Life after death

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Or that a man can walk to the setting place of the sun?


D.
His saying – be glorified – in the Quran 18: 86
حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا
The explanation: (Until when he reached at sun-set [time], he found it setting under the observation of a black woman, and he found with her a people.)
قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا
The explanation: (We said, “O Zul-qarnain, you have either to punish or to show them kindness.)


When Alexander of Macedon [surnamed Zul-qarnain] reached the West, i.e. to Abyssinia, he found the citizens of that country worshipping the sun, so that they gathered outside the city at the time of sun-set, looked to the sun and sung their religious songs, and when it was about to set down and disappear from sight behind the horizon, they would kneel down and adore the sun, all of them. They had a black queen in front of them, who led them in prayer, and they imitated her prayer to the sun.
The interpretation:
>> (Until when he) i.e. Alexander (reached)
>> (at sun-set [time] ) means: He arrived, at that place, at the time of sun-set.
>> (he found it setting under the observation of a black woman) means: He found a black woman watching the sun, while it was setting. That woman was a queen; and her people were assembling with her.

The meaning: Alexander found a people worshipping the sun at its setting; they had a queen leading them in prayer to the sun; she was adoring and kneeling down to the sun; so that her people were imitating her, and doing the same as was their queen doing.

In Arabic, the word عين was misinterpreted as the ‘water-spring’; while, actually, it means the ‘watching and observation’; as is it mentioned in many instances in the Quran and in the Arab poetry. Examples:
(1) God - be exalted - said in the Quran 11: 37
و اصْنَعِ الفُلْكَ بِأعْيُنِنا ووَحْيِنا
The explanation: (But build the Ark under Our observation and as We instruct you by revelation.)
(2) God – be highly exalted - said in the Quran, 54:14
تَجْرِي بِأعْيُنِنا جَزاءً لِمَنْ كانَ كُفِرَ
The explanation: (Which ran [upon the water,] in Our sight, as a reward for him that was rejected ) i.e. under Our watching and observation.
(3) God - be exalted – said also in the Quran, 52: 48
واصْبِرْ لِحُكْمِ رَبِّكَ فَإنَّكَ بِأعْيُنِنا وسَبِّحْ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّكَ حِنَ تَقُومُ
The explanation: (So forbear patiently to the commandment of your Lord: for surely you [Mohammed] are under Our observation. And celebrate the praises of your Lord, when you rise up [from sleep.] )

His saying -be exalted - فَإنَّكَ بِأعْيُنِنا i.e. (for surely you [Mohammed] are under Our observation.) means: under Our observation and watching. [The actual Arabic word may lit. mean “Our eyes”.]

[Now we continue the interpretation of the Quranic revelation 18: 87-88]
>> (and he found with her a people.) means: Alexander found, with the black woman, a people doing exactly as was she doing, and imitating her in her worship.
>> (We said, “O Zul-qarnain); this is the surname or the title of Alexander.
>> (you have either to punish) these people who are worshipping the sun, if they do not believe in God and resign or submit themselves to Him.
>> (or to show them kindness) if they believe and obey Our order.
Here, the عين in Arabic means the watching, and it does not mean a water-spring. The proof of this lies in His saying -be exalted - in the Quran 18: 91
حَتّى إذا بَلَغَ مَطْلِعَ الشّمْسِ وَجَدَها تَطْلُعُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ لَمْ نَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِها سِتْراً
The explanation: (Until when he reached at sun-rising [time], he found it rise upon a people for whom We made no shelter therefrom.)
So, if the عين meant a water-spring, then God – be glorified – would say: ‘he found it rise from a water-spring!’ But the meaning is: He found it set down for a people having such a description; and rise upon a people having such a description.
Therefore, God - be exalted – meant by that to describe the people, and not to describe the sun.
[ This also is the meaning of the word in the Arab poetry, some of which is mentioned by the late Mohammed-Ali Hassan, the interpreter of the Quran and the Bible, in his Arabic book.]

See this in the answer of question no. 5 in the subject of http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_3.htm#Sun

eanassir
ÕÝÍÉ ÌÏíÏÉ 1
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
People hold different views on life after death. What's your own view on this? Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?

Is there life after death? We don’t know, and we have no way of finding out, short of somebody dying, getting resurrected and telling us what is on the other side (and in that case, nobody will believe that he died in the first place).

So this is something we will never know. However, the default position has to be that what we see is all there is. Unless somebody can produce convincing proof of after life, the only reasonable, logical position is that there is no after life.

There are probably several hundred versions of afterlife floating around. Fundamentalist Muslim concept of Heaven (where terrorists are supposedly rewarded with 72 virgins), or Christian concept of Heaven and Hell (where anybody how does not believe in Christ suffers eternal torture, eternal damnation), Hindu concept of ‘nirvana’ etc. How do we know which is the right one?

Until somebody proves to me otherwise, I take the only logical position that there is n afterlife.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
The Koran! well, come put me to the test -
Lovely old book in hideous error drest -
Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,
The unbeliever knows the Koran best

And do you think that unto such as you,
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave the Secret, and denied it me? -
Well, well, what matters it! believe that too.

- Omar Khayyam
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
In that refuted article, there's that interesting Argument from nonbelief. It actually offers evil as evidence for God's non-existence....interesting.......

I am an Atheist, but those who advance argument for nonexistence of God are being dishonest. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God; logically you cannot prove a negative.

E.g. how do you prove that you have never been to Ulan Bator, Mongolia in the past 20 years? To do that, you will have to account for each and every day for the past 20 years, an impossible task. However, you could easily prove that you have been to Ulan Bator.

So those who claim to have proof that God doesn’t’ exist are talking nonsense in my opinion.

However, in science, there is such a thing as burden of proof. Only one side has burden of proof, and that side is the one which makes a positive, definitive statement. Thus those who say that God exists, it is incumbent upon them to furnish the proof that God exists. For me, the default position is that God doesn’t exist, unless somebody can provide convincing proof.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I am an Atheist, but those who advance argument for nonexistence of God are being dishonest. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God; logically you cannot prove a negative.

If you read the threads carefully you will find that no one here has ever done that.

So those who claim to have proof that God doesn’t’ exist are talking nonsense in my opinion.

There is no proof he does either but whats more, there is no need for god in explaining how the universe came about. We need no superstition or deity to explain anything around us.

So while we have no proof he exists we also have no need of that proof. God is like a mental superfluous appendage that retards us.


However, in science, there is such a thing as burden of proof. Only one side has burden of proof, and that side is the one which makes a positive, definitive statement. Thus those who say that God exists, it is incumbent upon them to furnish the proof that God exists. For me, the default position is that God doesn’t exist, unless somebody can provide convincing proof.

WTF!! this was covered over a month ago. That is what is going on right now. The bible and koran thumpers are trying to prove there is a god. Just like you are trying to prove there was a real man named Jesus.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
WTF!! this was covered over a month ago. That is what is going on right now. The bible and koran thumpers are trying to prove there is a god.

Scot Free, I just skimmed through the discussion, I didn’t read it in detail, it is quite possible it may have been covered before.

Just like you are trying to prove there was a real man named Jesus.


I am not trying to prove that there was a man named Jesus, show me where I do that. What I said is that there may have existed a man named Jesus, we don’t know. Existence of Jesus the man does not sound implausible or improbable. And it is irrelevant whether a man named Jesus existed, what is important is, was he the Son of God? I don’t think he was.

However, the fact that he was not the Son of God does not preclude there having lived a man named Jesus. It is quite possible that there lived Jesus the man, we don’t know. However, Jesus being the Messiah or Son of God is just a fairy tale.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I am not trying to prove that there was a man named Jesus, show me where I do that. What I said is that there may have existed a man named Jesus, we don’t know. Existence of Jesus the man does not sound implausible or improbable. And it is irrelevant whether a man named Jesus existed, what is important is, was he the Son of God? I don’t think he was.

So you agree also there may have been a bird headed man named Horus wandering around ancient Egypt?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
So you agree also there may have been a bird headed man named Horus wandering around ancient Egypt?

Scot Free, now you are being silly. There is nothing implausible or improbable that there may have lived a man named Jesus 2000 years ago. However, to claim that a bird headed man lived in ancient times is on par with claiming that Jesus was the Son of God, both claims are nonsense.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Scot Free, now you are being silly. There is nothing implausible or improbable that there may have lived a man named Jesus 2000 years ago.

It is you that is being silly. Your claim that a bird headed man is more absurd than a man who walks on water is ludicrous and, whats more, by saying he didn't walk on water, that he was ordinary, makes your claim even more absurd! Why should anyone write so much and make up so much about an ordinary man?

Also now you would deny the bird headed man but you cannot prove he didn't exist! You believe Jesus existed without proof.

Your about as much of an atheist as the pope.

However, to claim that a bird headed man lived in ancient times is on par with claiming that Jesus was the Son of God, both claims are nonsense.

So my claim of the bird headed man is nonsense but your claim of Jesus is not... :roll: Even though the stories are almost identical... lmao... but the origin of one story is real and the other not... and what do you offer as evedence? You think so....

LMAO.. :lol:

You should go argue with the goat herders about angels and heads of pins.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
So my claim of the bird headed man is nonsense but your claim of Jesus is not...

You got it, Scott Free. Bird headed man is of course nonsense. As to Jesus, why is the claim nonsense? Are you saying that men like you or I did not live 2000 years ago? And if they did, what is so far fetched that there may have been a man named Jesus?

My claim is not nonsense because it postulates possible existence of an ordinary man, like billions of others. Your claim of bird man is nonsense because as far as we know bird headed men don’t exist. Show me one, and then your claim of bird headed Horus having lived in ancient times becomes plausible.

Even though the stories are almost identical.

Stories are far from identical, in one instance we are talking of a man like you or I. In the other instance, we are talking of a mythological bird headed creature.

I think you are confusing between possibility and certainty. It is possible that a man named Jesus may have lived 2000 years ago? Sure it is, but do we know for certain? We don’t.


But then we cannot positively say that such a man did not live 2000 years ago, as I said before, it is impossible to prove a negative.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Scott,

SJP has been arguing all along that the miraculous events attributed to Jesus are false, but that there may have been carpenter named Jesus that started a revolution in Roman occupied Judea...

Of course there's no archaeological or documentary evidence to support this assertion any more than the hawk-headed horus...
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
But then we cannot positively say that such a man did not live 2000 years ago, as I said before, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Right, so you think that means Jesus really existed but the bird headed man didn't. In other words you're just picking and choosing what to believe regardless of the evidence, like any good religionist would do.

There is no proof for Horus, Osirus or Jesus but you'll believe in Jesus just the same because you want to.

That, my friend, is not rational.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Scott,

SJP has been arguing all along that the miraculous events attributed to Jesus are false, but that there may have been carpenter named Jesus that started a revolution in Roman occupied Judea...

Of course there's no archaeological or documentary evidence to support this assertion any more than the hawk-headed horus...

Yes I know and I am trying to demonstrate to him that he is wrong. Like any mythological story the Jesus myth was made up. There is ample evidence for that hypothesis. The only reason he can't see it is that he believes in Jesus. I have no idea why he is calling himself n atheist but IMO he isn't or at least he hasn't thought it through very far.

When you look at the evidence on whole there is no reason to say Horus wasn't real but Jesus was. If you can claim Jesus was real then you can (and should) equally claim Horus was real because the evidence is the same - none.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
When you look at the evidence on whole there is no reason to say Horus wasn't real but Jesus was. If you can claim Jesus was real then you can (and should) equally claim Horus was real because the evidence is the same - none.

Precisely...

I made a mistake in letting them suck me in and turn this into a theological debate, which admittedly, I'm not very good at...

To engage in theological discussion, one is forced to

But this is not a theological debate, this is a challenge to those who believe Jesus existed as man or god to put up, or shut up...

Show us some actual evidence, and I'll back down...

Until then, I'll be here to refute any absurd claim that the faithful care to make...
 
Last edited:

ahmadabdalrhman

Electoral Member
Sep 14, 2008
379
4
18
www.watchislam.com
Is there life after death? We don’t know, and we have no way of finding out, short of somebody dying, getting resurrected and telling us what is on the other side (and in that case, nobody will believe that he died in the first place).

So this is something we will never know. However, the default position has to be that what we see is all there is. Unless somebody can produce convincing proof of after life, the only reasonable, logical position is that there is no after life.

There are probably several hundred versions of afterlife floating around. Fundamentalist Muslim concept of Heaven (where terrorists are supposedly rewarded with 72 virgins), or Christian concept of Heaven and Hell (where anybody how does not believe in Christ suffers eternal torture, eternal damnation), Hindu concept of ‘nirvana’ etc. How do we know which is the right one?

Until somebody proves to me otherwise, I take the only logical position that there is n afterlife.

YouTube - Why are they converted to Islam? 1/8

YouTube - Why are they converted to Islam? 2/8

YouTube - Why are they converted to Islam? 3/8

YouTube - Why are they converted to Islam? 4/8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIO7qGOyYyk&feature=related
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Precisely...

I made a mistake in letting them suck me in and turn this into a theological debate, which admittedly, I'm not very good at...

To engage in theological discussion, one is forced to lend authority to that which we are arguing against, which flies in the face of reason...

But this is not a theological debate, this is a challenge to those who believe Jesus existed as man or god to put up, or shut up...

Show us some actual evidence, and I'll back down...

Until then, I'll be here to refute any absurd claim that the faithful care to make...

This is what I meant to say...unfortunately, I didn't get around to editting before Alabamallama posted his scintillating rebuke to the iniquity of the ungodly...

[I can only assume that's what it was, because I can't view his videos while at work]
 

ahmadabdalrhman

Electoral Member
Sep 14, 2008
379
4
18
www.watchislam.com
This is what I meant to say...unfortunately, I didn't get around to editting before Alabamallama posted his scintillating rebuke to the iniquity of the ungodly...

[I can only assume that's what it was, because I can't view his videos while at work]

no you is assume are wrong


but ok


Jesus in quran

YouTube - Jesus in Quran

Alabamallama

I do know what you mean about it but not 100 %

I think in two from meaning and I have response to them
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Of course there's no archaeological or documentary evidence to support this assertion any more than the hawk-headed horus...

Vanni Fucci, whether there is archaeological evidence or not doesn’t matter. Existence of Jesus the man sounds plausible and could have happened. Existence of Horus the bird headed man is nonsense because we know that bird headed man doesn’t exist, is a fiction.

I am not talking of historical or archaeological evidence here (we could argue forever whether historical evidence proves the existence of Jesus or not), but of plausibility.

Certain incidents are plausible, others are not. Let me give you an example. Did you have bacon and eggs for breakfast yesterday? I don’t know, I don’t have any evidence for it, but it is certainly possible, plausible.

On the other hand, did you have tar sands for breakfast yesterday and wash it down with crude oil? Again, I have no evidence for that, but it is nonsense, it doesn’t sound plausible.

The possibility that Jesus the man existed is on par with the possibility that you had bacon and eggs for breakfast yesterday. The possibility that Horus the bird headed man existed is comparable to the possibility that you had tar sands and crude oil for breakfast yesterday.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I have no idea why he is calling himself n atheist but IMO he isn't or at least he hasn't thought it through very far.

Scott Free, I call myself an Atheist because I am an Atheist, I don’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God, or that he was resurrected, or that the had virgin birth, I think these are just fairy tales.

However, I have no problem in believing that there may have lived a man called Jesus 2000 years ago.

Your claim that a bird headed man is more absurd than a man who walks on water is ludicrous

I never made that claim, you really seem to have one track mind, my friend, you read what you want to read, not what I write, Show me where I said that, which post.

What I said is that a bird headed man is (not more, but) much more absurd that a mortal man named Jesus. I didn’t say anything about walking on water, you did.

You are what I call a militant Atheist, which is an Atheistic counterpart of a Fundamentalist Christian or Fundamentalist Muslim (like our friend here who keeps on posting video after video of Islam).

You don’t believe in God, fair enough, nor do I. But then you go to the other extreme and also claim that Jesus the man never existed. Why? Do you have the names of all the men who lived two thousand years ago, perhaps the results of a census conducted back then and the name Jesus does not appear in the census?

What is implausible about the statement that Jesus the man may have existed?