11-16-2004, 04:45 AM
Bar-khela,
I said-???You still assume a superior intellect than anyone else on this forum. You are mistaken.???
To which you replied ???For me to say that I have a superior intellect is to say that I am without challenge (which is far from the truth). I never stated what you accuse me of. Let me assure you that I do not fear you and I will blaze everything you throw at me. Either stop or continue.???
You may want to reread what I actually said. I said ???you assume?????? You said ???I never stated?????? This is correct you never stated that, you assume it. There is a big difference. You may want to start posting without the emotion of hatred in your heart. Please calmly read what others say then reply. I would ask that you would reply courteously and without your salutation ???Don???t challenge me. It???ll cost your pride???.
I said ???You are barking up the wrong tree with your insults and attacks. First finish college, mature, and then attack; until then ask non-insulting questions.???
You replied ???Note to the forum: When your opponent is unable to directly refute your argument, he or she will use logical fallacies to appease his or her crowd. Keith is using the most common of logical fallacies known as ad hominem. An ad hominem is the attack of one's opponent's background instead of his or her argument. Note to Keith: I will ask what I choose. I encourage the same.
You may want to read a couple of dictionary definitions about ???ad hominem??? attacks to get a good feel for what one actually is. A good debating class in college will also help you understand what this is and what this is not. My refutation of your argument follows my suggestion and is reiterated below. I suggest you mature before you attack.
An example of an ???ad hominem??? argument follows. "Bar-khela, your point is silly and useless because it is based on a dysfunctional childhood and an estranged relationship with your father." That would be an ???ad hominem??? argument. There was no factual refutation in that statement just an accurate description of your childhood placed in a context which is hurtful to you. That statement is ???ad hominem??? and has nothing to do with a refutation.
I said ???There is a direct contradiction about the ability for God to have a son. That is what the Koran says. You may try to obfuscate the facts but the facts remain. Go back and reread these two Suras. I'm not interested in your understanding of the meaning of those two Suras. What does your Holy Book say????
After I expressed that I don???t care what your understanding of this verse is you gave me your understanding. My question of ???what does your ???Holy Book??? say???? stands.
You said ???Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."
Then you gave us ???your understanding???. You said ???Translation: He could taken for Himself a son, but no, He is above such things. Sets it up, then negates it.???
Me again- If that explanation is your way of justifying to yourself the obvious contradiction found in the Koran I???m ok with it. However, let me reiterate that the Koran says ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, he could have chosen whom he pleased out of ?????? This is what it says. Either the plain written word means what it says or it has no meaning. The Koran further asks this about Allah ???How can He have a son when He has no consort????
One Sura says God cannot have a son and another says He can. No amount of mental gymnastics can change the printed word.
I said ???The Egyptians did not practice crucifixion during the patriarch Joseph's lifetime. There is no evidence to support the Koran. That this is an anachronism is without dispute
You said ???"This is what it means,"
Me- No it does not. This fellow was probably hanged. He was not crucified. I would ask that before you accept any professor???s statement at face value that you do independent research to confirm or refute it. Cook is wrong. The Knight-Ridder newspaper article you quote without reference is far from authoritative. ???Hammurabi???s Code??? does not mention crucifixion. Check it out for yourself.
Finally you said ???Joseph entered Egypt in the second century BC.???
Me- Check your facts again. When do you believe that Joseph enter Egypt?
Your last question is profound ???Now what, Keith????
I hope you are sincere with that question. If you really want an answer, here it is. I would ask that you cool your jets. No one here is your enemy. Your flamboyance has a way of irritating many people. That group of people includes me. Why not participate in dialogue rather than accusations and threats? Your questions are legitimate and I (as well as many others) would like to answer them without the hatred you have brought to this forum.
I hope you take this post without an emotion of hatred. It was not posted with that intent.
Keith
I said-???You still assume a superior intellect than anyone else on this forum. You are mistaken.???
To which you replied ???For me to say that I have a superior intellect is to say that I am without challenge (which is far from the truth). I never stated what you accuse me of. Let me assure you that I do not fear you and I will blaze everything you throw at me. Either stop or continue.???
You may want to reread what I actually said. I said ???you assume?????? You said ???I never stated?????? This is correct you never stated that, you assume it. There is a big difference. You may want to start posting without the emotion of hatred in your heart. Please calmly read what others say then reply. I would ask that you would reply courteously and without your salutation ???Don???t challenge me. It???ll cost your pride???.
I said ???You are barking up the wrong tree with your insults and attacks. First finish college, mature, and then attack; until then ask non-insulting questions.???
You replied ???Note to the forum: When your opponent is unable to directly refute your argument, he or she will use logical fallacies to appease his or her crowd. Keith is using the most common of logical fallacies known as ad hominem. An ad hominem is the attack of one's opponent's background instead of his or her argument. Note to Keith: I will ask what I choose. I encourage the same.
You may want to read a couple of dictionary definitions about ???ad hominem??? attacks to get a good feel for what one actually is. A good debating class in college will also help you understand what this is and what this is not. My refutation of your argument follows my suggestion and is reiterated below. I suggest you mature before you attack.
An example of an ???ad hominem??? argument follows. "Bar-khela, your point is silly and useless because it is based on a dysfunctional childhood and an estranged relationship with your father." That would be an ???ad hominem??? argument. There was no factual refutation in that statement just an accurate description of your childhood placed in a context which is hurtful to you. That statement is ???ad hominem??? and has nothing to do with a refutation.
I said ???There is a direct contradiction about the ability for God to have a son. That is what the Koran says. You may try to obfuscate the facts but the facts remain. Go back and reread these two Suras. I'm not interested in your understanding of the meaning of those two Suras. What does your Holy Book say????
After I expressed that I don???t care what your understanding of this verse is you gave me your understanding. My question of ???what does your ???Holy Book??? say???? stands.
You said ???Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."
Then you gave us ???your understanding???. You said ???Translation: He could taken for Himself a son, but no, He is above such things. Sets it up, then negates it.???
Me again- If that explanation is your way of justifying to yourself the obvious contradiction found in the Koran I???m ok with it. However, let me reiterate that the Koran says ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, he could have chosen whom he pleased out of ?????? This is what it says. Either the plain written word means what it says or it has no meaning. The Koran further asks this about Allah ???How can He have a son when He has no consort????
One Sura says God cannot have a son and another says He can. No amount of mental gymnastics can change the printed word.
I said ???The Egyptians did not practice crucifixion during the patriarch Joseph's lifetime. There is no evidence to support the Koran. That this is an anachronism is without dispute
You said ???"This is what it means,"
Me- No it does not. This fellow was probably hanged. He was not crucified. I would ask that before you accept any professor???s statement at face value that you do independent research to confirm or refute it. Cook is wrong. The Knight-Ridder newspaper article you quote without reference is far from authoritative. ???Hammurabi???s Code??? does not mention crucifixion. Check it out for yourself.
Finally you said ???Joseph entered Egypt in the second century BC.???
Me- Check your facts again. When do you believe that Joseph enter Egypt?
Your last question is profound ???Now what, Keith????
I hope you are sincere with that question. If you really want an answer, here it is. I would ask that you cool your jets. No one here is your enemy. Your flamboyance has a way of irritating many people. That group of people includes me. Why not participate in dialogue rather than accusations and threats? Your questions are legitimate and I (as well as many others) would like to answer them without the hatred you have brought to this forum.
I hope you take this post without an emotion of hatred. It was not posted with that intent.
Keith