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

[kellie]

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?

hamba2han,

If I decided to agree with you, that the Koran is scientifically correct in this matter, and Shakespeare was wrong, how does that prove that the WHOLE of the Koran is true?

It only shows that the writer got science right through observation, and thought, such as pondering on the possibility that mountains are pegs in the ground, and female bees do all the work.

But how does that prove that the rest of the Koran is true when it comes to matters of God?

I don’t understand your argument at all

 

[jack_hawkins]

hamba2han,

If I decided to agree with you, that the Koran is scientifically correct in this matter, and Shakespeare was wrong, how does that prove that the WHOLE of the Koran is true?

It only shows that the writer got science right through observation, and thought, such as pondering on the possibility that mountains are pegs in the ground, and female bees do all the work.

But how does that prove that the rest of the Koran is true when it comes to matters of God?

I don’t understand your argument at all

this point has been made umpteen times and as yet no one has got an answer from ham - so good luck!

 

[hamba2han]

hamba2han,

If I decided to agree with you, that the Koran is scientifically correct in this matter, and Shakespeare was wrong, how does that prove that the WHOLE of the Koran is true?

It only shows that the writer got science right through observation, and thought, such as pondering on the possibility that mountains are pegs in the ground, and female bees do all the work.

But how does that prove that the rest of the Koran is true when it comes to matters of God?

I don’t understand your argument at all

I agree that this verse alone regarding the female bee cannot prove that the Qur’an is true.

However, the proof of the Qur’an does not depend on the truth and accuracy of individual verses or passages that is found within it such as the verses about the female bee and the female ant, but rather it is the collective sum of all of these evidences, not just from the scientific but also from the linguistic aspect as well, which really proves that the Qur’an is the Word of the Creator.

To illustrate just one aspect, suppose that each individual verse or passage which has been proven to be scientifically accurate had only a 50% chance of being correct if we are to assume that the author just copied blindly from other sources or perhaps even took a wild guess at the answer.

However, when you get numerous individual verses and passages lined up together to show that ALL of them have been proven to be scientifically accurate and not even a single one of them is wrong, then the chances that the author guessed all of them right is virtually non-existent.

Mathematical probability is simply against anyone who might be making this accusation that the author of the Qur’an either copied from other sources or simply got “lucky” when making all these statements which just happened to be proven scientifically accurate.

And so, the detractors of the Qur’an have not only Science and Arabic literature working against their denial that the Qur’an is Divine, but Mathematics as well.

 

[water]

Jesus said if one had faith by the size of a mustard, one could tell a mountain to move to somewhere else. If one can’t move the mountain , that is a sign.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Jesus said if one had faith by the size of a mustard, one could tell a mountain to move to somewhere else. If one can’t move the mountain , that is a sign.

Thank you water, for getting the thread back on track.

God bless-

Rachel

 

[jack_hawkins]

I agree that this verse alone regarding the female bee cannot prove that the Qur’an is true.

However, the proof of the Qur’an does not depend on the truth and accuracy of individual verses or passages that is found within it such as the verses about the female bee and the female ant, but rather it is the collective sum of all of these evidences, not just from the scientific but also from the linguistic aspect as well, which really proves that the Qur’an is the Word of the Creator.

To illustrate just one aspect, suppose that each individual verse or passage which has been proven to be scientifically accurate had only a 50% chance of being correct if we are to assume that the author just copied blindly from other sources or perhaps even took a wild guess at the answer.

However, when you get numerous individual verses and passages lined up together to show that ALL of them have been proven to be scientifically accurate and not even a single one of them is wrong, then the chances that the author guessed all of them right is virtually non-existent.

Mathematical probability is simply against anyone who might be making this accusation that the author of the Qur’an either copied from other sources or simply got “lucky” when making all these statements which just happened to be proven scientifically accurate.

And so, the detractors of the Qur’an have not only Science and Arabic literature working against their denial that the Qur’an is Divine, but Mathematics as well.

many times it has been pointed out to you that the Koran has got science eg embryology
you ignore these points, which shows you cannot defend your argument
you are rehashing a subject about which discussion was previously closed because you did not properly address the discussion - you are doing this again
stop the pseudoscience and eisegesis
you are taking lots of vague things from the Koran and telling people they correlate with modern science yet on every single passage people have refuted your arguments
you just don’t listen - and your posting has mamaged a series of posts about whether we even want Muslims to post here for example
doesn’t that tell you something? that we don’t find you in the least persuasive that repetitive posting without responding to questions or points gets annoying
are you able to post in a way that’'s not disruptive?

 

[Booklover]

I agree that this verse alone regarding the female bee cannot prove that the Qur’an is true.

However, the proof of the Qur’an does not depend on the truth and accuracy of individual verses or passages that is found within it such as the verses about the female bee and the female ant, but rather it is the collective sum of all of these evidences, not just from the scientific but also from the linguistic aspect as well, which really proves that the Qur’an is the Word of the Creator.

To illustrate just one aspect, suppose that each individual verse or passage which has been proven to be scientifically accurate had only a 50% chance of being correct if we are to assume that the author just copied blindly from other sources or perhaps even took a wild guess at the answer.

However, when you get numerous individual verses and passages lined up together to show that ALL of them have been proven to be scientifically accurate and not even a single one of them is wrong, then the chances that the author guessed all of them right is virtually non-existent.

Mathematical probability is simply against anyone who might be making this accusation that the author of the Qur’an either copied from other sources or simply got “lucky” when making all these statements which just happened to be proven scientifically accurate.

And so, the detractors of the Qur’an have not only Science and Arabic literature working against their denial that the Qur’an is Divine, but Mathematics as well.

Hamba, even if every scientific fact in the Quran were factual, which has been proven to you not to be the case umpteen times, what you are saying here makes no sense.

By your line of reasoning, any book that has all its facts correct must therefore be from God!

Vickie

 

[thomass]

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.

Mr Hawkins, I have read many of your posts and you seem an educated man. Yet your term “secular relativism” is a fiction used by Christians to describe something they don’t seem to want to understand. “Relativism,” in the context of Social Science (and Social Science only) refers to Margaret Meade’s dictum that “all cultural solutions are equally valid.” In her context Meade was cautioning the social scientist to avoid letting her/his cultural bias affect the description of the group under study. “Equally valid” is a term worth pondering and is not the same as “equal.” I can accept the cultural validity of Islam without having to deny Catholicsm or accept the “Truth” of Islam. In another post you’ve said you Hate Islam. I ask you sincerely, how can the peace of grace lead to feeling hate for anything?

Finally, I don’t see how using the word tolerance “smacks” of anything but Christian Charity and Humility.

 

[water]

Thank you water, for getting the thread back on track.

God bless-

Rachel

I think I still need a big truck to pull this thread back on its track.

To the OP’s topic, I think it would be easier for someone to recognize stronger faith in somebody else when looking into oneself’s faith.

 

[Keikiolu]

… is when one starts to be more concerned about the contents of another scripture than what is written in the scripture of one’s own faith.

Well, under the principle of “First things first”, I would agree with you.

First you need to know what you’re talking about regarding your own religion, then after you have a grounding in it, you might show some interest in other’s religion.

To leap to someone else’s religious writings before knowing your own would be a bit odd.

I really did not plan to open this thread but I seem to be getting questioned on unrelated matters to the subject of the thread that I am currently focusing on and so I think it is probably better for me to respond to these questions on this thread.

First off, why should those who say that they do not believe in what is written in the Qur’an be so concerned about what it says regarding the fate of non-believers in the Hereafter?

I know what the Bible says about my own fate but it does not bother me at all because I just do not believe that my destiny in the Hereafter will depend on what the Bible says.

That’s perfectly sensible and acceptable, if you hold no belief in the Bible.

I think that it should be no different for those who do not believe in the Qur’an.

OK,… What is your question here…?

Second, is the truth and accuracy of your own scripture not an important matter for you?

Personally, yes it is. What is your point?

Like I have mentioned, convincing oneself that the Qur’an is wrong does not prove that one’s own faith is the truth or vice versa and so I do not quite understand the motives of those who are attacking the scriptures of others without at the same time checking the truth of their own scripture as well.

If your scripture is nonsense based on the fact that my scripture says it is nonsense, then that proves, to me, only that your scripture is nonsense.

I base the truth of my scripture on something OTHER THAN the truth or untruth of your scripture. My scripture is true REGARDLESS of what your scripture says.

Third, why is it so important for Christians to “save” the souls of Muslims??

Because we believe that we have the truth, and are commanded to tell the truth to all human beings. Period.

Since it would be abuse to not tell someone the truth because it will help them, then we simply must do so.

We are not to force people to believe the truth, mostly because that’s not possible, and to try to do so is a grave sin.

You see, Muslims believe that on the Day of Judgment, we will not be questioned by the Creator on whether the people who we spread the teachings of Islam to eventually embraced Islam or not, but rather we will be questioned on the time and effort that we put in towards this cause.

You have an incorrect view of what God wants us to do.

We don’t get “credit” for “converts”,… we are simply commanded to tell people the truth as a normal part of living in the world.

And so, I can tell you that I am not on these boards to save anyone’s soul but my own.

You have been misinformed as to what “save souls” means.

As I said above, we are only commanded to inform, and allow people to chose the truth or not of their own free will. We don’t get “points” for “saving souls”, those who choose the truth over nonsense like islam get to be with God if they allow His graces into their lives.

Your telling us about islam is praiseworthy and REALLY valuable…!

It shows us the utter inadequacy of islam as a religion.

I personally thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Mr Hawkins, I have read many of your posts and you seem an educated man

TY

Yet your term “secular relativism” is a fiction used by Christians to describe something they don’t seem to want to understand. “Relativism,” in the context of Social Science (and Social Science only) refers to Margaret Meade’s dictum that “all cultural solutions are equally valid.” In her context Meade was cautioning the social scientist to avoid letting her/his cultural bias affect the description of the group under study. “Equally valid” is a term worth pondering and is not the same as “equal.” I can accept the cultural validity of Islam without having to deny Catholicsm or accept the “Truth” of Islam.

I was using “secular relativism” without any reference to the way anyone else uses the term here - I take it from your post you have seen the term abused. It certainly wasn’t intended to be a “pious slander” (if you know what I mean). I’m not sure what cultural validity means, or what relevance it has in a discussion about Islam the religion as opposed to culture.

In another post you’ve said you Hate Islam. I ask you sincerely, how can the peace of grace lead to feeling hate for anything?

There’s plenty of things we’re meant to hate. It mentions this in several places in the Scriptures. We need to hate evil, sin and so from that I come to hating Islam which tries to deny the resurrection, Christ’s deity and puts him on a lower level than someone who had the audacity to dub himself “the praised one”.

Finally, I don’t see how using the word tolerance “smacks” of anything but Christian Charity and Humility.

Tolerance by itself smacks of universal tolerance hence my reference to secular relativism. Tolerance like discrimination is a much abused word. We discriminate every day - hence the turn of phrase " a discriminating palate", for example.
Should we tolerate sin?

 

[birdsong]

So you are still trying to convince us that the nonsense written in the quoran and uttered by muhhamad can be scientifically tested and demonstrated, eh?

How much sillier can you get? …. You know, in my life I have come across a number of people whom I respect greatly because they are honest in their pursuit of knowledge and in the advancement of real science …… It would be an insult to them if I continued to reply to your foolish “arguments” …. Your silliness is not worth responding to, so I am not going to dignify your folly with another reply …

PS: I am going to play the prophet this time, and unlike muhhamad and the quoran, I am sure my “prophecy” will come to pass, so here it goes, details and all: **I, birdsong, predict that hamban2 will take my reply to him as a sign of my “weak faith”, and will beat his chest claiming victory while shouting allah ackbar!!! **

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?

 

[Montalban]

Mr Hawkins, I have read many of your posts and you seem an educated man. Yet your term “secular relativism” is a fiction used by Christians to describe something they don’t seem to want to understand. “Relativism,” in the context of Social Science (and Social Science only) refers to Margaret Meade’s dictum that “all cultural solutions are equally valid.” In her context Meade was cautioning the social scientist to avoid letting her/his cultural bias affect the description of the group under study. “Equally valid” is a term worth pondering and is not the same as “equal.” I can accept the cultural validity of Islam without having to deny Catholicsm or accept the “Truth” of Islam. In another post you’ve said you Hate Islam. I ask you sincerely, how can the peace of grace lead to feeling hate for anything?

Finally, I don’t see how using the word tolerance “smacks” of anything but Christian Charity and Humility.

Margaret Mead* made stuff up about the Samoans. Her idea that all cultures are equally valid is flawed. A culture that practices (for e.g.) wife burning isn’t ‘valid’.

How would you tolerate wife burning?

I don’t know of a Margaret Meade*

 

[kellie]

I agree that this verse alone regarding the female bee cannot prove that the Qur’an is true.

However, the proof of the Qur’an does not depend on the truth and accuracy of individual verses or passages that is found within it such as the verses about the female bee and the female ant, but rather it is the collective sum of all of these evidences, not just from the scientific but also from the linguistic aspect as well, which really proves that the Qur’an is the Word of the Creator.

To illustrate just one aspect, suppose that each individual verse or passage which has been proven to be scientifically accurate had only a 50% chance of being correct if we are to assume that the author just copied blindly from other sources or perhaps even took a wild guess at the answer.

However, when you get numerous individual verses and passages lined up together to show that ALL of them have been proven to be scientifically accurate and not even a single one of them is wrong, then the chances that the author guessed all of them right is virtually non-existent.

Mathematical probability is simply against anyone who might be making this accusation that the author of the Qur’an either copied from other sources or simply got “lucky” when making all these statements which just happened to be proven scientifically accurate.

And so, the detractors of the Qur’an have not only Science and Arabic literature working against their denial that the Qur’an is Divine, but Mathematics as well.

How does showing the Koran to be scientifically correct mean that it is theologically correct and divine?

It just shows that the author knew science

 

[dolphinlove]

ackbar!!!

Isnt that a character out of star wars??

 

[Montalban]

How does showing the Koran to be scientifically correct mean that it is theologically correct and divine?

It just shows that the author knew science

Ah, but it’s meant to be science as yet un-discovered/un-known and therefore he would conclude that it must have been God behind it.

His position here is flawed for two reasons

a) God’s not the only super-natural entity we (including Moslems) believe in
and
b) some of the ‘science’ is simply not what he thinks it is. For instance there’s talk in the Koran about stuff which modern apologists claims is about embryology.

The wording in the Koran is such…
Surah Al-Mu’minun
Ayah [14]
Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.

A clot is a specific term and relates to blood flow, not embryology. However even if we were to pretend that this was some kind of ancient ‘insight’ into the process of human development it is not remarkable. Other ancient peoples had ‘insights’ into things as yet not known to science.

The Greeks of old had an ‘atomic theory’ and, like the bit about the Koranic clot, it is far from the modern understanding that science gives us.

 

[dolphinlove]

blood clots???

 

[hamba2han]

some of the ‘science’ is simply not what he thinks it is. For instance there’s talk in the Koran about stuff which modern apologists claims is about embryology.

What the Qur’an says about the stages of man’s embryonic development has already been explained here and continued here.

 

[jack_hawkins]

What the Qur’an says about the stages of man’s embryonic development has already been explained

…and debunked by various posters incl myself a qualified physician!
really, a blood clot is the most ridiculous description of the embryo I’ve ever heard

 

[jack_hawkins]

actually the main sign one’s faith is weak is that you have to cut and paste spurious science whilst ignoring any logical and coherent arguments that refute what you’ve said…