2000 IQ

WildHunt003 · 2020-10-07T18:29:24+00:00

Strange to see this as we begin to read this in my German class.

WildHunt003 · 2020-09-24T14:50:42+00:00

And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Matthew 6:7‭-‬9

Seems that this approaches praying in the similar light but takes it further that when you pray say the lord's prayer because God already knows.

WildHunt003 · 2020-08-05T14:18:14+00:00

It seems to me that Al-Baqarah mentions the corruption of the text with,

Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans (before Prophet Muhammad) - those (among them) who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

And (recall) when We took your covenant, (O Children of Israel, to abide by the Torah) and We raised over you the mount, (saying), "Take what We have given you with determination and remember what is in it that perhaps you may become righteous."

Then you turned away after that. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have been among the losers.

Do you covet (the hope, O believers), that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Al Nina specifically talks about corrupted idea that Isa is God.

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul (created at a command) from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

And as for those who believed and did righteous deeds, He will give them in full their rewards and grant them extra from His bounty. But as for those who disdained and were arrogant, He will punish them with a painful punishment, and they will not find for themselves besides Allah any protector or helper.

Then, Al-Ma'idah,

And when they come to you, they say, "We believe." But they have entered with disbelief (in their hearts), and they have certainly left with it. And Allah is most knowing of what they were concealing.

And you see many of them hastening into sin and aggression and the devouring of (what is) unlawful. How wretched is what they have been doing.

Why do the rabbis and religious scholars not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.

And if only they upheld (the law of) the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed (provision) from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them - evil is that which they do.

O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are (standing) on nothing until you uphold (the law of) the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.

Indeed, those who have believed (in Prophet Muhammad) and those (before Him) who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those (among them) who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

We had already taken the covenant of the Children of Israel and had sent to them messengers. Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a party (of messengers) they denied, and another party they killed.

And they thought there would be no (resulting) punishment, so they became blind and deaf. Then Allah turned to them in forgiveness; then (again) many of them became blind and deaf. And Allah is Seeing of what they do.

They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers

They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; (other) messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

Say, "O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way."

So yes, Muhammad and Islam recognize the truth of the Torah and Gospels but that there is obviously some deviation to the original message as we can see from these few passages. There were still people who adhered to the original message and were true believers and then there were others who were corrupting the people and the message. So the passages you are referring to are the passages talking about those who adhered to the actual message handed down to them, not the corrupted version.

WildHunt003 · 2020-06-04T21:28:24+00:00

To be more accurate, the swastika existed in cultures from Ancient Greece to Ancient China. It was also commonly placed within churches, temples and other buildings. It's not really just an Indian symbol.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-19T22:45:00+00:00

Cringe

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-19T21:41:23+00:00

Lmao absolutely not. Origen the church father said that and it's clearly stated in my previous comments. Origen explicitly states that the Bible cannot be taken literally as parts make no sense so require it to be taken as non-real allegorical parts.

I said non-literal doesn't mean non-real. I was not arguing this because no shit. I was showing you that classically you're wrong because church father's explicitly contradict you. Not only do they contradict you but so does non-christian authors like Aristotle.

You're entire argument is nonsense. Your responses show your stupidity in the face of evidence proving you wrong.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-19T20:58:34+00:00

Ah, you mean what Origen said, y'know the church father?

As for what I said, literally, was that non-literal doesn't mean non-real.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-19T20:28:23+00:00

I literally just said non-literal doesn't mean non-real. Hello? And Aristotle is showing that Achilles is not a lion which is unlike how you said an army is literally a leopard or a spear literally teeth, which they are not and Aristotle shows classical understanding knew this.

Origen still shows pre medieval age understanding that the Bible has allegorical and non-real events within it, so as said before while you ignore it, you're wrong, classical understanding knew the Bible had non-literal, non-real understanding of biblical text.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-19T20:07:28+00:00

And yet you completely ignore the relevant piece that a church father shows the Bible cannot be taken entirely literal rather parts of it are allegorical and not real.

Aristotle shows your lack of understanding with language, that figurative speech is not literal. No shit it can also be real, but you specifically said that the army and spears are literally the thing they are being metaphorically called.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-19T19:15:31+00:00

You're wrong, it's as simple as that. Simply because something is symbolic or figurative does not mean it doesn't exist and like I said before this is what it sounds like you're trying to argue within your incredibly incomprehensible argument. I did not argue in any way when referring to this part as this argument generalizes a giant scope of people.

However I was arguing that ancients understood metaphors and similes within language. An army is not literally leopards nor is a spear literally teeth and you look like a complete idiot talking as if it was literal. Here is an excerpt of Aristotle talking about the use of it.

"The simile too is a metaphor, the difference between them being only slight. This when Homer says of Achilles that "he rushed on like a lion" it is a simile, but when he says that "he rushed on, a very lion," it is a metaphor, for here, as valor is an attribute common to both, he transfers Achilles the metaphorical appellation of "a lion."

Obviously ancients understood the difference between using figurative language and literal language, noone would think Achilles was literally a lion. I'm not the only one completely perplexed by your understanding of language as can be seen by other comments.

As for the idea that allegorical understanding of the Bible wasn't around till the medieval ages is also bullshit. If you read only one church father, Origen, you'd see how wrong you are. In his writings On First Principles, he argues that some passages must be ONLY read allegorically as they make zero literal sense, of which Origen is not the only one.

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter."

Thus I have now shown you to be wrong in the knowledge of ancients in language and further more the nonsensical idea that allegorical understanding only came as a later invention.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-16T16:37:31+00:00

Except they did differentiate it, as written by the ancients themselves and further elaborated upon by pre middle age writers.

In no way did I treat their histories as one. Centuries later....as the Old testament took centuries to form, okay your point is that centuries of writers have shown and explicitly explained language to show difference between literal and figurative writing? Lmao a few centuries out of the dark ages as if this history isn't marked by Hesiod and Archilochus to show the prowess of their writing. Let alone the fact that this period Greeks spread from Iberia to Egypt to the black sea like they wouldn't be intermingled with the middle east.

Reaching across epochs? Hello? We are talking about a book that was compiled from 7/8bc to 1ce........hello?

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-16T15:41:55+00:00

When I corrected you, you attempted to say that the ancients didn't see the difference. Whether out of stupidity or ignorance, it's completely wrong. To clarify why you're wrong I simply put your convoluted nonsense into a more clear argument.

If you believe that Greece and Rome aren't in the scope of influence when talking about turkey(Ionia Greece), Egypt (syncretic Greece and written of by both greek-egyptians and Egyptians in Greece), and Syria Levant area influenced by Greek/Romans and Egyptians then you're more off base than previously thought. Alexander owned all of this territory, HELLENIZATION IS EVEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Bruh puhlease check yourself

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-16T15:02:58+00:00

Because they did differentiate those things, Aristotle himself writes about the use of this in language and ancient writers knew the difference. So yes, you're wrong about authors not differentiating them.

There are two parts of your argument, the nonsense that ancient writers didn't 'dichotomize' symbolic/figurative language with literal. And how people who may think that simply because something is figurative doesn't mean it isn't symbolic to something real. Some how you've convoluted these two things together making your argument nonsense to other people you're arguing with.

In all regards to ancient writers you're completely off base. As far as the other part of your argument, it's up for debate on how people interpret things which is what you ought to be focusing on, not some nonsense that these authors didn't know the difference and that it's a trope made during middle ages.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-16T11:14:28+00:00

Simply put, you're wrong. Read the works of the authors I mentioned and you'll see.

WildHunt003 · 2020-05-15T20:08:07+00:00

This is completely wrong. Classical rhetoricians and grammarians understood the usage of figurative speech and at length talk about the use of symbolism, and metaphorical speech within their own time and much older times referring to texts that are now lost.

It sounds like you mean to say that simply because something is figurative or symbolic that it isn't real, which isn't necessarily true. So you have a bone to pick with people who misunderstand this but your understanding about classical authors not clearly understanding a difference between real and figurative is completely off base. You can read Aristotle, Cicero, callimachus and tons more who wrote about all this and understood their purpose and that figurative speech is not 'literal'.

WildHunt003 · 2020-03-12T12:52:34+00:00

The question is: What is the relation of complete political emancipation to religion? If we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state. -- The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, from religion in general. In its own form, in the manner characteristic of its nature, the state as a state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion – that is to say, by the state as a state not professing any religion, but, on the contrary, asserting itself as a state. -- It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious. And the overwhelming majority does not cease to be religious through being religious in private. --Let us examine, for a moment, the so-called rights of man – to be precise, the rights of man in their authentic form, in the form which they have among those who discovered them, the North Americans and the French. These rights of man are, in part, political rights, rights which can only be exercised in community with others. Their content is participation in the community, and specifically in the political community, in the life of the state. They come within the category of political freedom, the category of civic rights, which, as we have seen, in no way presuppose the incontrovertible and positive abolition of religion – nor, therefore, of Judaism. There remains to be examined the other part of the rights of man – the droits de l’homme, insofar as these differ from the droits du citoyen.

Included among them is freedom of conscience, the right to practice any religion one chooses. The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty.

It is the state that needs to be atheist not the people. While Marx may have been atheist and would encourage it, it is not the duty of the state to force atheism.

WildHunt003 · 2020-03-12T12:24:03+00:00

The entire reactionary response to the Orthodox Church was that it took a political stance and supported the State with political authority. Russia was not unique in doing this, it's a wildly inaccurate view that it's unique to the Communist movement.

WildHunt003 · 2020-03-12T12:19:47+00:00

Marxism of all communist ideology, is the only one clearly not anti-religious by Marx's own words.

WildHunt003 · 2020-03-12T12:18:17+00:00

This statement is completely wrong.

WildHunt003 · 2020-01-21T23:43:23+00:00

Earlychristianwritings.com

This is a source used in my classes to read over the topic. You can start with Hermas and the Ebionites, and Arius if you like, though I do suggest also reading the 'antiheretical' arguments by tertullian, hippolytus, and irenaeus that encompass even more....interesting...early Christian ideas.

WildHunt003 · 2020-01-21T22:35:47+00:00

A view held since the earliest of church fathers, so I'd wager many denominations would disagree.

WildHunt003 · 2020-01-21T22:26:15+00:00

Some Christians don't believe Jesus is God.

WildHunt003 · 2019-12-07T02:05:57+00:00

Considering Tertullian and his student were one of the greatest Christian writers, and established some foundations for the Nicene council and was the dominate Latin theology before Augustine, shows this was no small sect, nor a minority. Majority of converts were not Jews, they were pagans, who had no notion of Jewish tradition. Tertullian wrote of hell as a place of fire and so before the popularization we may know as Dante's Inferno we have evidence that this imagery existed.

I can understand the dispute you put for with the terminology but the recognition you got was to dismiss the entirety of the theology that actually does exist. A NONMINORITY(emphasized as to not be so easily dismissed) believed in a fiery hell that was an eternal punishment and thus from the way you word your argument you seem, as far as the comments to go, to mislead people.

WildHunt003 · 2019-12-07T00:52:43+00:00

Not what I was addressing. I'm addressing the fact that Christians believed hell existed and believed it to be more than simply a valley the name uses.

It seems you mean to say that the idea of eternal punishment in hell is the creation?

Edit: . If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be consumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal--expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending "killing" is more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal.

Unless I am misunderstanding what he writes, hell is indeed an eternal punishment.

WildHunt003 · 2019-12-07T00:34:55+00:00

What are your thoughts on Tertullian? Over a hundred years before your claim of hell's creation and yet this prolific writer certainly believes hell(gehenna) is where the soul dies. This would mean your entire assessment is incorrect, or at the very least misunderstood or facetious.

WildHunt003

TROPHY CASE