Discrepancy Between 39:53 and 4:48?

[TheNabi]

Peace DoctorNo

Recognize this technique? Its one of the ways bible apologists defend the bible.

 :lol:  Actually not. Read the passsages my friend. You have not read the Scripture yet and you still continue to try to argue about it with little or no knowledge.    The technique is called pointing out the context of the two verses, your technique is called confusing yourself even more so.  :twisted:

Joe

[DoctorNO]

 :lol:  Actually not. Read the passsages my friend. You have not read the Scripture yet and you still continue to try to argue about it with little or no knowledge.    The technique is called pointing out the context of the two verses, your technique is called confusing yourself even more so.  :twisted:

Oh yes it is. As a former bible apologist i used to say "this verse is for this", "this verse is for that". Although they really are according to the context I remember Tony's frownful disapproval. The guy would accept nothing but an explicitly scripturally written explanation about the verses in question.

[DoctorNO]

Anyway would Allah forgive the sunnis & shias for setting up Mohammad & the kaaba as partners for him?

[TheNabi]

Peace DoctorNo

Oh yes it is. As a former bible apologist i used to say "this verse is for this", "this verse is for that".

Unlike you we are no apologists.  :wink:

Although they really are according to the context I remember Tony's frownful disapproval. The guy would accept nothing but an explicitly scripturally written explanation about the verses in question.

So how can you say they really are according to context after saying we are being apologist for saying the verses refer to two different things?

Anyway would Allah forgive the sunnis & shias for setting up Mohammad & the kaaba as partners for him?

God's servants do not serve partners to God.  :wink:

Joe

[DoctorNO]

(webster) apol?o?get?ics - 1 : systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)

Unlike you we are no apologists.

You dont have to be an apologist to use the apologetic approach.

So how can you say they really are according to context after saying we are being apologist for saying the verses refer to two different things?

eh? how did you understand the word "apologetics"? There is nothing wrong in that. Or maybe you thought apologetics is about apology?

Anyway would Allah forgive the sunnis & shias for setting up Mohammad & the kaaba as partners for him?

God's servants do not serve partners to God.  :wink:

I thought i remember tony accusing the sunnis of worshipping mohammed and the kaaba. i dunno. depends on how you define "partners".

[zenje]

Salaam Tony,
I was just curious to find out if the answers you got to your question were at all satisfactory, or do you still have some 'doubt'? :?  
I mean, I really dont care what DoctorNO has to say about it. Just the one who originally asked the question.
Thanks and Peace be to you brother!

[DoctorNO]

Hey dont mind me at all.

Im also curious at how Tony would see your explanations.

[TheNabi]

Peace DoctorNo

I understand the meaning of apologists, there was no need for you to give it to me. If you did not pick it up I was meaning that we are not apologists to a doctrine you claim is warped.  :lol:

You dont have to be an apologist to use the apologetic approach.

I agree. Then again we are not trying to defend something that is wrong. If the verses are talking about two different things than how can you call it a contradiction?

eh? how did you understand the word "apologetics"? There is nothing wrong in that. Or maybe you thought apologetics is about apology?

No I did not, but you seem to have thought I did.  :lol:  Again I was referring to your talking about us defending a contradiction, keep on track DoctorNo.  :wink:

I thought i remember tony accusing the sunnis of worshipping mohammed and the kaaba. i dunno. depends on how you define "partners".

Did I say Sunni's and Shia were God's servants?  :shock:

Take care.

Joe  :twisted:

[DoctorNO]

Carry on.

[mquran]

Dear Dr No,

I thought we're supposed to be the backward followers of a 7th century charlatan and you're meant to be the rationalist helping us see the light of truth about religious charlatanry.

Yet so far, all I can see are whines about we are mimicking tactics of bible apologists. Why not salvage your credibility by actually diving into the issue and counter-refuting us. I have personally given an answer in this thread. Prove that Im wrong.