The Religion Discussion

[maj. tom]

[nareshseep]

DNA evidence has revealed that the oldest known common male ancestor is 340,000 years old, more than twice as old as previous estimates.

New Scientist reports that the sample comes from a recently deceased man named Albert Perry. After the African-American South Carolina man died, one of his relatives submitted a sample of his DNA to a company called Family Tree DNA for analysis.

The findings were published in the The American Journal of Human Genetics and may require researchers to adjust the known timeline of humankind’s evolution.

And the historical mark came at something of a bargain—the company does historical DNA analysis on individuals for about $150.

All previously compared DNA samples pointed to a common Y chromosome traced back to man who lived between 60,000 and 140,000 years ago. But Perry’s DNA sample broke the trend, not matching up with this common ancestor.

"It's a cool discovery," Jon Wilkins of the Ronin Institute in Montclair, N.J., told New Scientist. "We geneticists have been looking at Y chromosomes about as long as we've been looking at anything. Changing where the root of the Y-chromosome tree is at this point is extremely surprising."

After the initial tests on Perry’s DNA, geneticists at the University of Arizona conducted further tests to confirm the anomaly. The Y chromosome in Perry’s test matched up with those of 11 men who all lived in one village in Cameroon.

University of Arizona researcher Michael Hammer says Perry’s DNA suggests there may have been an earlier species of humans that went extinct—but not before interbreeding with the more modern version of man.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/fa ... 33011.html

[bluefete]

not gonna bother to explain? or can't explain

the only people in this thread who are against islam would be people like bluefete and megadoc

i did not insult or make nasty comments about your religion, i'm just asking if you can't figure things out for yourself or if you must be TOLD what is the truth.

very simple question

ABA - Why you calling my name in your business??

BTW: Have you ever read a post I made that was against Islam???

[bluefete]

way boy allyuh is real maulanas in this place.. "a true muslim wife should never work" - maulana dfc

Im muslim, not amish or a cave woman. We can work, drive etc. Stop trying to interpret quran and hadith by urself. U really dont know what you are talking about and stop pulling stuff off questionable websites.

Can women drive in Saudi Arabia??

[Kasey]

^^or in Muslim dominated countries???

[Sacchetto Boutique]

The ruling for women driving must be derived from other laws and principals; meaning that we do not have a direct ruling on women driving in the Quran or Sunnah, because it is a new issue (mustahdathah). If it is banned in Saudi, thats bc its their law..The law of the land.. Just like in Trinidad, there are laws that must be followed regardless of religious beliefs. According to islam, a man and a woman must nikka(get married) before they can live together as husband n wife but in Trinidad, common law relationships have certain rights according to Trini law once you live together for a period of time...i think its 5yrs but im not sure.
Muslims are required to obey the laws of their land ie where they live.

[metalgear2095]

The ruling for women driving must be derived from other laws and principals; meaning that we do not have a direct ruling on women driving in the Quran or Sunnah, because it is a new issue (mustahdathah). If it is banned in Saudi, thats bc its their law..The law of the land.. Just like in Trinidad, there are laws that must be followed regardless of religious beliefs. According to islam, a man and a woman must nikka(get married) before they can live together as husband n wife but in Trinidad, common law relationships have certain rights according to Trini law once you live together for a period of time...i think its 5yrs but im not sure.
Muslims are required to obey the laws of their land ie where they live.

So you saying the Koran is outdated?

[M_2NR]

Wow guys. Ease up on the girl. Again. You all acting like everyone should be a scholar in what they have some belief in.



Again. This thread is always about who could fight down who the best. Sad that its always appearing like this any time it shows up on my topics.

Side note: While Islam have these "learned individuals" we do not revere them as in other religions. Everyone is viewed on the same playing field. While we can turn to them (and I'm using them loosely here because I mean would you go to a butcher for your heart surgery?) for advice, they are in no way an intercessor or hold any special relationship with God. In fact, no one knows for sure who is closest to God.
Just thought I'd clear that up.

But seriously. I highly doubt anyone here is a "scholar" so while you all use google or whatever be easy on eachother k?

[Habit7]

I dont think anyone is asking for answers on a scholarly level. I think it is a fair question to ask someone to reconcile their holy book's morality with their differing morality.

If your holy book advocates one thing and you choose another, why? Are there other areas that this can be extended to? If I read your holy book and it clearly advocates something but you say it is not, why is my interpretation wrong?

As for you claim "no one knows for sure who is closest to God" how do you know that? By what means could we know that your statement is true?

[M_2NR]

Oh I forgot to mention.
Did any of you actually drive or experience driving in Saudi Arabia?
Even lived there for a while?

Trust me, driving there isn't a walk in a park.

As for you claim "no one knows for sure who is closest to God" how do you know that? By what means could we know that your statement is true?

That was in the section of "side note" referring to the "Islamic perspective" and if you have a "closeness to God meter" by all means I'd like to see it.

I wish I could go back to my old replies but I deleted them because I didn't want this thread showing up on tapatalk but long story short - I don't reply anymore to this thread simply because I'm not qualified to. I do end up replying off and on because for some reason it still showed up in my participated topics. You all could go ahead and turn around what I say though
I didn't get what u meant in the middle paragraph though. Hence why I didn't quote it. I'm thinking that wasn't for me.

[Habit7]

The middle paragraph refers to verses in the Quran that advocates violence to non-believers and disobedient wives and the lack of proper explanation from the thread's Muslims.

[M_2NR]

The middle paragraph refers to verses in the Quran that advocates violence to non-believers and disobedient wives and the lack of proper explanation from the thread's Muslims.

Ohh. I believe that was explained countless times in this thread and all other places across the web. It's simple. If you want to interpret it out of context you will. There are multiple YouTube videos on it if you have the time you can take a look at them.

[AdamB]

I've said it many times, the Quran contains clear and unclear verses. Those in whose hearts is a disease misinterpret the unclear verses, thereby leading themselves into deviation away from the "middle" path of Islam. The people of knowledge refer the unclear verses to the clear verses and authentic hadith, thereby explaining its meaning.

As a side note, one verse may carry different meanings as long as they do not contradict/oppose each other.

So if a "muslim" worships Muhammad, circumambulate graves, etc then they have deviated.

About the driving thing, one must look at the reasoning behind the law, whether it even has to do with Islamic law. For example, it may be that the woman should not wander the streets except with a male relative. The laws are there to ensure preservation of life, society and religion.

[maj. tom]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ahmadinejad-image-hug-chavez-mother-photoshop-133036230.html


hahahahahahahahahaha.

[Kasey]

I've said it many times, the Quran contains clear and unclear verses. Those in whose hearts is a disease misinterpret the unclear verses, thereby leading themselves into deviation away from the "middle" path of Islam. The people of knowledge refer the unclear verses to the clear verses and authentic hadith, thereby explaining its meaning.

Some questions:
1) What kind of heart ailment are we speaking bout here? coronary artery disease, congenital heart defects, etc?
2) So since there is a "middle path", there must be a left pasth and a right path? I thought there was only one?
3) Since the verses are unlcear, how do we know the scholars are interpreting them right?
4) Why are there unclear verses in the koran? Surely Allah must have known misinterpretations would have occured, and cause suicide bombings, mass murdering, and terrorism. Guess the Koran is not that perfect?

Not attacking, just inquiring on certain claims made by a certain individual.

[AdamB]

I've said it many times, the Quran contains clear and unclear verses. Those in whose hearts is a disease misinterpret the unclear verses, thereby leading themselves into deviation away from the "middle" path of Islam. The people of knowledge refer the unclear verses to the clear verses and authentic hadith, thereby explaining its meaning.

Some questions:
1) What kind of heart ailment are we speaking bout here? coronary artery disease, congenital heart defects, etc?
DOUBT, DISBELIEF AND HYPOCRISY.

2) So since there is a "middle path", there must be a left pasth and a right path? I thought there was only one?
THERE IS ONLY ONE PATH THAT LEADS TO A BLISSFUL REWARD, THE MIDDLE PATH.

3) Since the verses are unlcear, how do we know the scholars are interpreting them right?
THE CORRECT INTERPRETATIONS ARE BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM THE CLEAR VERSES AND AUTHENTIC HADITH.

4) Why are there unclear verses in the koran?
FOR THOSE IN WHOSE HEARTS IS A DISEASE TO LEAD THEMSELVES INTO DEVIATION.

Surely Allah must have known misinterpretations would have occured, and cause suicide bombings, mass murdering, and terrorism.
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHER "CAUSES" THAT WOULD HAVE LED TO THESE. TERRORISM IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO "ISLAM AND MUSLIMS".

Guess the Koran is not that perfect?
IT IS PERFECT BECAUSE IT IS THE WORDS / SPEECH OF ALLAH.

ALLAH DID NOT INTEND TO CREATE A WORLD / CREATION OF PERFECTION "ONLY". WHAT OCCURS FROM NON-PERFECTION IS EVIDENCE OF THIS.

Not attacking, just inquiring on certain claims made by a certain individual.

IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN ATTACK. FEEL FREE TO CHECK WITH OTHER "INDIVIDUALS".

ISLAM IS THE TRUTH, YET FALSEHOOD EXISTS. THAT'S NOT THE FAULT OF ISLAM. IT IS THE DELIBERATE INTENTION OF ALLAH TO WEED OUT THE EVIL FROM THE GOOD.

IF EVERYTHING CREATED IS GOD OR WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME ONE WITH GOD, THEN TELL ME - "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CREATION?"

[RBphoto]

AdamB more unclear than a Quoran boi!!


Did not think it could happen.

[Sacchetto Boutique]

Nah he was very good at explaining actually. We were all created with freewill. We must choose the path we want to follow. Allah sent the rules and leaves it up to us to decide what we want to do. Jannah (paradise/ heaven) will not come easy to anyone, only to those who believe in him and follow his commands

[MG Man]

an all knowing, all omnipotent god precludes the concept of free will
think about it

[RBphoto]

an all knowing, all omnipotent god precludes the concept of free will
think about it

But is does show that a god can have a sense of houmour.

[AdamB]

AdamB more unclear than a Quoran boi!!


Did not think it could happen.

Not thinking, in itself, is not a sensible trait.

It will not be accepted as an excuse either...on that Day....

[DFC]

Not thinking, in itself, is not a sensible trait.

It will not be accepted as an excuse either...on that Day....

"Thinking" is something that you and your fundy kind are not least bit good at.

If your religion was a "religion of Peace"
then wouldn't the fundamentalists of your religion be the most peaceful persons in the world?

[TonyM]

habit7 and adamb seem to have really thought this through to build their beliefs, but sacheto boutique just seems as though she will believe whatever anyone tells her and she is not too bright enough to decipher simple things on her own. I don't know who else agrees or not but that is just my observation.

Anyway if a man builds a house and then tells his children to live in the yard for 10 years, whoever worships him will get to come in the house. He also makes the children do strange things like wear ridiculous things and recite nonsense which does nothing more than make the man feel important. He threatens them by saying if they don't listen to him he will throw them in a fire. Now the house real bess, comfortable and nice but the yard is just grass, some fruit trees and they have to fend for themselves.

What is the purpose to this?
Seems like abuse to me.

[Habit7]

I thought I spent all this time trying to distinguish myself from AdamB and proposing Christianity as being distinct from all other worldviews? I guess to some all religious views are equal, but secular humanism stands outside and is superior to all.

[TonyM]

^ do you put unicorns higher than elves?
Facts are superior to Fairy Tales

Look more of your crazy people here

[TonyM]

more crazy people

[Habit7]

WRT your first video, it all comes down to the world's biggest "who dunnit." Either we find it out by interpreting thousand to possibly million years old evidence or, we interpret the recorded eyewitness account. Either way we dont get the entire picture and there are several unanswered questions on both sides. But you must have some esteemed academic career to call Dr. Lisle (an accomplished astrophysicist by secular standards) crazy for the views he holds.

[AdamB]

I thought I spent all this time trying to distinguish myself from AdamB and proposing Christianity as being distinct from all other worldviews? I guess to some all religious views are equal, but secular humanism stands outside and is superior to all.

Secular humanism you say...and you managed to fit Christianity into it!

Secular humanism, then, is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection.

For a detailed discussion of secular humanism, refer to the following books written by philosopher and Council of Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz and published by Prometheus Books:

The Transcendental Temptation
Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism
Living Without Religion: Eupraxophy
In Defense of Secular Humanism

OK Pal,

It may sound real hunky doory to you but it is just a another PHILOSOPHICAL IDEA that leaves GOD out of the equation.

According to you (above), SECULAR HUMANISM STANDS OUTSIDE AND IS SUPERIOR TO GOD??

[AdamB]

habit7 and adamb seem to have really thought this through to build their beliefs, but sacheto boutique just seems as though she will believe whatever anyone tells her and she is not too bright enough to decipher simple things on her own. I don't know who else agrees or not but that is just my observation.

Anyway if a man builds a house and then tells his children to live in the yard for 10 years, whoever worships him will get to come in the house. He also makes the children do strange things like wear ridiculous things and recite nonsense which does nothing more than make the man feel important. He threatens them by saying if they don't listen to him he will throw them in a fire. Now the house real bess, comfortable and nice but the yard is just grass, some fruit trees and they have to fend for themselves.

What is the purpose to this?
Seems like abuse to me.

And yet another philosopher...

[Habit7]

AdamB I think you misunderstood my post. I was not being literal, I was using the literary device called sarcasm. I perceived that yourself and others would have been able to notice that but I guess I was wrong.

Be sure that whenever I directly address you, I will be strictly literal.