Who Is Allah?

skeptic wrote:

Jesus came from a seed of David taken from the body of David while he rest with his fathers by God.
And it is through that seed of David the Word of God was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Utterly absurd!

Can you name those ignorant fools, who made that shameful and disgusting story up?

Again lies upon lies!

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
The misogynist nature of WWF was an issue in the last campaign. As well as her own fakery. The only person who is truely allowed to buy an election here in the land of the free appears to be Michael Bloomberg (billionaire mayor of NY)- and even his influence is dwindling now.
But since that election God created the Tea Party and then recreated Linda in its image. She has become mildly more articulate which may buy her a few more votes. The election is still in the hands of the Democrats unless they flub it, which conceivably they still could do regardless of Her Nitwitness.

Well, you have just described every political race in every state lol. Linda's got 2 problems she can't overcome. 1 is the WWE and 2 is that she's a Republican in a heavily Democratic State.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
The line between extreme Islam and Skeptic's utopian theocracy is very very thin. That has been pointed out previously as many have called his idol Rick Santorum a Taliban.
But Skeptic picks and chooses what the govt should and should not get involved in. Abortion, Procreation, and homosexuality yes. Environmental protection no.
Hypocrit.

The only thing more mad that to want a free nation accept Communism is to want a Theocracy, for their have been forgiving Communist leaders. There is no forgiveness in Theocracy.

Borg3of7 wrote:

<quoted text>
ROFLMFAO@U...that isn't "proof"...it isn't even vague evidence!!! Your Jesus was NOT the decedent of David...& don't try using Mary's lineage...not applicable according to your own deity. As Mary was supposedly a virgin...then Joseph ( a possible descendant)in NOT Jesus' father...ergo NOT a descendant of David... every single time logic is applied, your silly mysticism collapse's...it is childish in its construct and laughable as a philosophy.

That's what no one seems to get. Mary was Married and was impregnated by God (Adultery) and wasn't really related to Joseph. So Jesus was a bastard. He was Born out of wedlock. Isn't that against the rules somewhere?

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
So what is the harm to society by Gays?
A few months ago Eric and I asked you REPEATEDLY to tell us how gay marriage harms the civil rights of straights. You never answered that one either. ever. ever. ever.

You question is out of order, because gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Gays have the same rights as straights to marry an opposite gender.

skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>You question is out of order, because gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Gays have the same rights as straights to marry an opposite gender.

Last time i checked, it was a civil rights issue. Marriage is not uniquely defined by anyone. Most of the courts have agreed. Its the leglislatures that have not.

badsis wrote:

<quoted text>
The only thing more mad that to want a free nation accept Communism is to want a Theocracy, for their have been forgiving Communist leaders. There is no forgiveness in Theocracy.

thats a very good point.

A true libertarian would not endorse this latest craze.

bmz wrote:

<quoted text>
Utterly absurd!
Can you name those ignorant fools, who made that shameful and disgusting story up?
Again lies upon lies!

It just seems God cannot please Muslims.
I know, Mohammed believed Satan, and Muslims believe Mohammed.

Heck - Lets look at the BIBLE to give us the definition of marriage.

Polygamy.

Yahoo!

badsis wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you have just described every political race in every state lol. Linda's got 2 problems she can't overcome. 1 is the WWE and 2 is that she's a Republican in a heavily Democratic State.

She has a third insurmountable problem - She doesnt come off as very intelligent.

Or perhaps that is really the same problem as being a Republican in a Democratic state.

Incidentally, she might attract 50% more Republican voters if she would get off the Tea Party bandwagon and run as a moderate Republican (we still have those internally). But quantitatively speaking, 50% more Republican votes in our state would translate into perhaps 75 votes instead of 50 votes, lol.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Last time i checked, it was a civil rights issue. Marriage is not uniquely defined by anyone. Most of the courts have agreed. Its the leglislatures that have not.

You are wrong.
Human desire to have children since the beginning of time defined marriage between a man and a woman.
Gays have been around since time began.
You see, Frijolies gays always had the same desires to have children as straights, and Gays have that desire to have children today.
So what has changed?

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Definitely not Scholar. Scholar is an atheist.

You are quite funny, but just that.

1) When the impostor made a post about one god one truth ect, you forgot I was atheist and thought it was me.

2) Yes I am atheist and what I said "My position was and is that Genesis story is literal with some simbolism added. I said that you and others think it's an allegory." does not conflict with atheism.

STEFANO COLONNA wrote:

<quoted text>
You are quite funny, but just that.
1) When the impostor made a post about one god one truth ect, you forgot I was atheist and thought it was me.
2) Yes I am atheist and what I said "My position was and is that Genesis story is literal with some simbolism added. I said that you and others think it's an allegory." does not conflict with atheism.

Please explain to me how an atheist who believes that G-d does not exist can believe that the story of creation is literal. Something cannot be literal and fiction at the same time.

MUQ wrote:

Is there any "evidence" that you are a direct descendent of your Great great Greatfather?

Yes, and I can prove it legally and genetically.

MUQ wrote:

Our prophets genealogy has been investigated to the best possible way and there is not the slightest amount of doubt that he was descended from Ishmael the son of Prophet Abraham.

See: http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-arabs-d... and
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mohammad...

MUQ wrote:

Those who doubt this, will doubt that sun is out when they come out of their houses and find sunshine everywhere!!
And by the way, there is no shortage in the world of such people!!
Just out of their bias and spite and jealousy, they would believe in any thing, provided is cast a negative shadow on the "Noblest Soul that breathed on this earth"

Noblest Soul? HA! Tell that to the Banu Qurayza men and boys that the "Noblest Soul" had beheaded, and their surviving women and children who were handed out as booty to the butchers!

bmz wrote:

Doesn't matter.
We would really like to know how Jesus, the son of David, became a direct descendant of David and God?

In what sense can Jesus even be considered human, since he had no human father, and humans don't reproduce parthenogenetically?

Your coreligionist Alex believes that Allah worked some in-vitro fertilization magic on Mary, but I think he's blowing smoke.

Salaamz . Who is ELLAH ?

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain to me how an atheist who believes that G-d does not exist can believe that the story of creation is literal. Something cannot be literal and fiction at the same time.

My position concerning god is that I reject all the religions because they failed to prove the existence of their god, but if there is somewhere something that given origin to all with a long process, it could exist but there is not proof of it, thus I am in part atheist and in part agnostic.

But by saying that the story of creation is literal does not mean that I am saying creation of the universe went in the way described in Genesis, but as I understand it, the story was meant or conceived to be literal with some symbolism added to it. Reason whereby I reject it.

Not to speak about its elementary order of how things were created that you somehow believe in as one of the proof of god.

Frijoles wrote:

Heck - Lets look at the BIBLE to give us the definition of marriage.
Polygamy.
Yahoo!

What family background experience do Romney and Obama have in common?

Polygamy.

STEFANO COLONNA wrote:

<quoted text>
My position concerning god is that I reject all the religions because they failed to prove the existence of their god, but if there is somewhere something that given origin to all with a long process, it could exist but there is not proof of it, thus I am in part atheist and in part agnostic.
But by saying that the story of creation is literal does not mean that I am saying creation of the universe went in the way described in Genesis, but as I understand it, the story was meant or conceived to be literal with some symbolism added to it. Reason whereby I reject it.
Not to speak about its elementary order of how things were created that you somehow believe in as one of the proof of god.

Salaamz S.C. & Salutations. Pardon My intrusion But Ive been where you are.And thru faith & discovery I can now say this; Some (people) lose faith because GOD (supposedly) doesnt show them enough to substantiate their faith. Others lose their faith because God (supposedly) shows them too much! It never really occurs to people that the Faith part is a huge aspect of a test in which all humanity is involved.If God revealed Himself,the Test becomes Null & Void. Take these words literally from our beloved messenger Jesus (pbuh).."Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you". Tweek your awareness factor up a bit and search the world of the supernatural.Substance to fuel your faith will come. Cheerz.

Rabbeen Al Jihad wrote:

Salaamz . Who is ELLAH ?

Ellah is the El of the Torah and is the exact Hebrew word for Allah.

I take this opportunity to remind you that El is not pronounced as the 'el' in bell, sell, tell, etc.

It is pronounced as Ellah.

Salaams and thanks for asking.