Forum Klix.ba

arzuhal wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

arzuhal wrote:Što bi se neko ljudio, sve su nekakvi oblici vjerovanja i to

mitovi i religije imaju isti kroijen ljukosg vjerovanj, ali, zasto abrahmski vjernci tvrde da je to nepravilan obilk vjervoanja a abrhamske religije su doslovno stare oko 3000 godina

treba vjerovat, šta fali...

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: ali vama abrahamskim sjedbenicama smeta ako netko kaze da je i kroijen abrahsmkih religija jedna od formi mitoloskog vjerovanja

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

Smrcak15 wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:
ti vjerujes u kreacionizam, a isti je upravo prakticiran u mitovima i religijama , kao dio ljudsgko anlaiziranja svijeta i prirode

ok, tebi nisu potreben vjerske knjige za kreacionizam,a sve pocinju sa pricama o kreacionizmu

pa sto je tad svrha tvoje teme, ako price o kreiranju svijeta, kosmosa, u mitovima i religjama nisu Bozije davanje

svrha teme je "Je li Kuran od Boga?"

mogu ljudi da zakljuce da ovo sto vidimo nije moglo doci samo od sebe , nego mora bit kreator, eh tad ljudi kad pocnu da sveraju, kada pokusaju kreatora da definisu bez objave. pa vidis neko vjeruje polucovjek poluzivotinja bog, neko vjeruje da je polugo mrtav isprebijan covjek na krstu razapet Bog, sve su to sveranja koja siluju logiku na ovaj ili onaj nacin.

pa i ti vjerujes u Bozija cuda a toga ima u mitovima

arzuhal wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: ali vama abrahamskim sjedbenicama smeta ako netko kaze da je i kroijen abrahsmkih religija jedna od formi mitoloskog vjerovanja

Ako neko viid islam da je utemeljen na mitologiji, meni to ne smeta, šta ću, ljudi imaju pravo da tako smatraju, vjeruju itd.

Smrcak15 wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

Smrcak15 wrote:
svrha teme je "Je li Kuran od Boga?"

mogu ljudi da zakljuce da ovo sto vidimo nije moglo doci samo od sebe , nego mora bit kreator, eh tad ljudi kad pocnu da sveraju, kada pokusaju kreatora da definisu bez objave. pa vidis neko vjeruje polucovjek poluzivotinja bog, neko vjeruje da je polugo mrtav isprebijan covjek na krstu razapet Bog, sve su to sveranja koja siluju logiku na ovaj ili onaj nacin.

pa i ti vjerujes u Bozija cuda a toga ima u mitovima

Da, cuda je Bog davao prijasnjim poslanicima kao verifikacijsko sredstvo da su uistinu Boziji poslanici da ne lazu, i da nisu nikakvi sharlatani.

A ako svemoguci Bog postoji zasto onda nebi bio u stanju davati cuda, jer on je taj koji stvara prirodu, pa i on joj moze mijenjati zakone.

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: da, imas listu poslanika i osoba u mitologijama koje su primile poruke od Boga

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

arzuhal wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: ali vama abrahamskim sjedbenicama smeta ako netko kaze da je i kroijen abrahsmkih religija jedna od formi mitoloskog vjerovanja

Ako neko viid islam da je utemeljen na mitologiji, meni to ne smeta, šta ću, ljudi imaju pravo da tako smatraju, vjeruju itd.

aha, ti tvrdis da nije naravno da je abrahmske religije imaju politeisticke korijene, mitoloske price i paganske obicaje

Smrcak15 wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: da, imas listu poslanika i osoba u mitologijama koje su primile poruke od Boga

da cujem, kako se zovu, kad u kojem periodu su dobivali, cemu su pozivali itd

The word oracle in Greek can mean several related things. It means a god who predicts the future, like Apollo. It also means the priest who hears the message, and the message itself, and the place where the priest hears the message. Most often it means the priest or the message.

The Greeks believed (like all other ancient people) that you could communicate with the gods at certain places, at certain times, through certain people, and that the gods would give you advice and maybe tell you what was going to happen in the future.

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

Smrcak15 wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: da, imas listu poslanika i osoba u mitologijama koje su primile poruke od Boga

da cujem, kako se zovu, kad u kojem periodu su dobivali, cemu su pozivali itd

trazi imena na Googletu

The word oracle in Greek can mean several related things. It means a god who predicts the future, like Apollo. It also means the priest who hears the message, and the message itself, and the place where the priest hears the message. Most often it means the priest or the message.

The Greeks believed (like all other ancient people) that you could communicate with the gods at certain places, at certain times, through certain people, and that the gods would give you advice and maybe tell you what was going to happen in the future.

slam je prihvatio pojedine price iz Bibilje iz mezopotamijske mitologije

trazi imena na Googletu

arzuhal wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

arzuhal wrote:
Ako neko viid islam da je utemeljen na mitologiji, meni to ne smeta, šta ću, ljudi imaju pravo da tako smatraju, vjeruju itd.

aha, ti tvrdis da nije naravno da je abrahmske religije imaju politeisticke korijene, mitoloske price i paganske obicaje

P'da, ti tvrdiš da imaju takve kroijene, ja kažem da nema ili, barem, ne na onaj način možda na koji ti misliš (ja vjerujem da se Jedan te isti Bog uvijek objavljivao narodima, odnosno slao im Svoje izaslanike između njih kroz hieropovijest, dakle vjerujem u sophia i religio perennis, te odatle postoje sličnosti među različitim religijskim tradicijama, pa makar i na nivou načela, kada u to ubrojimo i tradicijama vrela abrahamovskog dodamo i razne istočnjačke religije, filozofije, svjetonazore, itd: taoizam, budizam, zen, hinduizam, itd), ali to ne treba da nas ometa u traganju za istinom, lijepom razgovoru i sl.

Smrcak15 wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:

Smrcak15 wrote:
da cujem, kako se zovu, kad u kojem periodu su dobivali, cemu su pozivali itd

trazi imena na Googletu

The word oracle in Greek can mean several related things. It means a god who predicts the future, like Apollo. It also means the priest who hears the message, and the message itself, and the place where the priest hears the message. Most often it means the priest or the message.

The Greeks believed (like all other ancient people) that you could communicate with the gods at certain places, at certain times, through certain people, and that the gods would give you advice and maybe tell you what was going to happen in the future.

slam je prihvatio pojedine price iz Bibilje iz mezopotamijske mitologije

malo ti sto me terorises nedavanjem dokaza za svoje tvrdnje i jos hoces da trazim za tebe dokaze i da ih sam sebi prezentiram

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:
Smrcko, dajem ti dovoljno jasnih infoormacija, ali se tebi jednsotavno ne dopadaju

trazi imena na Googletu

Smrcak15 wrote:

Connaisseur Karlin wrote:
Smrcko, dajem ti dovoljno jasnih infoormacija, ali se tebi jednsotavno ne dopadaju

trazi imena na Googletu

ne kazem dzabe da je ovo diskusija udaranje mrtvog konja

cendlerbing wrote:Ja vam se divim, kako vam nikad ne dosadi jedno te isto

Bloo wrote:

cendlerbing wrote:Ja vam se divim, kako vam nikad ne dosadi jedno te isto

Pa kao da su u braku
Raspravljaju o istom, dok jedno ne umre.

Smrcak15 wrote:

Bloo wrote:

cendlerbing wrote:Ja vam se divim, kako vam nikad ne dosadi jedno te isto

Pa kao da su u braku
Raspravljaju o istom, dok jedno ne umre.

Dok nas smrt ne rastavi.....u diskusiji

Modern research suggests that the religion of Abraham and his fellow Hebrews was not, strictly speaking, monotheistic at all, but “monolatrous.” In other words, during Abraham’s time and for many centuries afterward, the ancient Hebrews worshipped not a God whom they held to be the sole deity in existence, but simply one god among many, a god whom they conceived of as being more powerful than the jostling plethora of lesser gods worshipped by other peoples, but who nonetheless shared the stage with them. This essentially polytheistic outlook accords with the frequent mention of other gods in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), for example. It also accords with the way that Abraham’s faith has the feel of a contractual arrangement. When religious scholars use the word “faith” at all to describe Abraham’s attitude to his God, it’s generally coupled with a word like “juridical.”

The God that Abraham worshipped went under various names—El Elion (“God Most High”); El Olam (“God Eternal”); El Shaddai (“God the Mountain”); El Ro’i (“God All-Seeing”)—and appears to have been a version of the indigenous god El whom the Canaanites worshipped before and after Abraham’s arrival. El was the Canaanite high god, but under him served other gods such as the fertility god Baal and the water god Yam. Perhaps Abraham and his kin adopted El as their own, accepting him as the same god who had urged Abraham to leave Ur and seek out the land of milk and honey in the first place.

Only some seven centuries later, it’s thought, did this God reveal to Moses that his real name was Yahweh, and that he wished to be known and worshipped under that name henceforth. Worshipped, still, it seems, as one among many: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” says the First Commandment, implying that other gods were indeed a possibility, if an odious one. Some of them may have been behind the staffs-into-serpents trick by which Pharaoh’s wise men tried to out-conjure Moses’s brother Aaron, before their serpents were eaten up by Yahweh’s. Nor, like El before him, does Yahweh appear at first to have been thought of by the Hebrews as a divine creator, at least not according to the picture we get from the last century or so of biblical scholarship. Scholars believe that not until the eighth century bc was the first biblical account of creation composed (starting at Genesis 2:4), and that only a couple of centuries later did an anonymous priestly author write down the full-blown version we get starting at Genesis 1.

By that time, the Jews were rejoicing in their return to Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity (c. 586–538 bc). The ruler responsible for freeing them, the Persian conqueror Cyrus the Great, had absorbed Babylonia into his growing empire and incurred the Jews’ eternal gratitude by sending them home. Enjoying a sense of revival and optimism, the Jews built the Second Temple in Jerusalem; Jewish priests acted as ambassadors to their Persian rulers.

Jewish life comes down to earth at this point. The days of the prophets are fading. From here on in, the Jews will be concerned less with further prophecies than with the proper interpretation of past ones.

In the coming centuries, the Jews did indeed take the final steps down the long road to true monotheism. But they didn’t travel that road alone. Neither they nor their new conception of faith evolved in a vacuum. As it turned out, the Jews weren’t the only or even the first people in this era to think about God as a single, unitary divine entity.

But Thales’ significance doesn’t end there. For in peeling the sensible from the insensible, the seen from the unseen, Thales didn’t just invent reason. He also made it psychologically necessary for someone to invent faith as well. We can draw a direct line from Thales through Plato, whose Demiurge shapes the seen in the image of the unseen, to St. Paul, who denounced Greek philosophy and pointedly defined faith as “the conviction of things not seen,” and to Muhammad, who dedicated the Qu’ran to “those who believe in the unseen.” In what became programmatic messages for subsequent believers—and they became so, we must realize, because they resonated psychologically—Paul and Muhammad thus accepted and embraced the split between seen and unseen. Where Plato and Aristotle had tried to close the gap, the new faiths would own it. If Thales sensed God’s presence in the seen, and Plato and Aristotle used God to try to mediate between the seen and unseen, the Christians and the Muslims triumphantly proclaimed God as the definitive victory of the unseen over the seen.

HardcoreMX wrote: ono fakat treba biti covjek fair..forumas ti postira konkretan odgovor sa matematickim prikazom vjerovatnoce..i umjesto tvog konkretnog odgovora ti saltas temu i ides po institutima za astronomiju..obicno se ateisti vade na slobodoumnu pricu, sta ce ti onda tudje misljenje, sta bi zapravo znacilo da neki astronom ili neki drugi naucnik potvrdi nadprirodnost Qur'ana..a to nije nista novo jer su se po tom pitanju vec izjasnjavali brojni naucnici sa razlicitih katedri, institucija i sl. i to kao nemuslimani sa egzaktnim dokazima iz svojih oblasti..tu ne pripada historija, pogotovo ne anticka jer kao sto je poznato to nije egzaktna nauka..moze da prica svatko, evo recimo kao forumas zagor koji uradi intervju u 21 stoljecu na engleskom sa naucnikom iz zlatnog doba...egzaktniji je Dawkinsonov cajnik u Svemiru...

Connaisseur Karlin wrote: bome, tebi ne smeta da umres, zivis za zagrobni zivot

inace, zagrobni zivot je iz mitologija, a koje je Islam prihavtio

Optimus Prime wrote: Muslimani nisu znali da se svemir siri, dok im cafiri nisu objasnili, a ne obrnuto jer se iz kuranskog teskta moze konstruisati samo neodredjena spekulacija i nista vise.

Smrcak15 wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote: Muslimani nisu znali da se svemir siri, dok im cafiri nisu objasnili, a ne obrnuto jer se iz kuranskog teskta moze konstruisati samo neodredjena spekulacija i nista vise.

Optimalni, nemoj tako letit pred rudu, postirao sam ti jasno prevode vise stoljeca stare i jasno kazu nebo se siri...

Optimus Prime wrote:

Smrcak15 wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote: Muslimani nisu znali da se svemir siri, dok im cafiri nisu objasnili, a ne obrnuto jer se iz kuranskog teskta moze konstruisati samo neodredjena spekulacija i nista vise.

Optimalni, nemoj tako letit pred rudu, postirao sam ti jasno prevode vise stoljeca stare i jasno kazu nebo se siri...

Radi se o banalnoj izjavi istrgnutoj iz konteksta, koja cak i ako zanemarimo mogucnosti moguceg razlictitog tumacenja, nema ama bas nikakvu tezinu u naucnom smislu. Pored toga, kuranska nebesa nisu jasno definisana u naucnom pogledu.

Kad jos uzmemo u obzir da postoji trivijalo objasnjenje za taj ajet, jer se u biti radi o starom bliskoistocnom mitu o razapinjanu (sirenju) nebesa onda je sasvim jasno da ovdje ne postoji ni najmanja naznaka ni za spekulaciju o Big Bangu a kamoli za opis.

Pored toga, kuranska nebesa nisu jasno definisana u naucnom pogledu.

Kad jos uzmemo u obzir da postoji trivijalo objasnjenje za taj ajet, jer se u biti radi o starom bliskoistocnom mitu o razapinjanu (sirenju) nebesa onda je sasvim jasno da ovdje ne postoji ni najmanja naznaka ni za spekulaciju o Big Bangu a kamoli za opis