It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.
Thank you for the Muslim interpretation of Christianity. As you copied and pasted above, Christians *do *believe in the Trinity concept, no matter the non-Christian interpretation. But that's ok since non-Muslims also belive Islam is an entriely man made religion.
Thank you for the Muslim interpretation of Christianity. As you copied and pasted above, Christians *do *believe in the Trinity concept, no matter the non-Christian interpretation. But that's ok since non-Muslims also belive Islam is an entriely man made religion.
A man-made religion? Quran: A book that gives more respect and accuracy to the prophethood of all prophets including Jesus (a.s.)? A text that describes the hardships Mary had to go thru to birth Jesus (a.s.) and the scrutiny she faced when people of Israel questioned and accused her...A text that corrects the misconceptions..er MAN-MADE misconceptions that have been added to the bible overtime and provides an accurate accounts of things that happened to all the people before Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).?
LOL.....
I'm seriously resting my case. like i said, it's like talking to a wall.
A man-made religion? Quran: A book that gives more respect and accuracy to the prophethood of all prophets include Jesus (a.s.)?
LOL.....
I'm seriously resting my case. like i said, it's like talking to a wall.
Sorry, but talking to a wall is when you try to let people know the accuracy, authenticity and divinity of their religious texts only exists in their faith.
Sorry, but talking to a wall is when you try to let people know the accuracy, authenticity and divinity of their religious texts only exists in their faith.
Yea boggles the mind that educated people/scientists would believe in the Theory(not law) of Evolution to explain the existance of mankind.
Oh but wait, it's been refuted to be incorrect and wrong by majority of scientists today! :D
Where do you get this propaganda? Virtually all scientists agree that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years and the vast majority support the theory of evolution of mankind.
What sort of actions?
By following hadith and sunnah as an integral, necessary practice of Islam. I would be happy to discuss this in the religion forum if you want to open a thread.
Yea boggles the mind that educated people/scientists would believe in the Theory(not law) of Evolution to explain the existance of mankind.
Oh but wait, it's been refuted to be incorrect and wrong by majority of scientists today! :D
Theories are fluid and not definite, the evolution theory has not been thrown out and disproven as you claim. While we might not have all holes filled in that in no way discounts it as a whole. The fact is saying that the earth was created by gnomes rubbing unicorn horn dust together is just as valid as any creationism story.
Theories are fluid and not definite, the evolution theory has not been thrown out and disproven as you claim. While we might not have all holes filled in that in no way discounts it as a whole. The fact is saying that the earth was created by gnomes rubbing unicorn horn dust together is just as valid as any creationism story.
You defintion of the "proper moral" is different than that of western soceity. Laws to protect freedom of speech are favored over laws to protect religion from freedom of criticism or critical analysis.
The damage is done through bringing more attention to this film than otherwise would. The original film maker or the media have no responsiblilty to get into an endless rebuke to refute to rebuke to refute.
Definitely. However laws do not protect religion but laws are enacted based on religion itself. Being moral is not protecting religion. Regulating free speech has a lot to do with morals.
So is correcting or clarifying what is wrong considered Damage?
Although in the scientific community there is almost universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute, creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.
The media picked up on this when the Muslims began hootering and hollering for his murder. Had they kept shut nothing would have become of this "film". Instead, their typical Muslim behaviour has done exactly what every Muslim is afraid of : a negative portrayal of Muslims as an illiterate, arrogant, insensitive, imposing, violent, unreasonable, rowdy and moronic people.
Who creates an impression of Muslims you ask? Not van Gogh... nope not Wilders either. The answer is Muslims. Muslims make a mockery of themselves!
Since when did raising a holler against something that portrays us wrongly become a sign of illiteracy, arrogance, violence (maybe this is debatible but read what have been saying), irrational, rowdy and moronic. I can agree that the methods used are outrageous but raising a voice against what is wrong is by no means incorrect though the means used should be effective (which we are not good at).
So is correcting or clarifying what is wrong considered Damage?
Correct and clarify (based on your defintions) all day long. I don't think anyone has a problem with that whatsoever.
…
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Correct and clarify (based on your defintions) all day long. I don't think anyone has a problem with that whatsoever.
Precisely, we provide the definitions not bimbo producers like the one under question. But then there are those who cannot accept it from us either for obvious reasons of their own.