Adultery – In Biblical And Islamic Terms

[umm Zachariah]

Hi Ronniv,


Glad you can join us.


First of all let me say that I am impressed with your knowledge


<i>''Does the Quran only speak of future events? No.</i>


Does the Quran not document some historical items? Yes, it does.''


Especially the first one, since I think you agree that it is ONLY Allah, SWT that is capable of fortelling the future for us. And so He has in the Qur'an, just as you point out.


But on the discussed issue you, like R-C, take another point than discussed.


So I repeat it, no problem


''BUT you say ''God of course knows the future.'' (comment from R-C) And that was MY point to, but you answered that since events had not yet taken place it could not have been written down beforehand. But of course they could, IF it is revelation from Allah, SWT.''


THIS is what I focused on, since it is a questioning about that PEOPLE cannot write down in beforehand future events, it can only be done by revelation, and that is the way that Allah, SWT tells us about them. AND this is generally speaking, not in connection with something specific. It is ABOUT BELIEF. To BELIEVE in that Allah, SWT is the one that reveals things for us in beforehand, BEFORE it has happend. Just like future events that He revealed for us in the Qur'an. And it only takes a bit of an open mind when reading it, to figure out how it all hang together.


So this question may be a good one <i>''The point of scripture is NOT to predict every single event that will occur in every single community of believers.</i>


You don't expect the Quran to do this, so why do you expect it from the Bible?'' But that is not the issue here.


Hope this by now has cleared up, or I might have some difficulty to make myself understood today


Regards

[umm Zachariah]

Hi JohnDoe,


Feel like elaborating the danger?


Does it bring us back to the issue of adultery?


Regards

[ronniv93]

''BUT you say ''God of course knows the future.'' (comment from R-C) And that was MY point to, but you answered that since events had not yet taken place it could not have been written down beforehand. But of course they could, IF it is revelation from Allah, SWT.''

Okay, so it is a matter of language and communication here. I don't mean to put words in reepicheeps' mouth, but I assume that he or she (<i>sorry, I don't know which yet</i>) did not mean that things couldn't possibly written down until after they happened.


I don't think that was their point at all.


But as an example, in one particular church in the early days of Christianity, there arose disputes about which apostle was better or greater than another. TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, a letter was written TO THAT PARTICULAR CHURCH to address it.


THIS is an example of something that was not written until the situation arose.


Not that it couldn't be addressed beforehand, prophetically, but that's just not how God operates all the time. This is one reason we have pastors and teachers and preachers and prophets, etc. today... to help guide us in our walk.


Allah could have prophesied in the Quran that one day there would be these internet forums for people to meet and talk and debate on and given rules for how such a situation should be handled Islamically, but he didn't. That doesn't prove or disprove your book; frankly, it's a non-issue, right? Because God reveals what He wants and what He intends when He choose to and what He does is always perfect.

[umm Zachariah]

Ronniv,


We are far from the subject and as you say,


''Okay, so it is a matter of language and communication here. I don't mean to put words in reepicheeps' mouth, but I assume that he or she (sorry, I don't know which yet) did not mean that things couldn't possibly written down until after they happened.''


Well I don't know that do I since R-C wrote one thing, and I read it like it says and not in another way.


It is like reading the Qur'an, you better read it like it says, so there will be no misunderstandings.


And IF the explanaition from A-C failed somehow, then it will be explain again. By A-C. And since you yourself say that you 'assume' what R-C means it is already to much guessing here, so I prefer to hear it from R-C this time, so we do not need to go any further with this issue.


So awaiting your comment A-C


Regards

[ronniv93]

Hey JohnDoe,


I'm a "chick", not a "he". :-)

[Anyabwile]

After all, you can only disagree so far and then..BANNED.

Is this really the case? or is it more "you can only be an offensive moron spewing so much Islamophobic trash and the BANNED" Let's think about this, It's the latter isn't it. Tell the truth Johnny.

[Rehmat]

Yes, tell us <b>Johny</b> - Iz it adultery or what - And who are making money <b>the most</b>


In Ukraine alone, the number of women who leave is staggering. As many as 400,000 women under 30 have gone in the past decade, according to their country's interior ministry. The Thai Embassy in Moscow, which processes visa applications from Russia and Ukraine, says it receives nearly 1,000 visa applications a day, most of these from women.


Israel is a fairly typical destination. Prostitution is not illegal here, although brothels are, and with 250,000 foreign male workers — most of whom are single or here without their wives — the demand is great. Police officials estimate that there are 25,000 paid sexual transactions every day. Brothels are ubiquitous………(The New York Times)

[reepicheep]

Ronniv93 wrote:


> I don't mean to put words in reepicheeps' mouth,


> but I assume that he or she (sorry, I don't know


> which yet) did not mean that things couldn't possibly


> be written down until after they happened.


You are correct. As I stated in an earlier post, there are many portions of the bible which are prophetic in nature. But there are also many portions of the bible which are not prophetic, and are simply describing events "as they occurred" (e.g., the numerous letters Paul wrote to various Christian churches).


With regards to my gender: I am a male.


The most embarrassing incident in my life was when I appeared before Aslan without a tail. I had lost it during a great battle, but didn't realize this until I bowed low before Aslan the Great Lion, the King of Narnia. As recorded in the Chronicles of Narnia:

"I am confounded," said Reepicheep to Aslan. "I am completely out of countenance. I must crave your indulgence for appearing in this unseemly fashion."
"…What do you want with a tail?" asked Aslan.


"Sir," said the Mouse, "I can eat and sleep and die for my King without one. But a tail is the honour and glory of a Mouse."


"I have sometimes wondered, friend," said Aslan, "Whether you do not think too much about your honour."


"Highest of all High Kings," said Reepicheep, "permit me to remind you that a very small size has been bestowed on us Mice, and if we did not guard our dignity, some (who weigh worth by inches) would allow themselves very unsuitable pleasantries at our expense."


"Why have all your followers drawn their swords, may I ask?" said Aslan.


"May it please your High Majesty," said the second Mouse, whose name was Peepiceek, "we are all waiting to cut off our own tails if our Chief must go without his. We will not bear the shame of wearing an honour which is denied to the High Mouse."


"Ah!" roared Aslan, "you have conquered me. Reepicheep, for the love that is between you and your people, you shall have your tail again."

[ronniv93]

Are there not questions surrounding the authenticity of the letters of Paul ?

Such as?


I know reepicheep is the one you quoted, but what authenticity questions are you referring to? Just out of sheer curiousity and interest on my part....

[Rehmat]

I know reepicheep is the one you quoted, but what authenticity questions are you referring to?  Just out of sheer curiousity and interest on my part....

Here Iz question for your <b>trinity</b>


What would Jesus himself have thought of Paul? And don't forget that Jesus never knew Paul; the two men never once met. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been. Did they agree with the interpretations disseminated by Paul in his fluent, articulate writings? Or did they perhaps think that this newcomer to the scene, spinning complicated theories about the place of Jesus in the scheme of things, was getting everything wrong? Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime.


Now, if the man was a proven liar - who will accept his letter - except some liars