Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- From: r_catholic-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:03:53 GMT
To: r_catholic-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Michael D Brazier <mdbrazier@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: r_catholic-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Fadi <uicraptor2002@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
said
Moses wasn't trying to convert the Egyptians; God sent him to the
Hebrews. And the central work of Moses was to lead the Hebrews
out of Egypt, have them make a covenant with God at Sinai, and
bring them to their new home in Israel. All the miracles that Moses
performed worked to that end. What the Egyptians thought of it
all was not of great importance.
Fadi-Did I read you properly did you say that what the Egyptians
thought of the works of Moses PBUH was not important? So God
doesnt care if His creatures believe in Him or not? Anyways I never
Moses PBUH was sent to the Egyptians. However, Moses was sent to
free the slaves by any means neccessary. God in his infinite wisdom
chose to communicate with His creatures with reason. He saw they
were obviously impressed with magical miracles so to speak be they
the work of the devil or cheap parlor tricks. So He basically said
if you are impressed with these small miracles witness these Divine
Miracles of the one true God. We do not question how God
communicates with his creatures. For the slaves to be freed Moses
had to prove that God existed did he not? So it was essential what
they thought of his miracles. Moses like any other messanger was
sent to a group of people but it doesnt mean his message was not
meant to be spread out for all mankind. So youre wrong Moses sent
for all of mankind.
It was not, in fact, essential to freeing the Hebrews that Moses prove God
existed, because _in ancient Egypt_ everybody would have affirmed that each
nation and people had its special gods. What Moses had to show was, rather,
that the God of the Hebrews, Who was the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,
was a god with more power than the Egyptians' pantheon. And he did -- not just
with the parlor trick of turning staffs into snakes, but more clearly with the
ten plagues, and most clearly of all with the parting of the Red Sea and the
wave that drowned the pursuing Egyptian army.
I said that what the Egyptians thought of Moses was not of great importance.
It was certainly not of the first importance -- what mattered was getting the
Hebrews out of Egypt. And if you think that the ten plagues set on Egypt are
examples of God's reasoning with His creatures, you have a strange idea of
reason!
Finally, yes, God did intend His message to go out to all the nations -- and in
Christianity His intention was fulfilled. But in Moses' day that ultimate goal
was barely in sight, if at all. Moses' task was to establish God's chosen
people, the people who were in future years to learn that the God of their
fathers was the Creator and Judge of all.
My argument is simple and is a direct parallel of your
argument which is that eloquence alone is no proof of divinity and
you cited Hitler as your example. I assume you view the healing
ability of Jesus PBUH as a miracle.
But there's a critical difference: the miracles of Jesus Christ cannot be
explained as _natural_ events. Eloquence is a natural ability; God can of
course confer it miraculously (the prophet Jeremiah received it by that means)
but it often occurs without His open activity. Hence, when it does occur, it
is not evidence of anything more than natural ability at work. If a miracle
occurs, OTOH, it shows that something more than human is involved.
Fadi-First of all I already proven that Dashti wasnt an Iranian
sheite scholar. If you actually read the quote of Norman Geisler he
says that not even all muslim scholars are in agreeances ya da ya
da. He cites one man and hes not even a Muslim let alone a sheite
scholar. Whats funnier is that Dashti doesnt speak arabic nor read
or write arabic. Why are you lowering yourself to citing men that
have no knowledge of the arabic language.
I recall you _saying_ that Ali Dashti was not a Muslim or an Arabic scholar. I
don't, however, recall anything in the way of evidence for what you said about
him. And since what you said was damaging, I'm not going to believe any of it
without solid evidence.
What Dashti.. in a way indicative of a banal lack of imagination..
doesn't recognize is that the Qur'an is a *new* and *unique*
form of language use.
Ah. So only a "banal lack of imagination" can account for one's regarding
grammatical errors in the Quran as flaws; those who are not banal, those who
have imagination, will know them for special marks of beauty.
Mhm. Do you know the story of the emperor's new clothes? Only persons of
discerning taste could see them, and so all the people who couldn't see them
praised them to the skies, lest others think them lacking in taste. Then one
day, when the emperor was on parade, a little child in the crowd spoke...
E. H. Palmer, as early as 1880, recognized the unique style of the
Qur'ân. He writes in the Introduction to his translation of the
Qur'ân, that
...the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing
anything equal in merit to the Qur'ân itself is not surprising. In
the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is
unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect
standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a
defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with
Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though
Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model,
in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the
Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in
every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the
style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a
literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their
attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and
forcible eloquence.[6]
[6] E. H. Palmer (Tr.), The Qur'ân, 1900, Part I, Oxford at
Clarendon Press, pp. lv.
You have a gift for finding quotations that undermine your position. Palmer
says here exactly what I have said myself: that efforts to imitate the Quran
may be expected to fail, for natural reasons; efforts to imitate any literary
work whatever may be expected to fail, especially when the work is centuries
old.
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up
to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Where Catholic Singles Go Online - StRaphael.net is the world's #1 website for
single Catholics. If you are looking for friendship, marriage or even a
religious vocation, StRaphael.cnet is the place to be. Join Today Free!
www.StRaphael.net
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r_NezC/1M1FAA/EDtLAA/28VolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Visit R_Catholic-L member homepages at: http://home.cox.rr.com/rraphael
http://rcatholic-l.freeservers.com
http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz
http://www.lisaslighthouse.org
http://members.aol.com/SisterNeri/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Email Gate (1:379/100)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- From: r_catholic-l
- Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- Prev by Date: Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- Next by Date: Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- Previous by thread: Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- Next by thread: Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
