Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
I Renounced Islam
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
masukuma wrote:Muriel wrote:masukuma wrote:symbols wrote:@masukuma - They also thought of themselves as advanced.On the inside we're just as human as they were.We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal... exactly - they thought themselves to be advanced but thought and the relative reality of elapsed time are two totally different things. I guess you saw njunge's age mates thread. those computers were awesome things to have 30 years ago... if that is how far we have advanced in 30 years - think about 3000 years. it's sad but we really don't have a clue of how bad things were 'back in the day' You have misunderstood brother's post. "Advanced" is relative. One living in 1798 thought himself more "advanced" than one who lived in 457. Yet certain things remain constant e.g. love, hate, fear, desire etc to this day. You will not convince the 1798 guy he was just as 'advanced' as the 457 guy, that they were the same. That is why you cannot be absolute that those living before yourself were less 'advanced'. yes advanced is relative.... we will be more advanced next week than we are today. where 'we' in this case is not 'we' as human beings but rather 'we' the society. there are aspects of our lives that are 'human' as you said "We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal..." those attributes define humanity. we are not different beings all together 'we' as a society just know more about our environment than preceding generations. this knowledge should be harnessed for the betterment of life and not pushed into a 'sanduku la sahau' because we hitherto held to certain truths. We should not hold on to 'truths' from our past yet 'we know better'. Science is not a world view and should not be a worldview. it should just be a way to come up with conclusions based on empirical testing of all available evidence. Empirical testing relies on the senses. The senses play a role in shaping our love, hate, fear, desire, etc. Therefore, sensible 'science' of testing evidence is rather constant and not rapidly improving. If 'science' improves it could also suggest 'science' can also degenerate. If it can degenerate, then our conclusions after testing all the evidence are degenerate and you, we, despite our 'technology' are less advanced.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:masukuma wrote:Muriel wrote:masukuma wrote:symbols wrote:@masukuma - They also thought of themselves as advanced.On the inside we're just as human as they were.We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal... exactly - they thought themselves to be advanced but thought and the relative reality of elapsed time are two totally different things. I guess you saw njunge's age mates thread. those computers were awesome things to have 30 years ago... if that is how far we have advanced in 30 years - think about 3000 years. it's sad but we really don't have a clue of how bad things were 'back in the day' You have misunderstood brother's post. "Advanced" is relative. One living in 1798 thought himself more "advanced" than one who lived in 457. Yet certain things remain constant e.g. love, hate, fear, desire etc to this day. You will not convince the 1798 guy he was just as 'advanced' as the 457 guy, that they were the same. That is why you cannot be absolute that those living before yourself were less 'advanced'. yes advanced is relative.... we will be more advanced next week than we are today. where 'we' in this case is not 'we' as human beings but rather 'we' the society. there are aspects of our lives that are 'human' as you said "We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal..." those attributes define humanity. we are not different beings all together 'we' as a society just know more about our environment than preceding generations. this knowledge should be harnessed for the betterment of life and not pushed into a 'sanduku la sahau' because we hitherto held to certain truths. We should not hold on to 'truths' from our past yet 'we know better'. Science is not a world view and should not be a worldview. it should just be a way to come up with conclusions based on empirical testing of all available evidence. Empirical testing relies on the senses. The senses play a role in shaping our love, hate, fear, desire, etc. Therefore, sensible 'science' of testing evidence is rather constant and not rapidly improving. If 'science' improves it could also suggest 'science' can also degenerate. If it can degenerate, then our conclusions after testing all the evidence are degenerate and you, we, despite our 'technology' are less advanced. as you have said - the basis of science is testing all available evidence and drawing a conclusion from the same. if new evidence comes about - test it and either uphold the existing conclusion or rubbish it by defining a new conclusion. this process goes on ad infinitum. science as a concept does not change or should not change .. the methods of collecting this evidence, the methods of testing the said evidence and the methods of drawing conclusions from the said evidence can improve based on the technology in place. Science is not technology! All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
nakujua wrote:symbols wrote:@masukuma - They also thought of themselves as advanced.On the inside we're just as human as they were.We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal... even our hate, fear, desire, harm ... also advance with time, new technology, new discoveries help in shaping our emotions. Even today we can't quantify our emotions to assess whether they are advancing or declining but they are there.
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
masukuma wrote:Muriel wrote:masukuma wrote:Muriel wrote:masukuma wrote:symbols wrote:@masukuma - They also thought of themselves as advanced.On the inside we're just as human as they were.We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal... exactly - they thought themselves to be advanced but thought and the relative reality of elapsed time are two totally different things. I guess you saw njunge's age mates thread. those computers were awesome things to have 30 years ago... if that is how far we have advanced in 30 years - think about 3000 years. it's sad but we really don't have a clue of how bad things were 'back in the day' You have misunderstood brother's post. "Advanced" is relative. One living in 1798 thought himself more "advanced" than one who lived in 457. Yet certain things remain constant e.g. love, hate, fear, desire etc to this day. You will not convince the 1798 guy he was just as 'advanced' as the 457 guy, that they were the same. That is why you cannot be absolute that those living before yourself were less 'advanced'. yes advanced is relative.... we will be more advanced next week than we are today. where 'we' in this case is not 'we' as human beings but rather 'we' the society. there are aspects of our lives that are 'human' as you said "We love,we hate,we fear,we desire,we harm,we heal..." those attributes define humanity. we are not different beings all together 'we' as a society just know more about our environment than preceding generations. this knowledge should be harnessed for the betterment of life and not pushed into a 'sanduku la sahau' because we hitherto held to certain truths. We should not hold on to 'truths' from our past yet 'we know better'. Science is not a world view and should not be a worldview. it should just be a way to come up with conclusions based on empirical testing of all available evidence. Empirical testing relies on the senses. The senses play a role in shaping our love, hate, fear, desire, etc. Therefore, sensible 'science' of testing evidence is rather constant and not rapidly improving. If 'science' improves it could also suggest 'science' can also degenerate. If it can degenerate, then our conclusions after testing all the evidence are degenerate and you, we, despite our 'technology' are less advanced. as you have said - the basis of science is testing all available evidence and drawing a conclusion from the same. if new evidence comes about - test it and either uphold the existing conclusion or rubbish it by defining a new conclusion. this process goes on ad infinitum. science as a concept does not change or should not change .. the methods of collecting this evidence, the methods of testing the said evidence and the methods of drawing conclusions from the said evidence can improve based on the technology in place. Science is not technology! Methods of testing and drawing conclusion can improve but they all still rely on the senses to note the improvement or degeneration. The senses, i.e. touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing which are constant. Hence if it can be shown that if one or all of our senses e.g. of hearing is not as sharp as it was earlier (because we damaged it with loud throbbing sound or music) then whatever test and conclusion that relied upon hearing it will be degenerate. Hence it is not wise to rubbish previously held conclusions when we get new conclusions. Actually, most if not all our senses are damaged in one way or another so we can only safely see that previous conclusions are the better conclusions. Current conclusions are flawed. Indeed science is not technology.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
@masukuma - Maybe you didn't get my point although I agree with what Muriel is saying.That very drive to advance is present with us today as it was with them then.If the basis of our thinking is still the same how can we stop thinking like them?
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/21/2010 Posts: 6,675 Location: Nairobi
|
kyt wrote:I am not a muslim or a christian but in my own view; again I could be wrong; marrying a 9 yr old is somehow twisted. 9 years is young kinda young. So God putting the saviour of the world in the Womb of a 12 year old girl is is the example we should all follow instead! I mean she was a whole 3 years older, I mean she was a whole double digit age of 12, A 12 year old "woman" was definitely mature enough... Wow! Mark 12:29 Deuteronomy 4:16
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/21/2010 Posts: 6,675 Location: Nairobi
|
Lolest! wrote:We are understanding the prophet. @Lolest! you are not understanding anything... Your job is to come here and twist truth to slander the prophet! Zayd will never be and has never been Muhammads son no matter how many conveniently twisted paragraphs you write! I guess you have run out of lies that's why you are insisting on this one! I have one question: As you stand there like a Pharisee judging and slandering Muhammad please tell me where it says that a PROPHET OF GOD CANNOT SIN?? Mark 12:29 Deuteronomy 4:16
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/15/2006 Posts: 3,906
|
I empathise with @guru267, because no one can bear to see one's mother, or one's belief, being torn down. No one can bear it. So, it is churlish: - to claim my religion is greater than Islam - as it is to justify death for apostasy, or honor killings - or justify terrorism & collateral damage in expanding a country's border So easy for us all to be hypocritical. Irrespective of belief, don't all human beings struggle with these deadly ills? pride, greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy, and sloth.
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2012 Posts: 1,317
|
I find it strange, and perhaps @guru could explain this. Having read the Qur'an I find that the Islamic deity is distant and lacks a relational connection with his people.
The God of the bible on the other hand longs for relationship and openly reaches out to His creation.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:
Methods of testing and drawing conclusion can improve but they all still rely on the senses to note the improvement or degeneration. The senses, i.e. touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing which are constant.
Hence if it can be shown that if one or all of our senses e.g. of hearing is not as sharp as it was earlier (because we damaged it with loud throbbing sound or music) then whatever test and conclusion that relied upon hearing it will be degenerate. Hence it is not wise to rubbish previously held conclusions when we get new conclusions. Actually, most if not all our senses are damaged in one way or another so we can only safely see that previous conclusions are the better conclusions. Current conclusions are flawed.
Indeed science is not technology.
We have a body of knowledge that we have been accumulating i.e. we have stuff that we know and we know we know and in reality we actually know them. there are things that we think we know but we really don't know, there are things we know that we don't know and there are things we don't know that we don't know.  how do we know? knowing is being aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. We observe by our senses. For example - people had observed that the atom was the smallest and indivisible component of matter. in 1897 someone observed that the atom was not the smallest piece of matter someone concluded that the smallest piece of matter was actually the electron. this was based on finer instruments. in 1917 a dude got the Nobel prize for 'curing cancer' due to an observation but future observations based on finer tools and methods proved him wrong. We are slowly building the body of knowledge (known knowns that we really know). There are assumptions or incorrect approximations that result in things we think are known but are really unknown but given time we are moving stuff from the known unknowns into the things we think we know but we don't and later into the things we know that we know and we really know. Those things that we think we know but are unknown are not useless since they enable us remove the chaff from the list of possible explanations. For example – when Dalton stated that the atom was the smallest indivisible aspect of matter it removed marbles, oranges or even needles from the list of ‘smallest indivisible’ parts of matter. We have moved from where the ancients were i.e. we do not rely on senses alone to make assertions - we have technology i.e. contraptions built by us to aid us do stuff better. See better, hear better, feel better, taste better, smell better. our sight for example is used to detect 'existence' of stuff by seeing. but we have developed better ways of observing other than sight e.g. the microscopes and telescopes and all other scopes. We all agree that we know that we think we know what causes Malaria. We know that it’s not a curse or a demon or dirty water. We think it’s plasmodium and toxins released by that organism we could be wrong since our observations may improve in future HOWEVER we should not result to drawing conclusions like the people who did not have instruments of observations like these that we have. ancients observed that the sun would appear in the east and disappear in the west. they drew conclusion that the sun went around the earth as they did not observe any movement on the part of the earth that they were standing on. with finer instruments we were able to postulate and prove that the conclusions made by the ancients were incorrect. we postulate conclusions based on information that we have at hand and we prove these conclusions later. The Higgs boson is one of these postulations that was made and a couple of years later was proved by observation to exist. Postulation of conclusions should be based on what information we have now not what was available millennia ago. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
Welcome back guru. Muhammad was a man, just like Opiyo and Kimondiu. Only that he was a successful war general. He was not a prophet. But yes, prophets can sin. BUT they must not claim revelations after that to justify themselves. Then force those imaginations on people as God's word. I'm glad you implied Muhammad sinned. One of your brothers told me he never did!
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
another observation made was that sickle cell anemia was a disease of the black nywele ngumu people. this was based on cases of people diagnosed. genetics have proven that it's actually the allele that causes sickle cell anemia is an adaptation by RBCs to fighting malaria and is not found in african populations in south africa but due to the trade route it's found as far as yemen and india. This newer information cancels out older information. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
Some professional enemies of Islam use marriage life of the prophet as animosity towards Islam. These non-believers has chosen this as their role in life, to attack the person of prophet. And I have read these accusations by kina @kyt, @lonest, @muganda, and other people here in @Wazua.
My response will be that their problem is not really the prophet married Aisha. Their problem is that they don't believe he is the messenger of Allah. They don't believe that he was receiving revelation. So their problem runs deeper.
The issue of bringing up Aisha is just a front, in order to attack Islam. Even if the prophet didn't do it, they would still be attacking. If we tell you this was divinely instructed, you will still say how convenient it is whenever something that seems strange, you say that God commanded.
Then I say we need to discuss the issue of whether the prophet was the prophet of Allah or not. And that would settle the argument. If he is the prophet of Allah, then we have no right to question what Allah told him to do. If we establish that he was a messenger of Allah receiving revelation from Allah, then whatever Allah tells him to do we should accept it. Because Allah owes nothing to us and we owe everything to Him.
So the enemies of Islam are attacking the marriage to Aisha, even if it didn't happen they would still be attacking Islam, because they don't believe in it. They don't believe that the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was a messenger of Allah. They don't believe he was receiving revelations from Allah.
So it is pointless to argue regarding Aisha (ra) because they have a major problem and that they don't accept him altogether.
This reminds me of the time when the Quraish were attacking the prophet, and Allah said in the Quran: "They are not disbelieving you, they disbelieveing the message of Allah."
It means they were not attacking him, but they were attacking the message. They were not attacking his personality just because of his personality, they were attacking him because he was conveying the message of Allah to them.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/7/2007 Posts: 2,182
|
guru267 wrote:kyt wrote:I am not a muslim or a christian but in my own view; again I could be wrong; marrying a 9 yr old is somehow twisted. 9 years is young kinda young. So God putting the saviour of the world in the Womb of a 12 year old girl is is the example we should all follow instead! I mean she was a whole 3 years older, I mean she was a whole double digit age of 12, A 12 year old "woman" was definitely mature enough... Wow! guru 3 years is a long time....loooong time my friend. dont joke witb 3 years. LOVE WHAT YOU DO, DO WHAT YOU LOVE.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/15/2006 Posts: 3,906
|
AlphDoti wrote:Some professional enemies of Islam use marriage life of the prophet as animosity towards Islam. These non-believers has chosen this as their role in life, to attack the person of prophet. And I have read these accusations by kina @kyt, @lonest, @muganda, and other people here in @Wazua. Welcome back @Alphdoti, @guru267 seemed to be fighting a lone battle  About Muhammad and his being a prophet of Allah... not sure you can find even a single post where I've discussed that issue. Because Jews doubt Jesus, Christians disbelief Muhammad's mission, Muslims are sure Christians got lost somewhere, Agnostics disbelieve them all, etc. Does it make them bad, I cannot judge. God is Infinite, and his ways greater than the way his creation perceives him. Have you pondered how chance plays into what faith you profess? Now a man's words, his actions, the fruit of his beliefs, those speak to me.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/7/2007 Posts: 2,182
|
AlphDoti wrote:Some professional enemies of Islam use marriage life of the prophet as animosity towards Islam. These non-believers has chosen this as their role in life, to attack the person of prophet. And I have read these accusations by kina @kyt, @lonest, @muganda, and other people here in @Wazua. wapi mimi nime attack prophet mohammed(pbuh) @alpha. toa moja. LOVE WHAT YOU DO, DO WHAT YOU LOVE.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/21/2010 Posts: 6,675 Location: Nairobi
|
Lolest! wrote:Muhammad was a man, just like Opiyo and Kimondiu. Only that he was a successful war general. He was not a prophet. But yes, prophets can sin. @Lolest! I am not going to spend more time trying to convince you adoption is not allowed in Islam and a foster child will never ever ever have parents until they are formally adopted. Wallow in ignorance if you must! Moving on... David was also a man, just like Opiyo and Kimondiu. Only he was a successful war general. BUT.... WAIT FOR IT... according to the both of us David is one of God's most beloved prophets! And oh did David sin?? YEEEESSS!!! Maybe you can show me a few significant differences between the man David and the man Muhammad?? So explain to me why my beloved Muhammad (saw) is from Satan?? And don't try and escape the questions or risk exposing yourself here! Mark 12:29 Deuteronomy 4:16
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/21/2010 Posts: 6,675 Location: Nairobi
|
kyt wrote:guru 3 years is a long time....loooong time my friend. dont joke with 3 years. @Kyt I feel sorry for you... You slander the marriage of a 9 year old girl but praise the impregnating of a 12 year old girl?? That's why you make it easy for me... No intellect involved on your part! It seems God sees womanhood at puberty and who am I to argue? Its you and your UN and your constitution that call them girls... Mary (As) is the beloved mother of Jesus (As) and Aisha (RA) was the beloved wife of the Muhammad (saw) Continue with your Satan driven Pedophilia fantasies! Mark 12:29 Deuteronomy 4:16
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
guru267 wrote:kyt wrote:guru 3 years is a long time....loooong time my friend. dont joke with 3 years. @Kyt I feel sorry for you... You slander the marriage of a 9 year old girl but praise the impregnating of a 12 year old girl?? That's why you make it easy for me... No intellect involved on your part! It seems God sees womanhood at puberty and who am I to argue? Its you and your UN and your constitution that call them girls... Mary (As) is the beloved mother of Jesus (As) and Aisha (RA) was the beloved wife of the Muhammad (saw) Continue with your Satan driven Pedophilia fantasies! just curious... (As), (RA) ni nini? I know (SAW) but not these other phrases. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
Rank: New-farer Joined: 9/29/2012 Posts: 79
|
guru267 wrote:Lolest! wrote:Muhammad was a man, just like Opiyo and Kimondiu. Only that he was a successful war general. He was not a prophet. But yes, prophets can sin. @Lolest! I am not going to spend more time trying to convince you adoption is not allowed in Islam and a foster child will never ever ever have parents until they are formally adopted. Wallow in ignorance if you must! Moving on... David was also a man, just like Opiyo and Kimondiu. Only he was a successful war general. BUT.... WAIT FOR IT... according to the both of us David is one of God's most beloved prophets! And oh did David sin?? YEEEESSS!!! Maybe you can show me a few significant differences between the man David and the man Muhammad?? So explain to me why my beloved Muhammad (saw) is from Satan?? And don't try and escape the questions or risk exosing yourself here! @guru267 david was not a prophet he was a king The God of the day is still God in the night.
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
I Renounced Islam
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|