

why this is such a complicated thing to you I have no idea. It even exists in english. If I say "my lord" i could be talking about the judge in the courtroom, the lord in the castle or the Lord God. This is why both statements "there are 100 lords (nobles) and ladies in England" and "There is only one Lord (God)" can both be correct even without the brackets depending on the context.

I understand this. But this is a red herring. I asked for the sense of the word used given the context, not the many senses of the word given many contexts. You are evading and I can see it.

 

[7437]

All religion is man made. magic is not real.

 

[dontsnitch]

So you're saying that Christianity's holy book consists mostly of things only meant for a different religion? That's one of the strongest accusations of Christianity being stupid that I've heard.

You were successful in constructing and tearing down a strawman.

I'll say it like this: stoning people because of their sins is not a Christian tenet, but it is arguably a Jewish one.

 

[Squarechoke]

You were successful in constructing and tearing down a strawman.

I'll say it like this: stoning people because of their sins is not a Christian tenet, but it is arguably a Jewish one.

That stance makes little sense in the cases of when the New Testament does not contradict the Old, which goes for plenty of bad things. Jesus also had several passages where the talks about that the old laws are still valid and that he was no there to abolish them but to fulfill them. Hence it makes sense that the Old Testament is in the Christian Bible.

Of course reality is just that there's cherry picking to align with the modern values that came out of secular philosophy, but it's still interesting to discuss as if it actually was the Bible that's the source for how Christians live today.

 

[dontsnitch]

That stance makes little sense in the cases of when the New Testament does not contradict the Old, which goes for plenty of bad things. Jesus also had several passages where the talks about that the old laws are still valid and that he was no there to abolish them but to fulfill them. Hence it makes sense that the Old Testament is in the Christian Bible.

Of course reality is just that there's cherry picking to align with the modern values that came out of secular philosophy, but it's still interesting to discuss as if it actually was the Bible that's the source for how Christians live today.

The New Testament doesn't contradict the Old in this regard, it's just a New Covenant, called the New Testament. Christians may cherry pick the things they like/don't like, but this is not one of them. If you read the text, you will understand that killing others for their sin is not a Christian tenet. I could go into detail about, or you can Google it for yourself.

 

[Squarechoke]

The New Testament doesn't contradict the Old in this regard, it's just a New Covenant, called the New Testament. Christians may cherry pick the things they like/don't like, but this is not one of them. If you read the text, you will understand that killing others for their sin is not a Christian tenet. I could go into detail about, or you can Google it for yourself.

It must depend on which sin it is. Jesus told people to bring his enemies that didn't want him to be king over them and slay them before him.

 

[Thurisaz]

Jesus told people to bring his enemies that didn't want him to be king over them and slay them before him.

What?

 

[badascan]

There is no proof otherwise so by default all religions are "man made".

 

[weed]

All religion is man made. magic is not real.

I've said this before.

man created God to deceive others.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Yeah and the Christian book says thou shalt not kill, and yet if someone has served other gods, then you shalt stone them with stones until they die.

And the Jewish book says the highest form of wisdom is kindness, but it also says if a non-Jew has fallen into a crevice, then it's okay to take a ladder away from them.

And if you're a Scientologist, well please don't make me read L. Ron Hubbard right now, but let's just all assume there is some bullshit in there too.

The Bible does not say, "thou shalt not kill", the Hebrew translation is actually, "thou shall not murder".

But, I am sure there are plenty of other issues with the book.

 

[tramendous]

You still haven't answerd my request. Both statements could be false or only one of them false. What is it, both false or only one? If the latter then which? Very simple request.

When I ask whether A or not-A, and you reply that B, then you are implying that neither A nor not-A are the case.

When I ask whether A (only god helps muslims) or not-A (it is not the case that only god helps muslims), and you reply that B (god is the supporter/friend of muslims) or whatever you are rejecting both A and not-A (both false).




So they cannot agree on whether it is supporter, friend, protector or helper. The context cannot help determine the exact meaning?







Right, so in the context of (2:107) Do you not know that... you have not besides Allah any protector or any helper? Is there an exact meaning? Surely it doesn't mean many things at once, this would be absurd.



I understand this. Bank can mean where we save our money or the land side of a river. Different contexts different meanings, the word is polysemous. But then the context determines the sense. But this is a red herring. As I asked above, what is the intended meaning given the context?



I understand this. But this is a red herring. I asked for the sense of the word used given the context, not the many senses of the word given many contexts. You are evading and I can see it.

the mistake you're making isn't with god being the only protector its with muslims also being protector. because in the case of the other muslims the word wali isn't being used as protector but as friend/supporter etc. we are back to the example of there being one lord and 1000 lords in england.