Key

Personally, I think none. But, they in the Middle East, apparently, take anything to do with Mohamed as blasphemy if it isn't how they want him portrayed, regardless of it is in the Quran, as well.

Yes. Never personally read it. Assumed it warranted a death sentence from Muslims due to being a work of fiction. As stated in other threads, I am not up on Islam knowledge much.

This isn't as clear to me as to you, obviously, but I fail to see how the Covenants would be with priesthoods and not with His people? This seems more to clarify the priestly order to interpret His laws and commandments, not with the actual promises TO His people. Which is how I'm reading it. Please elaborate.

Which begs the question, why hasn't anyone considered how much that Mohamed proclaimed was actually lies from Satan, if he, himself, suspected some? (Actually. since I don't, nor ever have, follow Islamic history, so I don't really know if anyone ever questioned validity. But it doesn't seem like anyone has to me.)

The question brings to mind a race of supposedly superior beings created for the Star Trek franchises, (starting on Next Generation, then to Voyager), and they referred to themselves only as "Q". Now supposing there were such beings in existence, confusion might just be something of fun for them to create among us, you think? Then again, it has also been said that Satan might impersonate God to lead some sheep astray. One explanation for this is that he was once called Lucifer, or morning star, and was a fallen angel. He was fallen because he thought himself an equal to God and had many of the same abilities before being cast out. Many stories with as many plot points for possibilities if true. In the end, no one will truly know which God was the true God until after they die, right?

Congratulations and welcome. Blessings and peace.

Uh, yeah, I don't get that. Aren't lasers, themselves, beams of light? How do you measure the speed of light with another light?

Hope you had a very nice vacation. Thanks for your view. It certainly opens up perspectives. For what it's worth? To me, a lot. I am often curious to differing views. It's like admiring the differences and similarities of the two sides of a coin. So, I learn some. Sometimes I learn a lot, and others...not so much, if at all. Again, thanks for your contribution.

I don't know that I could take the second link seriously, Dan, when seeing the tabloid like headlines of other stories on the site.

Yes, understandable. Was talking about evidence but got diverted to being fair in relation to evidence, then to about being fair. In talking about viewpoints, things are bound to get obscure from time to time, I find, at least in here.

Can't help but think of Robin Williams character in "Millenium Man" where he often says that, whenever you post that.

Sigh. Let me think on this a bit more to better simplify the question.

To be fair, I never said "Father Sarducci". 😉

Noahide Laws were interesting to look up. Also interesting was the fact some rabbinic sects, for lack of a better description coming to mind right now, have different view on which the seventh law was, due to it being judicial and not actually given by God. At least, from what I've been able to read up so far. As I previously stated, I am not formally learned in theology. So, I find all of this helpful and intriguing in relation to comments of that FB poster. Thank you very much for your contributions.

I agree with you here. As for rephrasing the question: simply asked, if one person states there is a way for them to accept something, does someone else have a right to pick that way, to appease their own view of fairness? But in a way, you answered it.

Again, thanks. I'm gonna look up the Noahide laws now. Incidentally, which points were right, in your view? Or did you mean he was right about Moses' Laws not applying to the gentiles?

Thank you for this information. I understood a little bit of the Pharisees, but virtually nothing of the Sadducees.

Never said the argument was fair. There are always differing perspectives of a debate, or verbal sparring. Some points get overlooked, others are overly highlighted. Always there is a sense of unfairness. When one offers a path towards an understanding, does the other cherry pick stipulations for that path to be fair? That is how this argument is beginning to read to me. Just saying.

Your links are usually quite interesting. I had to look up "res", though, as I have never come across it somehow. As usual, thanks for the read.

I think part of the argument was that God would know what evidence would be adequate to reconsider a view and present it, if He were truly all-powerful and/or all-knowing and really cared enough to change said view.

Very interesting. Thanks for the read.

Incidentally, RabbiO, I'd be most interested in your take on the fellow's interpretation, if you'd care to share, though I know you aren't Christian.

My apologies on my error. Outside of scripture, none. To be fair, that would be another good reason to be here to learn, wouldn't it?

From what I hear, ironically, Muhammad called Jesus his brother and prophet. How's that for contrasting messages?

But quite different in the context of "there IS cinnamon" in relation to the concept of "there is NO cinnamon". It isn't objective if proof can be found in the recipe...or not. Sorry, got into the conversation a bit late here. Just seemed a bit perplexed by the use of this analogy in relation to the subject to whether or not something exists. Analogy would imply something does indeed exists, but to what degree, no?