Diego_008

Member
  • Content count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Diego_008

  • Rank
    Titled Friend

Helpful Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Marital Status
    Married
  • Location
    Sioux City, IA

Friendly Details

  • Grateful For
    My life, my wife, and God's Creation
  • Your Motto
    So say we all!
  • Doctrine /Affiliation
    Lutheranism, Platonism
  1. Anyone who makes an illogical request more than once is indeed foolish, in my mind.
  2. By the way, I was not referring to a post on a forum either. I am writing a graduate school textbook on the history of the Holy Roman Empire, and another book on Lutheran Liturgy and its translations into English in the last three centuries. The fact that YOU thought I was referring to writing Forum posts makes me wonder what is wrong with you, in all sincerity.
  3. This, of course, implies that you have no brain. I am NOT going to give out my name on the Internet! Whilst I do not think that you are a psychopath (lacking in sense yes; a psychopath, no), there are plenty of psychopaths out there. I already have indicated where I live. Giving out my name, when I have a wife and child to protect, would be the height of STUPID. I don't care if you challenge me or not. I am well aware of my skills, and the books that attest to said skills. You can question all you want. The more fool you.
  4. Greetings: You, my brother, are making some sense! This, I can appreciate. As far as languages go, I am fluent in two (my native English and my very nearly native Spanish), I can curse extremely well in Yiddish, I have some decent knowledge (including but not limited to cursing) of one of the many constructed languages, and can make my tortured way, horribly slowly and with much agony, through a Greek Testament. I have three degrees, one of which simply superceded one of tge others, as it is advanced. I too, graduated college with honours aplenty. I was honoured in both my degree programmes, and would have qualified for scholarships had I continued in Philosophy, but I chose to continue in History, in which I was honoured, but not to the same level. Ergo, though I was accepted easily to continue my studies, I think I only got a few scholarships, whereas had I continued in Philosophy, life would have been easier. Re: the Noble Qur'an, I don't blame you for missing much of it. Understanding it without first knowing the History of Arabia and surrounding lands would be difficult. Even WITH that knowledge, the text is often quite cryptic. UNlike the Bible, it does not follow a particular pattern. The Surahs (Chapters, although the word "Surah" is used in Arabic only to describe the divisions of the Qur'an, and another word is used for other books; hence, most scholars retain the Arabic term) are not placed in order of their revelation by date. In fact, some of the verses of the longer Surahs were received at different times than others! In general, the order is longest to shortest, with the exception of Surah 1, which is an opening prayer, sometimes compared to the Lord's Prayer in terms of its importance. With this unusual structure, understanding the Qur'an almost REQUIRES a person to know the Prophet Muhammad's personal history as well as the general history of Arabia. There are quite a few good biographies of the man out there, by both Muslims and non-Muslims. I have "The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet". It is written by a Muslim, and is supposed to be one of the best out there. I have not yet begun reading it, so I cannot state that from personal knowledge. I have two others, one by an Ahmadiyah Muslim (they are commonly regarded as heretics by orthodox Muslims, particularly in Saudi Arabia and in their native Pakistan), which I have read, and I can say is good, and one by a non-Muslim which is decent, albeit very old (1936, if memory serves). If you DO intend to reread the Qur'an, might I suggest Abdullah Yusuf Ali's ttanslation with Commentary? It is well regarded, and tends to steer clear from polemics. Mohammed Muhsin Khan's is good, but gets a bit polemical. Well, I noticed two replies that came in, so I must get to them. I shall bid you fond adieu for the present. I look forward to hearing from you.
  5. Well, I am not sure "high entertainment" applies as a descriptor, but it certainly has been interesting.
  6. I apologise for my delay in responding to your delightful post. I think the only thing in the Qur'an that does give me pause is the statement that Christ did not die on the Cross, but only appeared to do so. Either he DID die there, or he did not. There can be no two ways about it. But, that becomes a very lengthy topic. Of course, it IS an alternative way of explaining the Resurrection, which I suppose has a certain logic. I do agree that one religion probably does not contain ALL the truth. To make such a claim, one would have to be insufferably arrogant. I shall not go so far as to state such a point of view categorically. I DO believe that there ARE objective facts that either are true or false. Getting around that seems impossible. But acknowledging that all religions worthy of the name have some truth is simply common sense.
  7. Actually, I do not have a degree in Education. I leave such matters to my Beloved Wife, who can teach children. I claim no such skill. I actually could care less what judgements you wish to post or not. But if you DO post, at least be logical.
  8. Actually, no. Good try. A fire chief claiming he knows how to fight fire is not committing such a fallacy. The same thing holds here. I am hardly going to display my name and credentials over the Internet, as I am not an idiot. I am a Professor, and a writer, to answer your question. In fact, I am writing now. I never claimed to be smarter than anyone. To each their gifts. I do not care what a person believes. It is still a free country, at least in that regard. But if someone says that there are two different kinds of logic, both acceptable, I shall call them out on such nonsense. If one does not want to be called out, avoid outlandish statements, and you will not be.
  9. Sharing knowledge with a young person is fine. Engaging in learned debate with someone unequipped to do so is not.
  10. My, my, mon frere, such irritation. It does not become you to threaten me, or anyone, with Godly punishment. In fact I have no problem communicating with persons less educated than myself. The problem I DO have is such a person pretending otherwise. Just as I would not presume to discuss Mathematics or Economics or Scientific Disciplines (as in the Hard Sciences; I am perfectly competant in most of the Social Sciences) in any way beyond the general, and I certainly would not attempt to have a learned debate on those subjects with anyone trained formally therein (or even INformally) it strikes me as utterly foolish for a person who has not got a clue what they are talking about philosophically to attempt a debate with someone who does. I suggest very strongly that before you start threatening people with Godly punishment, you get off your OWN high horse. You might find other people to be better at the metaphorical equestrian arts about which you so arrogantly speak than you are.
  11. I am of course happy to chat with young persons. But I shall NOT hold deep academic discussions with them that would require having taken collegiate courses in Religion, Philosophy, and possibly History and Linguistics. To do so would be illogical in the extreme.
  12. I again assume that the current persons to whom I am speaking are adults, irrespective of the age at which persons are permitted on the Forum. If that is inaccurate, please so indicate. I have no intention of holding regular communications of a debate-like nature with someone who is NOT a legal adult. So your point is actually a non-point.
  13. And when I suggest that "some people should know better", I ASSUME I am speaking to persons of legal adult age, who I ASSUME (and perhaps such assumptions are unwise) have adult educations. There is little excuse to not have such. Ergo, as I am NOT speaking to children, the people to who I AM speaking should indeed "know better". It is as simple, and as logical, as that.
  14. It IS a matter of logic, despite your failure to recognise it as such. When having a philosophical debate, one should not resort to common, and inaccurate, uses of language. It is precisely this use of language, in a society (that of the USA), which is largely only 8th Grade literate (most newspapers are written at that level, and even the NY Times is only written at a 12th Grade level), that has produced the disastrous state of things in the USA. It is no wonder that non-Americans tend to laugh us to scorn, and humiliate us in most educational and other related benchmarks of success (or in our case as Americans, the lack thereof). I personally shall not follow this disgraceful trend. You are of course free to do so if you wish.
  15. Actually, I specifically stated that the evidences I provided were not 100% evidence. In Philosophy, the term "evidence" is often used interchangeably with "proof". The word "theory" is not used, as that is the term of scientists and the Scientific Method. Again, if you cannot use simple logic, I would encourage you to cease speaking, or at least review a logic textbook before you continue.