Raul-7 wrote:mesquite wrote:Raul-7 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:That's not proof in any sense of the word. PROOF - (evidence) demonstration, verification, case, reasons, exhibits, credentials, data, warrant, confirmation, substantiation....
Well it is proof, the tree branches formed the words 'There is No God but Allah'. What, do you want the trees to say it too?
Raul, why didn't you post the whole picture. The trees on the left side say Muhammad was his messenger. Isn't that even more miraculous, or should we say ridiculous since the picture is not a photograph, but rather an oil painting.
Yeah, I'm sure the author of that site is credible. All he is trying to do is to mock Islam (being a convert himself), such as the praying tree - there's nothing to disprove it isn't true. Or for example the bee-hive; you can see how he used MS Paint to write that. Disprove it from some credible person who actually has real evidence to back up his claims, not some convert who has a grudge against Islam.
Raul, take off your blinders and stop and think for just a second. You showed a part of a picture and claimed it to be a real place. I showed you that it was just part of a bigger picture that had even more purported miraculous messages.
Let us suppose that this place is real. Do you not think that such a place would be famous, well known and photographs plentiful. Such is not the case with your very poor quality crop of an oil painting.
If you think that the website I referenced is in error, then why not accept the
challenge[/u]
cicerone imposter wrote:I'm talking about perceptions in general. I'm probably guilty of perceiving things in a way that's biased too. Are you happy?
I'm impressed. It's not easy sometimes to admit such things.
mesquite wrote:Raul-7 wrote:mesquite wrote:Raul-7 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:That's not proof in any sense of the word. PROOF - (evidence) demonstration, verification, case, reasons, exhibits, credentials, data, warrant, confirmation, substantiation....
Well it is proof, the tree branches formed the words 'There is No God but Allah'. What, do you want the trees to say it too?
Raul, why didn't you post the whole picture. The trees on the left side say Muhammad was his messenger. Isn't that even more miraculous, or should we say ridiculous since the picture is not a photograph, but rather an oil painting.
Yeah, I'm sure the author of that site is credible. All he is trying to do is to mock Islam (being a convert himself), such as the praying tree - there's nothing to disprove it isn't true. Or for example the bee-hive; you can see how he used MS Paint to write that. Disprove it from some credible person who actually has real evidence to back up his claims, not some convert who has a grudge against Islam.
Raul, take off your blinders and stop and think for just a second. You showed a part of a picture and claimed it to be a real place. I showed you that it was just part of a bigger picture that had even more purported miraculous messages.
Let us suppose that this place is real. Do you not think that such a place would be famous, well known and photographs plentiful. Such is not the case with your very poor quality crop of an oil painting.
If you think that the website I referenced is in error, then why not accept the
challenge[/u]
That challenge and the charges made could not apply to Jesus however. This would be worthy to note since many seem to enjoy equating the two.
Barticus wrote: I'm impressed. It's not easy sometimes to admit such things.
Why are you "impressed?" All of us have bias one way or the other on many subjects. It's a human condition; not something unique. That you would be impressed by such admission shows your lack of general norms.
cicerone imposter wrote:Barticus wrote: I'm impressed. It's not easy sometimes to admit such things.
Why are you "impressed?" All of us have bias one way or the other on many subjects. It's a human condition; not something unique. That you would be impressed by such admission shows your lack of general norms.
Ok. Maybe I should'nt be impressed. I was just saying that not everyone admits they are biased.
I know that everyone has biases whether they admit it or not.
Does'nt change the fact that SOME people have a hard time admitting such.
I think vanilla is superior to chocolate. How bout you?
I'lll choose the chocolate every time, but I've been known to have both at the same time.
I can dig the chocolate-vanilla swirl cone. The neopolitan thing goes too far out for me though. It may be living on the wildside for some but, I draw the line there. Three flavors just is'nt natural.
Yeah, we all have our bias; I like rocky road icecream.
This thread is really going out in a squeak! I don't think that should happen but maybe some of you are taking a break with the ice cream comments.
I think when we get to a point where religions seem fake, a lie, fabrications, not common sense, we can make important choices. What I chose to do a few years ago was to study the origins of my religion, which is Christianity. And, that is tough to do because up until about the 18th century either royalty, or the early church officials who put the bible together could kill, on an enormous scale, anyone who disagreed with what they were trying to put together -- a religion that could control (make behave?) just about everyone. But, they didn't behave themselves at all, did they?
People are not going to accept someone else (mere men, yet) telling them what and how to think, how to live, any longer. What we can all do is learn anything we wish to know, ourselves. For God's sake, this is the information age.
sunlover wrote:I think when we get to a point where religions seem fake, a lie, fabrications, not common sense, we can make important choices. What I chose to do a few years ago was to study the origins of my religion, which is Christianity.
What were the results of your study?
echi, you ask that as if there is an end to the study. It's very exciting and can, hopefully, become an obsession as that's the only way to continue.
In the Book of Thomas, which was one of the books not included in The Bible, one line stands out: When you go back to the beginning you will know the end."
The first Christians, I am at least thinking at this time, were in France. They did not have a church (as in stone building, or whatever) and they were converted (or taught) by Mary Magdalene, possibly others, who lived among them. Their beliefs are not even to be described, that's how much they differ from today's. There were different degrees of "knowing" and it was by choice.
What, do you want me burned at the stake, as they were?
"Burning at the stake..." is no longer practiced, except in the minds of the religious.
sunlover wrote:echi, you ask that as if there is an end to the study. It's very exciting and can, hopefully, become an obsession as that's the only way to continue.
In the Book of Thomas, which was one of the books not included in The Bible, one line stands out: When you go back to the beginning you will know the end."
The first Christians, I am at least thinking at this time, were in France. They did not have a church (as in stone building, or whatever) and they were converted (or taught) by Mary Magdalene, possibly others, who lived among them. Their beliefs are not even to be described, that's how much they differ from today's. There were different degrees of "knowing" and it was by choice.
What, do you want me burned at the stake, as they were?
Hmm???
Why would you ask me such a horrible question?
echi wrote:
Hmm???
Why would you ask me such a horrible question?
Actually, I was just joking, though the history of religion can at times be a horrible subject.
