I think that 666 is witchcraft, magick, sorcery

Hi everyone. Is there anyone else that thinks the same?

Right hand and forehead is a metaphor for thinking evil since our brains are behind the forehead and most people are right handed it means doing evil.

Love and Thanks

 

[Niblo]

You write:

‘The Muslim faith has NO way to remove sin as does the Christian faith.’

The scholars of Islam teach that where the Bible and the Qur’an agree; there is no problem; that where the Bible contradicts the Qur’an; then the Qur’an takes precedence; and that where there is neither agreement nor disagreement, then the matter is open for discussion; and the Beloved knows best!

The Bible and the Qur’an agree that the Beloved created both Adam and Eve; but they differ as to what happened next.

You are familiar with their story, as told in Genesis; therefore, there is no need to recount it here.

According to Trinitarian Christianity – as you know – Adam’s sin separated man from union with God. We were no longer at one with Him. In order to satisfy His justice, a pure and acceptable sacrifice had to be made; and this needed to be God Himself. This is why He became incarnate (in the form of Christ), so that He might offer Himself as a sacrifice of reparation, and thus enable humankind to become re-united with Himself.

The Qur’an presents a different account:

‘But you, Adam, and your wife live in the Garden. Both of you eat whatever you like, but do not go near this tree or you will become wrongdoers. Satan whispered to them so as to expose their nakedness, which had been hidden from them. He said: “Your Lord only forbade you this tree to prevent you becoming angels or immortals,” and he swore to them: “I am giving you sincere advice” – he lured them with lies. Their nakedness became exposed to them when they had eaten from the tree: they began to put together leaves from the Garden to cover themselves. Their Lord called to them: “Did I not forbid you to approach that tree? Did I not warn you that Satan was your sworn enemy?” (Sūrah ‘Al-A‘raf: 19-22’).

You will see that the Qur’an – in contrast to the Bible – places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake.

Nowhere in the Qur’an do we find even the slightest suggestion that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree; or even that she had eaten before him. In the Qur’an, Eve is not a temptress; not a seducer; and not a deceiver. Moreover, she is not told that she (and by implication, all women after her) would suffer intense pain in childbearing, as a direct result of her actions.

Adam and Eve disobeyed their Lord. That much is clear. When challenged, they replied:

‘Our Lord, we have wronged our souls: if You do not forgive us and have mercy, we shall be lost.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-A‘raf: 23’).

Muslims do not accept that ‘mankind suffers the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin’; and the reason they do not accept this is that the pair were forgiven.

Islam places great emphasis on the nature of the Beloved’s forgiveness – not just for Adam and Eve – but for each of us. Once a person is forgiven, their sin is wiped out.

This truth is proclaimed in the Bible also:

‘Yahweh is tenderness and pity, slow to anger and rich in faithful love; His indignation does not last for ever, nor His resentment remain for all time; He does not treat us as our sins deserve, nor repay us as befits our offences. As the height of Heaven above earth, so strong is His faithful love for those who fear Him. As the distance of east from west, so far from us does He put our faults. As tenderly as a father treats his children, so Yahweh treats those who fear Him; He knows of what we are made, He remembers that we are dust.’ (Psalm 103: 8-14; my emphasis).

Albert Barnes writes:

‘As far as the east is from the west – As far as possible; as far as we can imagine.

‘These are the points in our apprehension most distant from each other, and as we can conceive nothing beyond them, so the meaning is, that we cannot imagine our sins could be more effectually removed than they are. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is, “like" the distance of the east from the west” or, “like its being far.”

‘So far hath he removed our transgressions from us – That is, he has put them entirely away. They are so removed that they cannot affect us any more. We are safe from all condemnation for our sins, as if they had not been committed at all.’ (‘The Old Testament: Notes On The Whole Bible’; my emphases).

In Islam, three types of people cannot sin at all: those under the age of puberty; a person while asleep; and a person who lacks the mental capacity to know that what they do is wrong (a person who cannot distinguish between good and evil).

Adam and Eve fall into the last of these types.

No sin is committed without wilful intent; without the knowledge of good and evil. But this knowledge did not come to Adam or Eve until after the event. Only then did they realise their mistake. They were like a child who hears an obscene word for the very first time and – in all innocence – repeats it to his parents (hopefully not in front of the neighbours). What parent would punish their child for such behaviour – or wish to punish their grandchildren; greatgrandchildren, and so on – for the original ‘sin’ of their child?

Muslims do not believe that the Beloved act – or has ever acted – in this way.

According to Islam, all will stand before the Beloved on the Day of Judgment. Each will be given a record of their lives. Those whose book is placed in their right hand will be admitted to Paradise; and those whose book is placed in their left will not.

It is said that a record of good deeds is made straight away; but that a record of bad deeds is delayed for some hours, to allow for repentance (tawbah).

Even when a sin is recorded, it can be erased by sincere and genuine repentance:

‘But He will overlook the bad deeds of those who have faith, do good deeds, and believe in what has been sent down to Muhammad – the truth from their Lord – and He will put them into a good state’ (Sūrah ‘Muhammad: 2’).

Not only does tawbah wipe out an evil deed, it transforms that deed into a good one:

‘Those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, Allāh will change the evil deeds of such people into good ones. He is most forgiving, most merciful’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Furqan: 70’).

Every day of their lives – many times a day – Muslims speak these words in prayer:

‘The Lord of Mercy’; ‘The Giver of Mercy’; ‘The Compassionate’; ‘The Merciful’. These are the Beloved’s Names. We did not give them to Him, He chose them for Himself. Of all His Names these are His favorite. That is why we are asked to speak them so often – so that we do not forget Who it is that loves us; Who it is that binds us to Himself with ties of tenderness, mercy and forgiveness.

When we repent – out of sincere love for the Beloved alone, and not out of fear of punishment – nor for any other reason. This will suffice.

We are not to listen to those who declare that we are too imperfect for a perfect God; that we are too filthy to be cleaned, or too horrible to be redeemed. No matter the life we have led, our mistakes, or sins, can never be greater than the Beloved’s mercy.

He tells us:

‘My servants who have harmed yourselves by your own excess, do not despair of Allāh’s mercy. Allāh forgives all sins: He is truly the Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful. Turn to your Lord. Submit to Him before the punishment overtakes you and you can no longer be helped. Follow the best teaching sent down to you from your Lord, before the punishment suddenly takes you unawares, and your soul says: “Woe is me for having neglected what is due to Allāh, and having been one of those who scoffed!”’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Zumar: 53-56’; my emphasis).

And again:

‘But if anyone repents after his wrong-doing and makes amends, Allāh will accept his repentance: Allāh is most forgiving, most merciful. Do you (Prophet) not know that control of the heavens and earth belongs solely to Allāh? He punishes whoever He will and forgives whoever He will: Allāh has power over everything.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Ma’ida:39-40’).

By the way, according to Islam, Adam and Eve were not expelled from the Garden. The Qur'an makes it clear that they were sent to Earth in order to fulfil the purpose for which they were created. It was always the Beloved’s intention to make Adam his vicegerent on Earth.

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

You write:

‘Again, so that we are clear The Quran, contains direct attacks against the doctrine of the Trinity.’

The Qur’an denies the doctrine of the Trinity. No doubt about that.

Trinitarian notions concerning the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) are derived from selected interpretations of scripture, augmented by the opinion of sympathetic scholars.

The process is simple enough:

Read……interpret……discuss......reach a decision……formulate a notion……make a declaration……claim sole possession of the ‘truth’……and declare as ‘heresy’ all opposing notions. Thank you very much, and have a nice day!

For a hundred years, or so, there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Yeshua did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God incarnate.

Here are some quotes for you to mull over:

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology’; my emphasis).

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – a staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…..(it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity’; my emphasis).

John Hick – English philosopher of religion, and theologian – writes:

‘Until about a hundred years ago (as still very widely today in unlearned circles) belief in Jesus as God incarnate was assumed to rest securely upon his own explicit teaching: 'I and the Father are one', 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', and so on.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Hick reminds us that one response to the realisation that Yeshua never claimed to be God:

‘…has been the use of the concept of the 'Christ-event'. This helpfully elastic idea is now widely used to take the weight off the pillar of dominical authority, now found to be hollow, by shifting it to the historically solid fact of the church's teaching. For the 'Christ-event' is supposed to consist not only in the life of Jesus but also in the formation of the church and the growth of its faith in Jesus' deity. It is this larger complex, rather than Jesus' own words and actions, that are now said to authorize the belief that he was God incarnate.’ (Ibid.).

About sixty years ago I had an older colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian (I was a Catholic). We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same book as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.

By the way, in all our discussions, we never accused each other of worshipping a different God.

Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:

‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).

Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these scriptures in a way that makes God a Trinity, and Jesus ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other group sees absolutely no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regards Yeshua as just a man; in no way divine.

Muslims deny the Trinity, and for this are accused of worshipping a ‘different God’.

On the other hand, Jews and Biblical Unitarians also deny the Trinity; but Trinitarians appear to have no trouble accepting that these people worship the same God as they.

Why is this?

Blessings.

 

[Niblo]

I respect what you believe. I have Muslim friends and we have stimulating discussions. The one thing that we agree on is that Christianity and Islam are not the same, Allah and Yahwah are not the same.

Good morning. I trust you are well.
You write:

‘I respect what you believe. I have Muslim friends and we have stimulating discussions. The one thing that we agree on is that Christianity and Islam are not the same, Allah and Yahweh are not the same.’

The implication here is that there are two Gods. No Muslim would ever make this claim, since it is a creed of Islam that there is no god but God.

The late William J. Saal writes:

‘The problem as it confronts Christians is another kind of a problem altogether. It is a question of whether you can say you are worshipping the same God when you have such different understandings of the nature of God. Those who are troubled by this concern say that although Christians and Muslims use the same name for God and many of the same words to describe Him, they are not talking about the same God because Christians are talking about the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit…’ (‘Reaching Muslims for Christ: A Handbook for Christian Outreach Among Muslims.’).

You may be familiar with the Ishihara colour blindness testing system.

On one of the test plates, the number ‘74’ will be clearly visible to viewers with normal colour vision. Viewers with red-green colour blindness will read it as ‘21’; while viewers with monochromacy will see no number at all.

The question is: Are there three testing plates; or just the one – understood in three different ways? Only one

Are there two Gods (of the Bible and of the Qur’an); or only one – understood in different ways. Only one.

In a famous ‘proof’ for the existence of the Beloved, Aquinas argues that the universe is composed of contingent beings; by which he means beings that cannot bring themselves – or anything else – into existence; and that cannot guarantee their continued existence. Aquinas argues that if contingent beings are the only ones that exist, then nothing could have come into existence at all. There has to be a 'Necessary Being'; one that does not depend on any other for its existence, and which is the ‘First Cause' of all other beings. This 'Necessary Being'......this ‘First Cause' we call God. (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 2; Article 3).

We are agreed – I’m sure – that there can be only one ‘First Cause’; and this means, of course, that there can be only one Creator. Differences arise as to His nature.

In spite of these differences, there essential truths are shared by Christianity and Islam:

That the Beloved has revealed His existence, and His will, through various prophets.

That there is only One God, our Creator and Lord; who can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things; who is absolutely perfect; who is actually infinite in every perfection; who is absolutely simple; who is the True God, possessing an infinite power of cognition; who is absolute Veracity; who is absolutely faithful; who is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others; who is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness; who is absolute Benignity; who is absolutely immutable; who is eternal and everywhere present in created space; whose knowledge is infinite.

That the Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence; that God is almighty; is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth; is infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

That everything that exists (apart from Beloved, of course) was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by Him; that He was moved by His Goodness to create the world; and this this was done for His glorification; that He has created a good world; a world that has a beginning in time; that He created all things, and holds all these things in existence.

That through His providence He protects and guides all that He has created; that He created the first man (and woman); that every human being possesses an individual soul; and that the Beloved has conferred on humankind a supernatural Destiny.

That sanctifying grace makes one holy; that such grace can be increased by good works; and may be lost, and is lost, by every grievous (mortal, serious) sin.

That by their good works, those who believe in Him really do acquire a claim to supernatural reward from their Lord; that the bliss of heaven lasts for all eternity; and that the souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.

That those who transgress against His commandments, and commit sin, can be granted forgiveness through His mercy.

That all the dead will rise again on the last day; and that they will be judged.

However – as I’m sure you know – Islam does not accept the following, fundamental (Catholic) dogmas:

That in the Beloved there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; each of whom possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.

That Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is both ‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’ at one and the same time; that his divine and human natures are united hypostatically – that is, joined to each other in one Person; that each of Yeshua’s two natures possesses its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation; that these two natures continue unimpaired, untransformed and unmixed with the other; and that ‘Hypostatic Union’ of Yeshua’s human nature with the ‘Divine Logos’ took place at the moment of his conception.

That Yeshua became man in order to redeem humankind’; and that he is to be venerated with one single mode of worship; the absolute ‘Worship of Latria’ which is due to the Beloved alone.

That Yeshua offered himself on the cross as a true and proper sacrifice; and that by his sacrifice has ransomed us, and reconciled us with the Beloved; that after his death, Yeshua’s soul, which was separated from his body, descended into the underworld; and that, on the third day after his death, Yeshua rose gloriously from the dead.

That Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.

That ‘original sin’ exists, and is transmitted by natural generation; that in the state of ‘original sin’, humanity is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity; and that souls who depart this life in the state of ‘original sin’ are excluded from the ‘Beatific Vision’.

These examples are taken from Denzinger’s ‘The Sources of Catholic Dogma’; and from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’.

These are the major (irreconcilable) differences between the two Faiths (and the list is not exhaustive).

I am not at all concerned about these differences.

The Beloved says:

‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Ma’ida: 48’; my emphasis).

Blessings.

 

[Rodger]

Good morning, Rodger.

Sorry for the delayed reply.

You write:

‘The God of the Bible Never Lies: Can that be said of Allah. Does the Quran Deceive? ‘Actually, it has been observed that in three different places the Quran actually teaches that Allah actually intentionally deceives people. They are as follows.’

You then quote Sūrah ‘Al‘Imran’:

‘The (disbelievers) schemed but Allāh also schemed; Allāh is the Best of Schemers’. (ʾĀyah: 54)

And then Sūrah ‘Al-Anfa’l’:

‘Remember (Prophet) when the disbelievers plotted to take you captive, kill, or expel you. They schemed and so did Allāh: He is the best of schemers.’ (ʾĀyah: 30).

The word used to denote the act ‘planning’; ‘plotting’; or ‘scheming’ is ‘makr’. This word is never used to denote lying or deceiving.

‘Makr’ is to be taken literally when applied to the evil intentions and deeds of people.

When applied to the Beloved, on the other hand, it is a metaphorical reference to His power to thwart, or to defeat, the actions of the unrighteous. In reality, the Beloved has no need to plot, or to scheme:

‘He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees something, He says only, ‘Be,’ and it is.’ (Sūrah ‘Al-Baqara: 117’).

The principal Qur’anic word used to denote the act of deception is gharūr.

Gharūr is used to describe the actions of Satan; and of people; but never of the Beloved.

While gharūr is the principal Qur’anic word for ‘deception’; there is one other; namely ‘khadi’.

This word occurs just five times in the Qur’an. Only once is it used of the Beloved:

‘The hypocrites try to deceive Allāh, but it is He who causes them to be deceived (khādiʿuhum). When they stand up to pray, they do so sluggishly, showing off in front of people, and remember Allāh only a little, wavering all the time between this and that, belonging neither to one side nor the other. If Allāh leaves someone to stray, you (Prophet) will never find a way for him. (Sūrah ‘Al-Nisa’: 142-143; my emphases).

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘These verses again touch believing hearts, which will undoubtedly feel disgust with people who try to deceive God. A believer knows that God, limitless is He in His glory, cannot be deceived. How could that be possible when He knows the innermost secrets of people’s hearts and what is even more deeply concealed. Believers realise that a person who tries to deceive God must have within him a great measure of evil, ignorance and naivety. Hence, they are disgusted with such people and look upon them with contempt.

‘The sūrah states that while they try to deceive God, it is indeed He who causes them to be deceived. He simply allows them to travel along their erring way, without alerting them by a calamity that opens their eyes. He leaves them to go along until they fall into the abyss towards which they aim. Calamities and trials can often be an act of mercy, as they deter people from going further into error, or they alert them to what they have overlooked. Favours and affluence may also be a temptation for those who have been hardened in sin. As a result, they are left without any shock to wake them up to the realities of which they have become oblivious to. They continue in their sinning ways until they reach their most evil destination.’ (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an: Volume 3’; my emphasis).

These ʾĀyāt have their counterpart in Ezekiel; and in 2 Thessalonians:

In Ezekiel 14: 9-11 (KJV), we have (my emphasis):

‘And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.’

Albert Barnes – the American theologian and clergyman – writes:

‘A deep truth lies beneath these words, namely, that evil as well as good is under God’s direction. He turns it as He will, employing it to test the sincerity of men, and thus making it ultimately contribute to the purification of His people, to the confirmation of the righteous, to the increase of their glory and felicity.’ (‘The Old Testament: Notes on The Whole Bible’).

John Wesley – the English cleric, theologian, and evangelist – writes that these verses refer to a ‘false prophet, who speaks all serene, and quiet, in the hope of reward.’ (‘Complete Bible Commentary’).

According to Wesley, the Beloved:

‘Permitted him (the false prophet) to err, or justly left him in his blindness.’ (Ibid.).

Compare Wesley’s comment with that of Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb:

‘He (the Beloved) simply allows them to travel along their erring way, without alerting them by a calamity that opens their eyes. He leaves them to go along until they fall into the abyss towards which they aim.’

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV) we have (my emphasis):

‘And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.’

Barnes writes:

‘God shall send them strong delusion - Greek: “energy of deceit;” a Hebraism, meaning strong deceit, The agency of God is here distinctly recognised, in accordance with the uniform statements of the Scriptures, respecting evil; compare Exodus 7:13; Exodus 9:12; Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:20, Exodus 10:27; Exodus 11:10; Exodus 14:8. Isaiah 45:7.

‘(….) It is not necessary here to suppose that there was any positive influence on the part of God in causing this delusion to come upon them, but all the force of the language will be met, as well as the reasoning of the apostle, by supposing that God withdrew all restraint, and suffered men simply to show that they did not love the truth.

‘God often places people in circumstances to develop their own nature, and it cannot be shown to be wrong that He should do so. If people have no love of the truth, and no desire to be saved, it is not improper that they should be allowed to manifest this.

‘(….) This does not affirm that God wished them to believe a lie; nor that He would not have preferred that they should believe the truth; nor that He exerted any direct agency to cause them to believe a lie. It means merely that He left them, because they did not love the truth, to believe what was false, and what would end in their destruction. Can anyone doubt that this constantly occurs in the world?’ (‘The New Testament: Notes on The Whole Bible’; my emphases).

Of the words ‘And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion’ John Wesley writes:

‘That is, judicially permit to come upon them, strong delusions.’ (‘Complete Bible Commentary’).

Other Biblical verses that speak of the Beloved as a deceiver:

‘Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.’ (‘Jeremiah 4:10’; KJV; my emphasis).

Barnes writes:

‘These words are generally referred to the false prophets; they rather refer to real prophecies of future blessedness promised to the Jews. Jeremiah could not reconcile the doom he was now commanded to pronounce, either with his previous prophecy, or with what he read in the writings of his predecessors. Time only could solve the difficulty. The sword has reached the life i.e., has inflicted a mortal wound.’ (‘The Old Testament: Notes on The Whole Bible’).

And this:

O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.’ (‘Jeremiah 20:7’: KJV; my emphasis).

John Wesley writes:

‘Jeremiah at first excused himself to God, chap. 1:6, but the Lord prevailed against him replying, verse 1:7, Say not, I am a child, for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak, verse 1:9. This is all that is here meant, namely, God's over-ruling him contrary to his own inclinations.’ (‘Complete Bible Commentary’; my emphasis).

In both the Bible and Qur’an, the Beloved permits people to continue in their sinful behaviour, to their ultimate destruction.

In the words of Albert Barnes: ‘It cannot be shown to be wrong that He should do so.’

Continued:

IF you would like to shorten your responces I would be glad to answer you. However, when they are as long as you have posted, it is impossible for me to adjust and respond.

Your post is co convaluded that I can not follow it.

 

[Niblo]

IF you would like to shorten your responces I would be glad to answer you. However, when they are as long as you have posted, it is impossible for me to adjust and respond.

Your post is co convaluded that I can not follow it.

In that case, thank you for your time.

Blessings.

 

[lukadrower]

this is the number for all places or people with darkness and demons...
you can find it in different addresses and phone numbers, or in the numbers of different companies...

 

[Rodger]

In that case, thank you for your time.

Blessings.

You are welcome..........Goodbye!

 

[oldprophet]

I respect what you are saying and I do not mean to argue or contend, I would only say that the Quran is not a work of fiction as you have stated.

Rather, I would say that real historical facts from Muhammed's parents show that the Quran is a production from a man who had epilepsy.

I stand corrected

 

[Rodger]

I stand corrected

I did not mean in any way to be corrective to you. I apologize for the way I said that.

I was just trying to interject that the Quran has been said by Muslim's themselves that they believe that Muhammed suffered from epilepsy and his parents stated that he was possessed by a demon.


"His [Muhammad's friend's] father said to me, "I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his family before the result appears. ..... She [Muhammad's mother] asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her. When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did."
Source....https://answering-islam.org/Silas/demons.htm

 

[eddif]

I did not mean in any way to be corrective to you. I apologize for the way I said that.

I was just trying to interject that the Quran has been said by Muslim's themselves that they believe that Muhammed suffered from epilepsy and his parents stated that he was possessed by a demon.


"His [Muhammad's friend's] father said to me, "I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his family before the result appears. ..... She [Muhammad's mother] asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her. When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did."
Source....https://answering-islam.org/Silas/demons.htm

Epidemiology 101?
New word for me, but is the way some explain things. Based on a 1978 paper and some letters to the editor. It is the way some arrive at truth. Ask a lot of questions and rank answers. The serpent in Eden may have been the first one to use it.

When folks ask questions, they try to say questions lead to knowing if you are in error.
Of course they hold the instruction manual for their truth.

Mississippi redneck
eddif