A sign that one's faith is weak...

[jack_hawkins]

After reading your words, I don’t know if I should laugh or cry …… you have been spamming all over the forum with your copy-paste jobs but not one single time have you cared to confront the refutations to your “scientific evidence” that some people here have presented to you …. You think you sound very “scientific” and smart when you try to associate Popper’s “falsification” argument with the quoran’s “challenge” to produce a “surah like it”, right? …. I bet you have not even gotten past the index page of Popper’s books (maybe you don’t even know who Karl Popper was) …… Popper clearly was talking about an independent and objective methodology that would put the main tenets of the theory in question to test … obviously, the quoran’s challenge and all the “scientific” evidence and “miracles” that you have spamming the forum with can not be considered objective or independent …… it is clear you do not understand the meaning of “objective” and “independent”, so you are beyond any hope ……

I concur - the problem with ham is not only his spamming with cut and paste but the fact he does not use those cut and pastes to have a debate and ignores all the questions and refutations that spring from his cut and pastes - he is basically just bringing a Muslim propaganda site here, with no intention of any genuine dialogue - talking at people not to them
although ham says he brought some testable proofs he never participated in the testing process, so I am very glad his spamming has been stopped
I wouldn’t be surprised if he continues to cut and paste tho

 

[jack_hawkins]

What I am stating in the other thread are cold hard evidences that are testable and which greatly supports the truthfulness of the Qur’an.

How can anyone honestly say that to test a book to determine whether it has discrepancies is a non-objective test?

That does not make sense at all.

unfortunately the many responses that have been made to your cut and pastes prove that you have not managed to present one single piece of cold, hard evidence
the fact you have declined to participate in any meaningful discussion of your Muslim propaganda shows that it is you that is scared, ham
you have consistently failed to take on the points made - is it because you don’t understand the points, do you think ignoring them makes them go away, are you wilfully blind to borrow one of your fallacious concepts?
you just carry on repeating your assertions regardless of the arguments made, acting like a brainwashed zealot
I hope that you’re not brainwashed, but your behaviour so far has been consistent with this

 

[thomass]

This quote alone just proves how beautiful and helpful christians are to their enemies, we help and love them. By saying this, you have just proved muslims dont care about anyone but themselves, what sort of a God promotes that into a faith, surely not the God of christianity!

I apologize in advance for jumping into the middle of these things as I’m still trying to familiarize myself with all these threads. Nevertheless, it becomse too much to sit by and read all the unchristian things being said by christians. Your accusation of ‘proof of selfishness’ proves nothing but uncharitable attitudes towards people of other faiths.

As a young teenager it was the arrogance and intolerance of Cahtholic preists, nuns and lay people that first turned me away. I stayed away using each such new catholic as my excuse. When I finally realized It was MY attitude about these people and not their actions that kept me away, I was able to find my way back. Neverthess, I cannot help but remind that we are called to spread the Gospel with “humility and charity.” There is nothing humble or charitable in your unfounded accusation of selfishness. I have not read all posts from hamba2han, but nothing he COULD say justifies the accusations I see leveled against him by my fellow christians.

Why is it not possible on these forums to have discussion without anger, accusation and intolerance??? Am I wrong in saying that is exactly what we are implored to do by Christ?? Faith in one’s scripture does lead one to arrogance and accusation. Faith brings peace to one’s mind, humility, charity, love never arrogance, anger and accusation.

Peace.

 

[jack_hawkins]

thomass, yes some of the reactions to hamba2han may not have been perfect, but hamba2han has posted some pretty disrespectful things, and at times has said some outright lies
in that context these comments are more understandable

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I don’t know if the talking donkey, mana, or ark are considered allegory or parable by the majority of jews or christians.

agreeded

 

[Urf]

Even Jesus loved his enemies…

It’s rather troubling how absent that seems to be in a lot of christianity.

 

[thomass]

thomass, yes some of the reactions to hamba2han may not have been perfect, but hamba2han has posted some pretty disrespectful things, and at times has said some outright lies
in that context these comments are more understandable

“Understandable,” sir, is relatively unimportant here. I can “understand” the historic excuses used by protestants and catholics in Ireland for killing each other for centuries. I can understand the reasons non-catholic christians use to run catholics out of small towns in Texas. I can understand the reasons cited here for catholics to be offended, even angered, by hamba’s posts.

I am no scriptural expert and will happily accept corrections-- although I doubt any corrections will change my view that Jesus’ anger was limited to hypocritics; those who profess their devotion to the law and to God in public, yet whose devotion was barely skin deep. When the apostles or disciples showed their ignorance, even their treason, Jesus responded with patience and love. The bumbling, ignorant, treasonous Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. To begin his short ministry, every person Jesus met was non-believer yet he taught with patience and love. Even after word of his ministry spread many he encountered were non-believers yet his response was love despite his knowledge of their sins. The Samaritan woman at the well became a believer when her past was told to her, not in anger or accusation, but with the instruction not to sin again. I apoligize for seeming to single out dolphinlove in my entry to this thread- that is not my intent. I accuse no one of being a hypocrite.

As I see it this forum provides a truly unique opportunity for me on so many levels. While it is a fascinating opportunity to learn about the interests of other catholics and about church teaching, I can also do that right here at home. What is unique about this forum-- and thus far unavailable to me elswhere, is the oppurtunity every time I log in to participate in a dialogue with people like hamba. I ask you where in the world could you go with ease to have such a discussion with a muslim? In other threads I see the questions of young people who struggle to understand their faith and their doubt, or a protestant who is uninformed as to the Church’s teachings on Mary. Anger, accusation, impatience, intolerance in response to these people is not, in my very humble opinion, the best choice to minister the Gospel of Love.

 

[jack_hawkins]

the gospels do not portray an effete man who never offended anyone - actually Jesus spoke with discernment - there are several episodes where he rebuked people, and the same for the apostles. obviously being God he had perfect insight into whom to rebuke and whom to encourage
Jesus even drove the money changers out of the courts of the temple!
people who oppose our Saviour here should also be rebuked when the situation demands, and I think it is better that people are defending the faith even imperfectly than falling into the secular relativist way of thinking

 

[thomass]

people who oppose our Saviour here should also be rebuked when the situation demands, and I think it is better that people are defending the faith even imperfectly than falling into the secular relativist way of thinking

Of course untruth and especially, insincerity, must be rebuked. Obviously everything undertaken by imperfect humans will be imperfect, even love. I fail to see why, by questioning intolerance and anger, I am being likened to a secular relativist?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Of course untruth and especially, insincerity, must be rebuked. Obviously everything undertaken by imperfect humans will be imperfect, even love. I fail to see why, by questioning intolerance and anger, I am being likened to a secular relativist?

I wasn’t necessarily likening you to a secular relativist, but the term “intolerance” certainly does smack of secular relativism where the mantra (in the lack of any spiritual direction) is tolerance above all else, since all faiths are equal.

 

[Jayda]

I wasn’t necessarily likening you to a secular relativist, but the term “intolerance” certainly does smack of secular relativism where the mantra (in the lack of any spiritual direction) is tolerance above all else, since all faiths are equal.

hola jack hawkins,

i agree about tolerance… i think it is always important for Catholics to remember that the world has so much to offer and there are many good things that people can come up with on their own. but it is never the full picture… tolerance is a wonderful thing but it is imperfect… the Catholic idea of Caritas and the three virtues are perfect and complete…

there is nothing good that the secular world, or any other religion has to offer that the Catholic Church does not offer in its complete and perfect form…

we just have to show other people that and they would flock to the Church in even greater numbers.

Dominus Vobiscum

 

[jack_hawkins]

hola jack hawkins,

i agree about tolerance… i think it is always important for Catholics to remember that the world has so much to offer and there are many good things that people can come up with on their own. but it is never the full picture… tolerance is a wonderful thing but it is imperfect… the Catholic idea of Caritas and the three virtues are perfect and complete…

there is nothing good that the secular world, or any other religion has to offer that the Catholic Church does not offer in its complete and perfect form…

we just have to show other people that and they would flock to the Church in even greater numbers.

Dominus Vobiscum

amen jayda - I always enjoy reading your posts as they always show wisdom, love and restraint:thumbsup:
yes we should have courage from knowing what resides in the Church, not hiding our lights under a bushel
therefore I am going to try and persuade our priests to do some sort of outreach before the next RCIA “season” - pray my endeavours will bear some fruit

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

I have to say that I am rather disappointed that my ‘How to test the truth of a religion’ thread was closed as I had planned to add quite a few more testable evidences in support of the subject of the thread.

However, I cannot really say that I am surprised that it happened since a number of posters have been expressing their dissatisfaction of the thread in recent days and perhaps even longer.

Anyhow, if the contents of the thread did make some people feel uncomfortable or perhaps it even frightened them somewhat… then this is exactly what the Truth is supposed to do.

For those who may indeed be feeling this fear of the Truth, this is actually a good sign because whether you realize it or not, this might help bring you closer to the source of this Truth eventually, God-willing.

The thread was closed as it became redundant. It was held open for several days to allow posters clarification of points and furthering of the debate. That did not happen, so it was closed.

 

[Cari]

Did Hamba ever respond to the scientific nature of the ants, the stars, and the mountain-tent-peg things? If he did, I missed it, and am so looking forward to his answer.

 

[birdsong]

Since I am pretty sure you don’t even know who Karl Popper was (let alone have read his books), I am quoting Popper’s criticism regarding the type of (pseudo) predictions and (pseudo) science that you claim exists in the quoran and muhhamad’s words …. This way you will see how foolish and useless your efforts have been:

Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence—so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavourable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer’s trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.

pay particular attention to the text in bold: Popper totally dismisses any vague and unclear predictions and interpretations as fallacious, because the vagueness of those statements make them un-testable. Period.

This should put to rest for good your hilarious, embarrasing and fruitless attempts at giving a scientific status to the quoran and muhhamad’s words ……

**PS: you should show this to the people and websites you copied from so they also stop their embarrasing “efforts”. **

Popper, K. (2002). “Conjenctures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowldege”. pp. 48-49.

I have to say that I am rather disappointed that my ‘How to test the truth of a religion’ thread was closed as I had planned to add quite a few more testable evidences in support of the subject of the thread.

However, I cannot really say that I am surprised that it happened since a number of posters have been expressing their dissatisfaction of the thread in recent days and perhaps even longer.

Anyhow, if the contents of the thread did make some people feel uncomfortable or perhaps it even frightened them somewhat… then this is exactly what the Truth is supposed to do.

For those who may indeed be feeling this fear of the Truth, this is actually a good sign because whether you realize it or not, this might help bring you closer to the source of this Truth eventually, God-willing.

 

[Chancellare]

well, no religion can survive the test of reason alone. My Bible has a talking donkey, mountains that skip and dance, an ark that held two of every animal in the world, a world that is less than 6,000 years old, two magic trees and 40 years of meals with free delivery from heaven.

From historical experience:
For some people that’s enough reason to slaughter others, as what indeed happened since 9th century.
What is your stand on this?

 

[hamba2han]

From the other thread:

**A good example of this would be Shakespeare’s play, Henry the Fourth, in which some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare’s time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king.

However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen and that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food and yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.

By comparison, in the 16th chapter (Surah an-Nahl 16:68-69) the Qur’an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food.

What this shows is that while the people of Shakespeare’s time who lived around 1,000 years after the Qur’an was revealed got their facts wrong about bees, the Qur’an did indeed state a scientific fact which modern science has only recently discovered.

In other words, Shakepeare’s play Henry the Fourth failed the test of Science but the Qur’an has no such discrepancy.**

Is there anything vague about specifying that worker bees are females as can also be seen in the verse about Prophet Solomon (pbuh) overhearing a female ant talking?

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to specifying the gender of honeybees, Shakespeare simply got it wrong whereas the Qur’an has been proven to be correct.

What does Karl Popper has to say about that?

 

[jack_hawkins]

From the other thread:

**A good example of this would be Shakespeare’s play, Henry the Fourth, in which some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare’s time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king.

However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen and that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food and yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.

By comparison, in the 16th chapter (Surah an-Nahl 16:68-69) the Qur’an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food.

What this shows is that while the people of Shakespeare’s time who lived around 1,000 years after the Qur’an was revealed got their facts wrong about bees, the Qur’an did indeed state a scientific fact which modern science has only recently discovered.

In other words, Shakepeare’s play Henry the Fourth failed the test of Science but the Qur’an has no such discrepancy.**

Is there anything vague about specifying that worker bees are females as can also be seen in the verse about Prophet Solomon (pbuh) overhearing a female ant talking?

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to specifying the gender of honeybees, Shakespeare simply got it wrong whereas the Qur’an has been proven to be correct.

What does Karl Popper has to say about that?

So after that previous thread has been closed, you are trying to revive it and carry on what has been demolished several times logically - not that that stops you?
you think because the Koran stated something which fits with the Muslim world view and was 50% likely to be correct that it must be the word of God?
if the Koran said things that wer counter-intuitive, not known at the time eg not pinched from the ancient Greeks like the embryology, consistently, that would be different]
even fake mediums and astrologers get things right sometimes
with your example of the bees you have committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy

 

[hamba2han]

Since I am pretty sure you don’t even know who Karl Popper was (let alone have read his books), I am quoting Popper’s criticism regarding the type of (pseudo) predictions and (pseudo) science that you claim exists in the quoran and muhhamad’s words …. This way you will see how foolish and useless your efforts have been:

pay particular attention to the text in bold: Popper totally dismisses any vague and unclear predictions and interpretations as fallacious, because the vagueness of those statements make them un-testable. Period.

This should put to rest for good your hilarious, embarrasing and fruitless attempts at giving a scientific status to the quoran and muhhamad’s words ……

**PS: you should show this to the people and websites you copied from so they also stop their embarrasing “efforts”. **

Popper, K. (2002). “Conjenctures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowldege”. pp. 48-49.

I was merely replying to this post about Karl Popper.

 

[Chancellare]

So the Imam preaching that anyone who blows up as many infidels will have 7 virgin wives in the afterlife is also scientifically supported?