When I say “You’re done”, I’m telling you that I am not interested in trying to explain myself to you.
- You object to darn near anything I say about stuff, and make unfounded claims about significant things and rarely “converse” reasonably about your claims.
- For instance, you argued with me, long ago, about the shooter in Atlanta who killed the women.
- You claimed that all Abrahamic faiths “worship the same god”. I carefully explained why I do not believe that is true. Your whole argument was based on the fact that Yahweh is “the God” of Judaism and Christianity, and that “Allah” means “god” in Arabic. Whoopty-do, … just because “Allah” means “god” and Yahweh is God, “Yahweh” and “Allah” are interchangeable, therefore all Abrahamic faiths worship the same god??? That’s nonsense. The Baha’i say the same nonsense.
- I stated elsewhere that, although I realize there is no consensus on the matter, I personally choose to believe that the Shroud could be authentic, and–whether it is or isn’t authentic–it makes, IMO, a perfect “summary” of the rock-bottom Gospel-with-a-capital-"G"and an ideal banner to hang over every Christian altar in every Christian church. Vinnie the Scientist proceeded to drag out Wikipedia arguments against the authenticity of the Shroud AND offend and insult me by comparing my position to
And what was your cute “rejoinder”?
*
- Got news for you, if indeed the Shroud was produced by human hands, it is the finest example of human handiwork that I have ever seen in 14th century art. To deem its production “the second oldest profession”, presumably after prostitution was the epitome of nonsense to me and, by the way, insults my opinion and “shed no light” on the topic.
- In your response to my mocking one of your “typical” silly questions, you insulted me with this response:
- My point? Pots ought to think twice about calling a kettle “black”. You’re no stranger to offense and insult and disrespect, and yet you’re ever ready and quick to point out what you decide is “offensive, insulting, and disrespectful”. I know because I’ve seen you offend, insult, and disrespect others as well as me.
- Your latest contentious “conversation” with me, over the difference between a “true, devout Muslim’s” belief about the source of the Qur’an and any uninspired belief regarding its sacred authority is just one more example of your willingness to contend for the sake of contending.
- You, like others in this forum, seem to have an aversion to retracing steps taken in the often long and winding path of dispute. The apparent aversion continues to be a mystery to me. With no expectation of putting an end to our contentious conversation, I now retrace its history in this thread.
- In my post #16, I made a number of claims which I believed were for Rave, Rohan, and Trippy_Elixir’s benefit. One in particular evoked your question, in post 23, to wit:
- The simple answer is that, to “true, devout Muslims”, the Qur’an is Allah’s revelation through Muhammad in Arabic and should be shared with everybody which is really hard to do when the people Allah wants his revelation shared with don’t speak or read Arabic.
- Instead, I tediously pointed out, in post #30. several things that I am convinced are important things to keep in mind, and ended with a terse opinion, to wit:
- Your response?
- So, how far backwards or frontwards did you have to lean in order to turn my comment into a suggestion that mishandling a translated Qur’an was okay? And what does your little story about Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible have to do with translations of the Qur’an?
- And when I question your response, in post #42, you question my questioning, as if your responses are always clear and unquestionable, but others’ responses are frequently unclear and questionable. If disagreeableness isn’t genetic, yours sure seems to raise the possibility.
- And what’s with all the extra-stuff that you typically include in a message to me? FYI: I don’t wait with bated breath for a post from you addressed specifically to me.
- Next, miffed by my response to you, you decide to seize on my term “Nestorian Scripture” in order to continue contending with me.
- Obviously, at least to me, if all you think is important about Nestorius was his preference for the title of “Christ-bearer” versus Mary’s title of “God-bearer”, my term “Nestorian Scripture” will seem unintelligible. But if you find my words unintelligible so often, why do you think it’s important to let me know that what I say is intelligible? You could just ignore me, rather than go out of your way to be disagreeable.
- So when I carefully and tedious explain the rationale for my term “Nestorian Scripture”, you come unglued,
- accusing me of a “contradiction in terms”;
- refuting my “Nestorian source” conjecture with what? With your “probably Biblical and extra-canonical Christian source” hypothesis? Are you serious? Of course you’re serious. You are confident that your hypothesis is brilliant and my conjecture is false. Whereas the truth is that your hypothesis flounders and my conjecture is viable and floats. The problem is that your myopia prevents you from being open to an otherwise inconceivable impossibility.
- you seize on my term “Anglican Scripture”; and
- top off your diatribe against me with this nonsense:
- What does “valued the Psalms for some time” even mean?
* IMO, it either means one or more Psalms are in the Qur’an, and/or
* there’s written documentation of their current importance to Muslims, and that you can tell me where to find that documentation. But you can’t. If I thought it would change your mind, I’d quote the Qur’an for you. and “converse” with you more. But history has shown that that would be a futile exercise and a waste of time. - Bottom line: You’re done.
