Quran Vs Bible

If you think there was a conversation to begin with, you are sadly mistaken. I stated something, you misconstrued it, I corrected you and told you what I meant, and now you are asking me to "prove" that my words are my own. Conversation is impossible if you can assign any meaning you'd like to someone else's words and then refuse to accept any clarification on the part of the person who produced those words.

You don't even care what I have to say about my own position. You've made up something else. You've been charging at windmills from the beginning. I've you'd actually like to have a conversation with me, and not your own personal invention, then talk to me. But actually talk and have a real discussion.

Or you can decide to interpret everything I have just said as "I'm a giant purple frog who types at his computer using his psychic powers," and then ask me to prove this is not actually what I meant.

You don't get to ask people for clarification about what the meant unless you are willing to accept their account of what they meant. If you're done trolling, let me know.

 

Well, if you think there is any trolling going on, then show your PROOF of claim.

You believe that I misconstrued it.

You believe you corrected me and you further presented what you would like for me to believe.

Well you have convinced me that your use of words from the English language are a matter of your own personal selection, however the only word you have presented that can conceivably be declared as your own would be that *word* Flarg***** or however it was that you assembled the letters.

Communication is only impossible when you the speaker is unable to compel the mind of the listener/reader that the assertion(s) that you make are true. At that point, I would agree that communication fails. The whole idea of presenting PROOF is to convince the other person that you are correct. So convince me.

That is a presumption on your part, and is contingent upon you being able to show PROOF of what I "care" about.

No! I have been interpreting your writings based on the words that you have elected to make use of.

I have not seen any "windmills" in which I could be "charging".

Get your grammar straight and that might be possible.

Do you want me to interpret what you just said in the manner in which you gave permission? If you do, then I would ask for proof of claim.

Well, you do realize that door swings both ways, don't you? In other words if you set an obligatory condition on the transactions of a communication, then the obligatory condition is applicable to you also. Example: IF under the conditions you have stipulated, I could as easily say that "I believe the 'Bible' to be 100 % true" and you ask me to clarify and I respond by saying "I trust that the 'Bible' is error free, honorable, was inspired by God.", then you would be required to accept that clarification without further questioning. If you question it further, then you would not be honoring the obligation which you set. In either case, your acceptance of my clarification or your denial of my acceptance would end the conversation. Ridicule of my clarification would also be a means of not accepting my clarification.

Your conditions for clarification are IMHO absurd because it would allow any rationalization to be presented as a clarification and would not require any 'truth' to be a factor contained in the clarification, yet the conditions would require acceptance ... even the acceptance of a false statement.

 

Yes. And as the one who wrote it an clarified it, I'm the expert on what it means.

Communication has failed because you have steadfastly refused to allow me to speak for myself as to my own beliefs and statements. This would be no different than me saying "I've decided what you really mean is that 'God doesn't exist'. Prove to me that isn't what you are saying, (although I will not accept anything as proof)!

I'll give you one more shot to see if you are actually interested in a discussion. This would involve making some attempt to understand my explanation of my own words. If my explanation of my own words is immaterial, then you obviously don't want to talk to anyone but yourself.

 

Being the expert does not mean that you have compelled my mind to accept the assertions as true.

Not true. I have steadfastly allowed you to speak for yourself as to your beliefs and statements. Your assertion is as to a "no different" situation is also false, because the scenario you have described has not occurred.

Again false. Your "if" condition is irrelevant as "making some attempt to understand" your explanation or your own words has already been done. I have made such attempts and each time, my mind was not compelled to accept your assertions as true.

 

On the other hand....

http://www.godspeaceplan.blogspot.ca/2014/07/gods-peace-plan-for-holy-land-peace.html

God's Peace Plan
for the Holy Land
A Peace Plan for Israel/Palestine
conforming to guidelines from the Bible and Qur’an
presented by
Robert Leon Mendelson

....

 

I'm going to hold you to that. Then what are you arguing with? What are you asking me to prove -- aside from the meaning behind my own words, which you are not saying you are "allowing" me to speak to for myself?

 

Are you saying that slavery is not mentioned in the Koran after all those verses we just read?
Do you think that Slavery is bad, inherently, whether it is necessary for survival or not?

I agree with Yardmeat that it is the WORST situation one might find one's self in except for death because there is no other alternative.'
But God, (Reality), does present slavery as a possible means of survival under the proper circumstances.

 

... example?...

 

WHAT ABOUT ME????

"The OT never tells us more about "God" than he was The Creator.
But Christ says he is the personification of Truth, itself.

He says, "I am the Truth, and the way and the life" for men to follow, "the light" into the future which will come.

So if the son-of-god is Truth, he is the image of "god", hence the Reality which unfolds forevermore and gives birth to the Truth of what He has made real."

 

Sorry about that, CD. And that's really unfair to you considering the fact that, while we frequently disagree, you are very open to discussion. On the rare occasional that you have misunderstood my statements, you have always been open to allowing me to speak for myself and clarify my position. When I've unintentionally misrepresented your views, you've corrected me in a rational manner.

I disagree. The OT tells us a great deal about God's actions and opinions, not just that he was the Creator.

We should keep in mind, then, that God is the personification of agape, not just Reality.

 

Well I am certainly arguing against the previous allegation you made by saying I was not allowing you to speak for yourself as to your beliefs and statements. I am also arguing against many of the claims that you have made (too numerous to list at the moment), and I am arguing against your use of particular words that you have used. If you use a word and do not declare the intent or context of a word which has numerous meanings and contextual variables, then I ask you to clarify those words or to show proof of claim in using those words that I contest. Such words as "is". 'is' is a present tense word. 'still' is a present tense word. 'is' represents 'being' or 'existing'. is = be = exist.

 

You are ignoring the existence of the historical present tense. As I have said before, I was speaking in the historical present tense, as is common in discussing literature. You have asked me to clarify my words and I have done so. Now, are you going to "steadfastly [allow me] to speak for [myself] as to [my] beliefs and statements" or not?

 

Historical present tense. You mean past tense? If you were speaking in the "historical present tense" then your selected grammar betrayed you. "as it were at that time in the past" would have prevented any argument... but your choice of grammar betrayed you. You are now clarifying your intended message by using a rationalization to cover the bad choice of grammar. You have always been "steadfastly allowed to speak for" yourself "as to" your "beliefs and statements." I have never attempted to stop you. In fact, it would be impossible for me to stop you..... to do so, would require me to enter your home and forcefully take your computer away. No one has attempted to stop you. Quit rationalizing (making excuses for your behavior).

 

"We have made lawful to you" isnt exactly being neutral.

 

No, I mean . . .

No one else seems to be confused by it, and you have never complained about my use of it in the past, including where it is used elsewhere in the very same post you are referring to. There was no reason to anticipate that someone would twist my words as you have, or remain obstinate about it after being corrected.

Bad choice of grammar? I refer you to the sources above. Anyone with an English education should be able to understand what the historical present is, and should be used to seeing it in the discussion of literature.

Why, out of all of this times that I have used the historical present, is this the first time you've voiced confusion?

 

Very good research... read on...

Yeppir... bad choice of grammar. Out of all the examples your produced above, your comments were nowhere akin to those examples. However, I will admit that I have often written in the same style as some of the examples you presented.

Well, you must have missed that particular writing of mine that explained why I do my writings. However I do take notice of your very closing word. So you are pretending to see some confusion in my writings. Well, did you ever stop to think that in order for you to perceive something (especially something as intangible as the mental state of another person) that the something being perceived is coming from your own mind?

 

Several of the sources I quoted specifically suggest this grammar choice. It is commonplace.

They are exactly the same tense, used in exactly the same way. In both the examples and in my case, the writer of the sentence is using the present tense to refer to a literary event in the past, as is commonplace and suggested by grammatical sources.

Then there is no excuse for criticizing others for doing the same.

Hell, even the Bible itself uses the historical present.

I wrote something, you read it as something else. If you are truthful about the way you have interpreted it, then yes, that's called confusion. I wrote something in historical present and you mistook it for literally referring to the present day. That's confusion.

I am the originator of the intent of the statement. If my testimony is not proof of the intent of the statement, then we similarly have no proof that you actually disagree with me. Sure, you say you disagree, but what does that matter, given your line of argument?

 

Is it the word "still" that is confusing you?

 

"suggest"? However not necessarily absolutely? What logical necessity is there to make such a 'suggestion'?

Again: 'suggested' but not necessarily mandated. And again what logical necessity is there for such a suggestion?

Why not? Did I imply that my usage was correct?

Now you are attempting to use the 'Bible' as a source of validation on English grammar? The books of the 'Bible' were not even written in the English language originally. Which version of the 'Bible' then has the most proficient use of the English language and grammar?

No! That is called an idiosyncrasy of individual interpretation. Literalism in dealing with the words that people elect to use in their writings. As stated before, any confusion will be the result of your mind making and forming such a perception.

It is evidence of what I have previously claimed regarding all the arguments presented in the religion and philosophy section of the forum... evidence of futility...

 

What pointless babbling on you two go on about, to avoid the topic of discussion and any criticism of the Quran

 

Irrelevant (although at least one of the sources does use an absolute imperative).

If you have a problem with English grammar, take it up with the sources I provided.

Again: irrelevant. There is no such thing as an English paragraph where absolutely everything in it is mandated by the language. Any sentence could be written differently.

What logical necessity is there for the semicolon to be drawn exactly the way it is?

According to modern English grammar, yes, your usage was correct.

No, but they were written in a language, one which has grammar that allows for the use of historical present. Just like English does. The thought process is exactly the same.

Irrelevant.

When it comes to accounting for the meaning of my words, this is irrelevant. I can tell you exactly what I mean. These word games are Sophistry, not legitimate "interpretation".

Ah, so this isn't really about what I said. This is about derailing things back to your Pyrrhonic skepticism argument.

The argument is self-defeating since, if it is true, there is no reason to believe you actually mean it.

 

Post limit thread closure.

Shangrila
Moderator