The 4-yr. old Preacher (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndreaCristiano

Nato, Vive, e muore Italiano
Jun 9, 2011
18,992
What constitutes greater faith? Blind belief in more illogical non-sense that your holy book claims?


It's sad how you treat this as reality.
You know what i have been patient with you and your jabs and your rudeness and mockery. Now you can truly go Fuck yourself and not talk to me anymore your a disrespectful piece of shit, you sit their with your snide remarks and beliefs as though you are the only one with true knowledge and you belittle all others. You sir are whats wrong with this world, you sit with an elitist view of what you deem acceptable and mock all others who don't subscribe to your bullshit, well shove it up your ass
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
OP
Sheik Yerbouti
Apr 15, 2006
56,618
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #843
    You need that thing Rami (the older one) use to use to get around those firewalls :p

    Hmm...I don't think I've heard of the 'batinite' sects. You're not talking about Ismaili's by any chance are you?

    The Ahmadiyya sect falls into the Sunni umbrella if anything but even then there are a couple of fundamental differences that set it apart so I can't even say that.

    When I say that we believe Krishna, Buddha, and Socrates to be prophets they are just theories. We certainly know that no more than the 25 (was it?) mentioned in the Qur'an can be considered 100% prophets. However, there is a mention of over 100k prophets in the Qur'an (unnamed of course) so some can be theorized to fall among this group.

    Take a look at this for instance (sorry for pasting something long but you probably won't be able to access the website.):

    Krishna - `I am the Beginning and the End'

    Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna (as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna (as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, 'of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.' My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?

    Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.

    Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ (as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ (as) but also in the Holy Qur'an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (as) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets') then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith' (tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur'anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet (saw), he was the first to be born.

    Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna (as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna (as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar' (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question! As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form'. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna (as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words. Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings'. The Holy Qur'an also uses the word `wings' in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur'an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings' used to fly with, only that the `wings' are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms', the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms. The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur'an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight 'wings' and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let's say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself is told to lower his 'wing' of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their 'wings' over their parents. So these usages of the same word 'wing' elsewhere in the Qur'an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.

    In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hadhrat Krishna (as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.

    Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur'an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.

    So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.

    I hope this will be sufficient as I don't think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue.

    -http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000158.html

    The italics part is very important imo for so many reasons as mentioned.
    I'm sorry for bringing up an old post. I just read it right now. But Krishna was a messenger of Allah? :howler:

    A language of symbols? Yeah, Sanskrit didn't even exist during those times.

    About the bolded part, since you believe in Allah as the only god, you're stating that the symbolisms of good and evil through light and fire and darkness was first stated by Islam?

    What a bunch of non-sense!
     

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
    I'm not discussing theology with you but I hope you learn to read the English language.

    Also, you are a shining example of that manners and morality can't simply exist by themselves because you're rude as fuck.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)