The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Which creator should be worship though? The Christian creator who sent his only begotten Son? The Creator of Islam who did not have a son but revealed the word of God to the last Messenger? The Creator described in Hinduism who is the great grand"father" of all humans.

which one?

they are all the same God.

but in one Book God says he sent his only begotten Son, in another Book he says he didn't send a son but he revealed his message to the most perfect man, Muhammad.

so which is it?

Are you saying God said one thing in one book, then changed it in another book?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

because changing religions is something advised against. because to change a religion means to reject the truth of God held within that religion along with those things u find to be lacking.

but you said the truths are the same in all, so you will not be rejecting the "truth of God" if you switch.

And if you say all worship the same God then it shouldn't matter which religion you follow? SO you're saying a person can be Hindu today, Christian tomorrow, Muslim the next day and then switch back to Hinduism the day after and they would be good in God's eyes?

i jumped the whole mile and simply merged the truth of them all into my way of life.

and how do you know which parts are the truth?

[rocknrolla]

nope, the story of genesis came originally from the sumerians. pre-hebrew!

they claimed that an alien came from the sky and dictated the story to them, taught them writing, agriculture and mathematics. i cant say who got dictation directly from God apart from those who figured it out and wrote a story, from aliens, or from being disciples documenting the life of their enlightened friend to create a testament. i wasnt there. but i can say that they all refer to the same thing.

ive gone thru the koran, read the entire bible, and u may be surprised at how many WORD FOR WORD phrases and paragraphs there are. what does that tell you?

[rocknrolla]

because changing religions is something advised against. because to change a religion means to reject the truth of God held within that religion along with those things u find to be lacking.

but you said the truths are the same in all, so you will not be rejecting the "truth of God" if you switch.

And if you say all worship the same God then it shouldn't matter which religion you follow? SO you're saying a person can be Hindu today, Christian tomorrow, Muslim the next day and then switch back to Hinduism the day after and they would be good in God's eyes?

i jumped the whole mile and simply merged the truth of them all into my way of life.

and how do you know which parts are the truth?

switching would be rejecting that entire faith, and whatever little truths there in that religion is what theyd be rejecting. basically leaving a bird in the hand for a bird in the bush.

correct it doesnt matter which religion u follow if u cud decode the real message hidden within. that message is the same, like 2 different artists making a painting of an apple. would be significantly different in many ways yet fundamentally they were both looking at the same apple while painting.

jumping religions, u cant do that either ull be doing the same thing each time u jump.

to discern truth i prayed for truth and guidance from my Guardian Spirit, and prayed to God for the wisdom to detect truth. i was blessed with that gift and that is proven for me in finding what i was looking for. i cant say any more but if anyone thinks that i can help them find the path they can ask me questions. ill answer them honestly. but dont ask questions about me that u really dont want to know the answer to.

[Daran]

in all this pooling and speculation is Scientology ok?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

nope, the story of genesis came originally from the sumerians. pre-hebrew!

they claimed that an alien came from the sky and dictated the story to them, taught them writing, agriculture and mathematics. i cant say who got dictation directly from God apart from those who figured it out and wrote a story, from aliens, or from being disciples documenting the life of their enlightened friend to create a testament. i wasnt there. but i can say that they all refer to the same thing.

So you believe Aliens brought religion to Earth?

Which modern religious text confirms this?

ive gone thru the koran, read the entire bible, and u may be surprised at how many WORD FOR WORD phrases and paragraphs there are. what does that tell you?

It tells me the Old Testament, Torah and Qur'an are based on the same Abrahamic religions.

What about the Gita? Or the thousands of other religions and their texts that mankind has followed over the centuries? Greek, Egyptian, Mayan, Aztec, Norse, Buddhist etc etc.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

in all this pooling and speculation is Scientology ok?

Do you mean:
"in all this pooling and speculation, is Scientology ok?"
or do you mean:
"in all this, pooling and speculation is Scientology, ok?"

[rocknrolla]

they tellin u the same thing boi dan boi. how to find God

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

they tellin u the same thing boi dan boi. how to find God

no they are not saying the same thing about how to find God.

Are you sure you read the Bible and Qur'an?

The Bible says the only way to salvation and heaven is not through works and deeds alone, but through Jesus Christ.

The Qur'an says the way to Allah and eternal Paradise is through submission to Allah and the teachings of his messenger, Praying, Charity, fasting and pilgrimage.

these are very different things

[rocknrolla]

i havent read the entire koran, but enough to find numerous stark similarities.

and tho u see those as totally different, i see them complementing eachother.

one speaks of deeds alone, the other details the deeds. now u at least know a set of deeds that count. if u dont begin and accomplish the deeds part how u expect to know and understand the part after that? start with the deeds and see where it leads. if u want of course. but those arent the only deeds. so try to find all the good things and start by trying them. then there is all the other aspects, i mentioned some previously, and u see in genesis Seth was the first to invoke Yahweh. whatt is that? and why was it marked as an accomplishment?

[krisjoseph_2000]

^ why is he a non-orthodox jew if he feels so strongly about the Bible?

Because non-religious people believe that science trumps God. If they cant prove it, it doesnt exist to them. Yet reference of God is found right in our own anthem and the US dollar bills because deep down inside, most people believe in something greater than us.

God is on the dollar bill and anthem because church and state were indiscernible at one point.

the secular notions of many governments today is proof that they would like to move away from that union.

the transition from the dark ages when church and state were one.

u see science is based on alot of things and if there isn't a simple or complex explanation then it's foolish ...........when science can CREATE life out of molecules or from scratch I'll lead an athestic crusade.

Take a read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

first off info on Wikipedia is not always 100 percent correct the owners themselves admit that. Secondly it's not fact it's scientific fact. The difference is in the scientific community it is accepted but not otherwise hence the term "scientific fact" it is still disputable outside that circle.

Wikipedia is crowd sourced but that does not change issue of what abiogenesis is and the scientific data around the theory

scientific fact is based on observation and testing.

if it cannot be observed and tested then it cannot be a fact.
Same reason why the existence of the Tooth Fairy is not a fact.

The scientific community will only accept something if it can be proven.
The number of people who accept something is irrelevant. If 6 billion people accept something without proof, it does not make it fact or true.

We haven't been alive long enough to see if that theory would change because science seems to change their theory based on new "evidence.


12 examples of Science bloopers

1. Scientists were adamant that rocks could never fall from the sky—until meteors rained through the newly built glass roof of the Louvre museum in Paris. Fortunately, a rock didn't have to hit an expert in the head before he got the point.

2. Then there's the Flat Earth theory, widely accepted by scientists of centuries past, who warned that folks who sailed too far from shore might plunge off the earth's edge into a bottomless abyss of no return.

3. Then, after experts figured out the earth was actually a large ball suspended in space, Ptolemy near A.D. 150 managed to convince scientists the earth was the absolute center of the universe. This hypothesis—sanctioned by experts for almost 15 centuries—was so popular it was even embraced by the Roman Catholic Church, who took such offence at nonconformists that some, who under torture refused to recant the "heretical doctrine," were burned alive at the stake. Back then, questioning scientific tradition was serious business—just like it is today, when careers are often "burned at the stake" in the event of opposition to establishmentarian thinking.

4. Take the case of Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Phillip Semmelweiss, for example. Ignaz actually dared in the mid 1800's to propose that physicians should start washing their hands. Ignaz believed doctors were responsible for transferring germs from patient to patient—and that hand-washing would dramatically reduce the incidence of infectious diseases. So, medical experts—undoubtedly offended by the insinuations they were killing people —proceeded to ridicule and belittle Semmelweiss until he ultimately went insane and committed suicide. Ignaz found out, the hard way, that opposing the establishment wasn't healthy for one's career and sometimes very bad for one's health. He also discovered a disturbing truth that has been, sadly, a hallmark characteristic of experts through the ages. It is this: To many experts, traditional thinking is often more important than truth.

5. Later, in the 1800s, men like Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch had to fight the medical establishment "tooth and nail" just to get them to understand that tiny bacteria can actually cause deadly diseases. One physician described Pasteur and Koch as "...heirs to centuries of [medical establishment] prejudice and stupidity."

6. And it wasn't that awfully long ago that doctors actually endorsed the gruesome practice of "bloodletting"—which involved the draining of blood from a patient's body by cutting open the veins. Blood was often captured in a shallow bowl until the patient became faint, at which time the procedure—and sometimes the patient—was terminated. In fact George Washington—the first and perhaps most popular U.S. president—died in 1799 after being drained by physicians of 9 pints of blood within 24 hours. His only physical problem at the time? A throat infection. Pardon the pun, but the leading experts of the day were "dead wrong." And while modern doctors consider bloodletting, lobotomies, and other recent procedures mere quackery, I wonder what they'll be saying a few years from now about radiation treatment, chemotherapy—and the most gruesome, cruel, and immoral practice of them all: abortion?

7. And then come engineers. Thomas Edison (1847-1931), one of the greatest inventors of all time (electric light, phonograph, etc), reportedly insisted that alternating current would never work for the distribution of electricity (he was working on his own "dynamo" direct current system of electricity distribution). Turns out, this incredibly bright man was also incredibly wrong.

8. Later, when television was first invented, experts actually contended that TVs would never catch on and surpass radio's popularity.

9. After it happened, experts next predicted radio would soon become obsolete. Both theories were wrong.

10. Then, after color TV was invented, certain black and white TV proponents —and entertainers—were sure the new invention would never surpass the "artistic touch" rendered by black and white TV.

11. And who could ever forget the engineers of the early 1900s whoconfidently insisted that not even God Himself could sink the Titanic? After sinking on its very first voyage, I suppose some of those poor victims, who spent their last night adrift in the icy Atlantic waters, wondered why they'd actually believed these smart—and disastrously wrong—experts.

12. Finally, the miscalculations of scientists would not be complete without a brief mention of evolutionists, who have—in their feverish efforts to fill in the cavernous Fossil Record—provided us a seemingly endless "Error Record" of frauds and embarrassments. One of the latest incidents was the shameful case of so-called "Piltdown Chicken." The "chicken fossil"—proudly displayed by the National Geographic Society in 1999 as the elusive missing link between birds and dinosaurs—had been concocted by an enterprising Chinese farmer who, using all-too-familiar evolutionary reconstructive imagination, simply glued a bird fossil together with the remains of a nearby lizard tail. Of course, the find was later revealed to be fraudulent, but not before experts had already dubbed the "chicken" Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, purchased it for $80,000, and insured it for an astounding $1.6 million. Worse even than exposed frauds are those that modern Experts refuse to remove from museums and textbooks worldwide (noticed later).

I do agree with the lack of relevance of the belief of the majority though.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ how are some of those bloopers?

It is IMPORTANT that science changes its view based on new evidence. New technology is being developed every day to improve how we test and observe the world and universe around us. As we learn new things we change our hypotheses and theories that we have to reflect the new evidence.

We didn't know what was on the moon until we went there. That is science!

The Scientific Method


Religious texts are the ones that do not change even when we find new evidence to suggest otherwise. Which is why Habit7 is saying the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, even though there is outstanding evidence to show that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is even older.

Which on of the following makes more sense?
1. Change your view when presented with new evidence that contradicts your old evidence
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite empirical evidence presented to you

[krisjoseph_2000]

^ how are some of those bloopers?

It is IMPORTANT that science changes its view based on new evidence. New technology is being developed every day to improve how we test and observe the world and universe around us. As we learn new things we change our hypotheses and theories that we have to reflect the new evidence.

We didn't know what was on the moon until we went there. That is science!

The Scientific Method


Religious texts are the ones that do not change even when we find new evidence to suggest otherwise. Which is why Habit7 is saying the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, even though there is outstanding evidence to show that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is even older.

Which on of the following makes more sense?
1. Change your view when presented with new evidence that contradicts your old evidence
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite empirical evidence presented to you

Evidence based on devices and methods derived from science which is finding new and "more accurate" ways of gathering information?

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Facts being the key word. These tests that scientist use to "prove" fossils etc can be accurate for a certain time frame but no one person has been alive 6000 years or more to confirm that the methods are accurate. If you say you're in Trinituner's headquarters right now i'd have to believe you because i have no evidence to say you''re not but you seem to have weight on this forum and because of that most people would not give it a second thought much like the renowned scholars of the scientific bloopers. Evidence is based on facts mainly and the scientific methods that are used to make findings are not facts. in light of that :

Which on of the following makes more sense now?
1. Change your view when presented with new unverified findings that contradicts your old information
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite unverified findings from theories presented to you?

[rocknrolla]

dont forget to lookup the definition of the words 'fact' and 'truth'

i always thought truth was something that doesnt change. because it's true.. like.. 'i am a man'. would be a little shocked to wake up one morning and look in the mirror to discover that i was a woman.

i would have to change my view since i obviously got my facts mixed up.

[AdamB]

^ how are some of those bloopers?

It is IMPORTANT that science changes its view based on new evidence. New technology is being developed every day to improve how we test and observe the world and universe around us. As we learn new things we change our hypotheses and theories that we have to reflect the new evidence.

We didn't know what was on the moon until we went there. That is science!

The Scientific Method


Religious texts are the ones that do not change even when we find new evidence to suggest otherwise. Which is why Habit7 is saying the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, even though there is outstanding evidence to show that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is even older.

Which on of the following makes more sense?
1. Change your view when presented with new evidence that contradicts your old evidence
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite empirical evidence presented to you

Islam is not in opposition with science. In fact there are many scientific "facts" confirmed in the Quran, revealed over 1400 yrs ago...by an illiterate man who was trustworthy to the extent that he was nicknamed Al-Amin, the trustworthy one...and this was before he claimed prophethood.

[Mr. Red Sleeper]

If i've committed all but one of the Ten commandments, am i going to hell?

[AdamB]

If i've committed all but one of the Ten commandments, am i going to hell?

Do Christians have laws by which they live? That would entail knowledge derived from the scriptures, knowing which were specific and which were general, which were for 5000, 4000, 3000, 2000, 1000 yrs ago and WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT TIME!

It would depend on which commandment you keep...a wise GOD would list the most important first and actually it is in agreement with Islam. That to worship no god, except THE ONE TRUE GOD and to not use IMAGES and the like in your worship of HIM.

Go read the Ten Commandments and come back. The big question is HOW!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Which on of the following makes more sense now?
1. Change your view when presented with new unverified findings that contradicts your old information
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite unverified findings from theories presented to you?

how is it unverified?

the reason they change their view is BECAUSE they find new verified data.

look at the chart I posted. If it cannot be verified it goes right back to "try again".

[rocknrolla]

just dont bother defending islam. especially when someone tries to pit it against science. anyone who did their research would know how many contributions the islamic world made to science and mathematics. the science world was dominated by islamic scholars who derived their scientific discoveries from studying the koran.

many of the scientist defenders on this thread do not know that science was formed FROM the bible and that the US military to this day still uses the bible and other holy books for reference and discovery.. most of the time tho.. it is only in hindsight after they spent millions on trial and error to finally come up with a discovery, that they realize it was written in the bible all along.

wherever these books came from, prophets, aliens or God himself. they have withstood the test of time. and also the source of these books is almost always coupled with science, mathematics and language coming from the same source.

i again reiterate to the atheists.. i would like a demonstration of how one pops out of the ground just by chance in a universe created all by chance, made from nothing, by noone and without a purpose. without a soul.

tomorrow in the headlines, it is discovered that gay couples can have children.

it's a pipe dream

[rocknrolla]

Which on of the following makes more sense now?
1. Change your view when presented with new unverified findings that contradicts your old information
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite unverified findings from theories presented to you?

how is it unverified?

the reason they change their view is BECAUSE they find new verified data.

look at the chart I posted. If it cannot be verified it goes right back to "try again".

u trying to dodge the point..

wasnt their previous data verified? then unverified and re-verified with new data and their defense is 'we change to suit'

here's some verified data - 'i am a man'

now ill have to check every day for new data to make sure that is true.

that really isnt far from 'let's make it up as we go along'

not far atall.

[AdamB]

just dont bother defending islam. especially when someone tries to pit it against science. anyone who did their research would know how many contributions the islamic world made to science and mathematics. the science world was dominated by islamic scholars who derived their scientific discoveries from studying the koran.
truth which can be verified.

many of the scientist defenders on this thread do not know that science was formed FROM the bible and that the US military to this day still uses the bible and other holy books for reference and discovery.. most of the time tho.. it is only in hindsight after they spent millions on trial and error to finally come up with a discovery, that they realize it was written in the bible all along.
speculation

wherever these books came from, prophets, aliens or God himself. they have withstood the test of time. and also the source of these books is almost always coupled with science, mathematics and language coming from the same source.

i again reiterate to the atheists.. i would like a demonstration of how one pops out of the ground just by chance in a universe created all by chance, made from nothing, by noone and without a purpose.

tomorrow in the headlines, it is discovered that gay couples can have children.

This last one is not in the Quran, don't know if it is in the Bible...well actually it has been discovered already...IT'S CALLED ADOPTION!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Islam is not in opposition with science. In fact there are many scientific "facts" confirmed in the Quran, revealed over 1400 yrs ago...by an illiterate man who was trustworthy to the extent that he was nicknamed Al-Amin, the trustworthy one...and this was before he claimed prophethood.

Muslims keep time with the Sun. Each time for salaat is based on where the Sun is in the sky.

how do Muslims who live far north or far south cater for that without innovating their own system (which should be frowned upon). Seeing that a sunset can last for 10 days for people in St Petersburgh, Russia. That's a seriously looooong Maghrib!

Seems better Islamic time keeping occurs only nearer the Equator?

[rocknrolla]

just dont bother defending islam. especially when someone tries to pit it against science. anyone who did their research would know how many contributions the islamic world made to science and mathematics. the science world was dominated by islamic scholars who derived their scientific discoveries from studying the koran.
truth which can be verified.

many of the scientist defenders on this thread do not know that science was formed FROM the bible and that the US military to this day still uses the bible and other holy books for reference and discovery.. most of the time tho.. it is only in hindsight after they spent millions on trial and error to finally come up with a discovery, that they realize it was written in the bible all along.
speculation

wherever these books came from, prophets, aliens or God himself. they have withstood the test of time. and also the source of these books is almost always coupled with science, mathematics and language coming from the same source.

i again reiterate to the atheists.. i would like a demonstration of how one pops out of the ground just by chance in a universe created all by chance, made from nothing, by noone and without a purpose.

tomorrow in the headlines, it is discovered that gay couples can have children.

This last one is not in the Quran, don't know if it is in the Bible...well actually it has been discovered already...IT'S CALLED ADOPTION!!

square peg in round hole. 'damn it didnt work, let's try again'

square peg in round hole. 'damn it didnt work, let's try again'

square peg in round hole. 'damn it didnt work, let's try again'

square peg in round hole. 'damn it didnt work, let's try again, it's bound to work this time'

square peg in round hole. 'damn it didnt work, let's try again'

'ok it didnt work, let's pretend it did and convince everyone'

"now go forth and multiply" by calling the stork agency to deliver u a baby.

[rocknrolla]

let's make the science Gods of the thread poop in their pants a little.

scientific verified data says;

all matter is made of atoms

all atoms are made out of... 'empty space'

explain something from nothing.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

many of the scientist defenders on this thread do not know that science was formed FROM the bible and that the US military to this day still uses the bible and other holy books for reference and discovery.. most of the time tho.. it is only in hindsight after they spent millions on trial and error to finally come up with a discovery, that they realize it was written in the bible all along.

well I guess that fits in with your belief that Aliens brought religion to humans

i again reiterate to the atheists.. i would like a demonstration of how one pops out of the ground just by chance in a universe created all by chance, made from nothing, by noone and without a purpose. without a soul.

again, only empirical evidence can be used as proof.

Science does not claim that people or man popped out of the ground. Infact if anything it is the Abrahamic religions that claim Adam, an adult, was made from earth and dust and Eve from Adam's rib.

athiests are saying that there is no proof a God created the universe or that there is a God with a purpose who listens to prayers and will be the final judge etc.

the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

let's make the science Gods of the thread poop in their pants a little.

scientific verified data says;

all matter is made of atoms

all atoms are made out of... 'empty space'

explain something from nothing.

habit7 got one thing right: you are not making any sense.

What is an atom? What are atoms made of?
"Atoms are the basic building blocks of ordinary matter. Atoms can join together to form molecules, which in turn form most of the objects around you.

Atoms are composed of particles called protons, electrons and neutrons. Protons carry a positive electrical charge, electrons carry a negative electrical charge and neutrons carry no electrical charge at all. The protons and neutrons cluster together in the central part of the atom, called the nucleus, and the electrons 'orbit' the nucleus. A particular atom will have the same number of protons and electrons and most atoms have at least as many neutrons as protons.

Protons and neutrons are both composed of other particles called quarks and gluons. Protons contain two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark while neutrons contain one 'up' quark and two 'down' quarks. The gluons are responsible for binding the quarks to one another."

[AdamB]

Islam is not in opposition with science. In fact there are many scientific "facts" confirmed in the Quran, revealed over 1400 yrs ago...by an illiterate man who was trustworthy to the extent that he was nicknamed Al-Amin, the trustworthy one...and this was before he claimed prophethood.

Muslims keep time with the Sun. Each time for salaat is based on where the Sun is in the sky.

how do Muslims who live far north or far south cater for that without innovating their own system (which should be frowned upon). Seeing that a sunset can last for 10 days for people in St Petersburgh, Russia. That's a seriously looooong Maghrib!

Seems better Islamic time keeping occurs only nearer the Equator?

What should those people do whose day is twenty-one hours long? Should they work out the time to fast? Similarly, what should those whose day is very short do? And those whose day lasts for six months and their night lasts for six months?
How should they pray, and how should they fast?.


Praise be to Allaah.

Those whose night and day add up to twenty-four hours should fast that day, whether it is short or long, and that is acceptable from them, praise be to Allaah, even if the day is short. But those for whom the night or day is longer than that, such as six months, should work out the time for fasting and prayer, as the Prophet enjoined should be done on the day of the Dajjaal which will be like a year, and his day which will be like a month, or like a week. The times for prayer should be worked out. The Council of Senior Scholars in the Kingdom examined this matter and issued a statement no. 61, dated 12/4/1398 AH which says:

Praise be to Allaah, and blessings and peace be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.

Firstly: Whoever lives in a land where the people can distinguish night from day by the rising of the dawn and the setting of the sun, but their day is very long in summer and very short in winter, are obliged to offer the five daily prayers at the times that are known in sharee’ah, because of the general meaning of the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Perform As‑Salaah (Iqaamat‑as‑Salaah) from mid‑day till the darkness of the night (i.e. the Zuhr, ‘Asr, Maghrib, and ‘‘Isha’ prayers), and recite the Qur’aan in the early dawn (i.e. the — Fajr morning prayer). Verily, the recitation of the Qur’aan in the early dawn (i.e. the morning — Fajr prayer) is ever witnessed (attended by the angels in charge of mankind of the day and the night)”

[al-Isra’ 17:78]

“Verily, As‑Salaah (the prayer) is enjoined on the believers at fixed hours”

[al-Nisa’ 4:103]

And it is proven from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The time for Zuhr is when the sun passes its zenith and the shadow of a man is equal in length to him, so long as ‘Asr has not come. The time of ‘Asr is so long as the sun has not turned yellow. The time for Maghrib is so long as the twilight has not yet disappeared. The time for ‘Isha’ is until halfway through the night. The time for Fajr is from dawn, so long as the sun has not yet risen. When the sun rises, then refrain from praying, for it rises between the horns of the Shaytaan.”

And there are other ahaadeeth which define in word and deed the times for the five daily prayers, but no differentiation is made between long days and short days, or long nights and short nights, so long as the times of prayer can be determined by the signs explained by the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

This has to do with the definition of the times of prayer.

With regard to the times for fasting the month of Ramadaan, those who are accountable must refrain from eating, drinking and everything else that breaks the fast on every day of the month from dawn till sunset in their country, so long as the day can be distinguished from the night in their country, and the total of day and night is twenty-four hours, and it is permissible for them to eat, drink, have intercourse and so on only during their night, even if it is short. The sharee’ah of Islam is universal and applies to all people in all lands. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your Sawm (fast) till the nightfall”

[al-Baqarah 2:187]

If a person is unable to fast the whole day because it is too long, or because he knows from signs or by experience or on the advice of a trustworthy, skilled doctor, or he thinks it most likely that fasting will cause him to die or to become severely ill, or will make his sickness worse or will slow down his recovery from sickness, then he should break his fast, and make up the days that he did not fast during any month when he can make them up. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So whoever of you sights (the crescent on the first night of) the month (of Ramadan i.e. is present at his home), he must observe Sawm (fasts) that month, and whoever is ill or on a journey, the same number [of days which one did not observe Sawm (fasts) must be made up] from other days”

[al-Baqarah 2:185]

“Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope”

[al-Baqarah 2:286]

“and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship”

[al-Hajj 22:78]

Secondly:

The one who lives in a land where the sun does not set during the summer and the sun does not rise during the winter, or he lives in a land where the day lasts for sixth months and the night lasts for six months for example, should offer the five daily prayers during each twenty-four hour period, and he should try to work out their times, based on the closest land to him where the times of the five prayers are distinct from one another, because of what it says in the hadeeth about the Isra’ and Mi’raaj, that Allaah enjoined upon this ummah fifty prayers every day and night, then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking his Lord to reduce it until He said: “O Muhammad, they are five prayers each day and night.” Narrated by Muslim (162). And it was narrated that Talhah ibn ‘Ubayd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: A man from among the people of Najd, with disheveled hair, came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and we could hear the sound of his voice but we could not understand what he was saying, until he drew close to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and he was asking about Islam. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Five prayers each day and night.” He said, Do I have to do any (prayers) other than that? He said, “No, unless you do them voluntarily

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (46) and Muslim (11).

And it is proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told his companions about the Dajjaal, and they said: How long will he stay on earth? He said: “Forty days, a day like a year, a day like a month, a day like a week, and the rest of the days like your days.” We said: O Messenger of Allaah, on that day which is like a year, will the prayers of one day be sufficient for us? He said: “No. Work out the time (for prayer).” Narrated by Muslim (2937). He did not regard that day that will be like a year as being a single day in which five prayers would be sufficient, rather he enjoined praying five prayers every twenty-four hours, and he commanded them to space them out during the time based on the times on an ordinary day in their country. So the Muslims in the country asked about here have to define the times for prayer based on the closest country to them in which night is distinct from day, and thus the times for the five daily prayers may be known by their shar’i signs (in the closest country) in every twenty-four hour period. Similarly they have to fast the month of Ramadaan, and they should work out the beginning and end of the month of Ramadaan, and the times to start and end the fast every day, and the time of dawn and sunset every day, in the closest country to them where night is distinct from day and the total of night and day is twenty-four hours, because of the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about the Dajjaal that we have quoted above, in which he told his companions how to work out the times of prayer. There is no difference in this case between fasting and prayer. And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

Council of Senior Scholars. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (15/292/300).

[rocknrolla]

my dog, the last time he saw a female was when he was born to his mother. he was leading a solitary guard dog life until i put him to mate with af female. he knew exactly what to do with no prompting.

he must have learned that in sex ed classes which showed him scientific verified data and dog anatomy of where puppies come from.

but if not.. where did he learn it?

ahh.. it was just by chance. she tripped and fell on his junk and got pregnant.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Which on of the following makes more sense now?
1. Change your view when presented with new unverified findings that contradicts your old information
OR
2. Maintain your old view despite unverified findings from theories presented to you?

how is it unverified?

the reason they change their view is BECAUSE they find new verified data.

look at the chart I posted. If it cannot be verified it goes right back to "try again".

u trying to dodge the point..

wasnt their previous data verified? then unverified and re-verified with new data and their defense is 'we change to suit'

here's some verified data - 'i am a man'

now ill have to check every day for new data to make sure that is true.

that really isnt far from 'let's make it up as we go along'

not far atall.

that is flawed logic

the previous data was verified based on the testing and observation available at the time.
They change their view when presented with new evidence.

it's called NEW evidence because it was not available previously

are you reading what you are typing?

[MG Man]

man making AdamB look good