Muslim People in Australia (1 Viewer)

[mr EaZy]

the thing with misunderstanding Aboriginals was a reality with the Early european settlers who termed the land terra nullius.

But these days; people go to weird places - they say "thats odd..." and then they accept it as another way of life. At other times we might assume things about different cultures but when we find things are not as they seemed we feel relieved at finally knowing the truth.

Now this is common practice most of the people i come across... and im sure all of you are like that. but maybe when we're online here on BOS; where we're restricted to what we read and stuff:

1) we dont understand the whole picture - Muslims cant portray who they are as Australians in an Australian context... we're just students like you; we cant truly go into the hawt stuff u know!

2) you dont show that you've udnerstood. Its all about communications right? when your in the outback you might show understanding by the way you behave - non verbal cues. But when we're online - the situation has changed per se

so its not that you dont udnerstand what you've read, or that you are not willing to accept what we have described- well maybe not- deep down you might agree but on the outside your not willing to show it by typing it up!

This applies to all people who go online - no matter who or what they are

 

[Generator]

Thanks for suggesting that deep down I may be one in need of an anachronistic and immutable framework in order to find some sort of meaning in my life. I must inform you, though, that deep down I do not agree with what you are saying... That is, unless you are trying to embellish a simple "we all have a great deal to learn" statement, because I agree with that, provided that it's a message that all take on board and that it's one that isn't monoplised by the theistic crowd.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I'm sure that had the Quran been written in moonlight's intellectual tradition (enlightenment rationalism), in scientific bits and codes he, along with billions of people would not have understood a word of it today, since scientific discovery (and hence its reasoning) is in constant flux.

Of course scientific discovery changes and progresses. But it is testable, observable, built on reason and material evidence. Hence it can be critically examined to see if it stands the tests of time. But the unfounded opinions of the authors of religious texts are for the most part not worthy of our adherance.

And generally the core use of logic and reason does not change.

The point is, it was recited simplisitically for a purpose. Perhaps in a few centuries there will be other scientific discoveries which completely dismantle current traditions of rationalism, and even then, you would still be able to read it.

As I said, we will be able to rationally test and critically examine those theories using reason and evidence. There is an important difference between the unfounded ramblings of an author and the scientific method/use of logic.

Besides, the english translation of the arabic verse can have different connotations in each language. This is a postmodernist theory: meaning is not universal hence it will be received differently in context.
That's why no matter what we post here, it will always be read according to the context. It is rather encouraged that people read the arabic, but since that is not possible, we try to do our best.

Don't know what your point is there. They can interpret it all they want, it's still not justifiable in my opinion.

I'm sure also, he would have rolled his eyes even if it said the opposite "let the man be congratulated for his victory over the female".

I would roll my eyes at any normative claim that is irrational.

the thing with misunderstanding Aboriginals was a reality with the Early european settlers who termed the land terra nullius.

Actually they never used the term terra nullius Blackstone's classic formulation of the concept of terra nullius spoke of "desert and uninhabited", which the early colonial courts interpreted in an expansive way to mean not only literally empty land but also land that was habited, but with people of a low social order (or, on other arguments, who did not cultivate the land).

 

[mr EaZy]

Of course scientific discovery changes and progresses. But it is testable, observable, built on reason and material evidence. Hence it can be critically examined to see if it stands the tests of time. But the unfounded opinions of the authors of religious texts are for the most part not worthy of our adherance.

Your probably right although science has at times been based on preconceived notions of how the world works- albeit a very long time ago (like the Earth is the centre of the universe theory).


But taking an non- religious perspective, i think your second statement does not hold out once we leave the old judeo-christian texts aside - which have perhaps unfairly coped a big bashing over the last hundred years (by people of all backgrounds)

Take for example Buddha- they call buddhism 'a religion without religion' in a sense that you can learn from his teachings and what he understood out of this world- albeit they are his 'opinions' correct?

Whats wrong with me reading what Karl Marx wrote? Its just his opinions, and opinions dont hurt anyone right? there's all this talk about fundamentalist muslims running around with weird ideologies- but a lot of them were influenced by Marxism (in the 1950s when Egypt was allied to Russia, a lot of literature came in the country) one of the people mentioned appeared in this article:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=245473&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/


Now taking a Muslim perspective.... forget that..

"If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness." George Bernard Shaw

true intellectuals will engage any form of ideology no matter how crazy they seem and judge them intellectually and not on the basis on preconceived notions- even if your preconcieved notions are correct; you should still challenge them to prove that you are correct.

Leopold Weiss in this article: http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/m_asad_04.shtml

Professor Yushudi Kusan: Director of the Tokyo Observatory,
I can say, I am very mush impressed by finding true astronomical facts in the Qur’aan.

from: http://www.al-sunnah.com/call_to_islam/articles/what_they_say_about_islaam.html

also note that not everyone who praises the Quran is a muslim- Nepoleon wasnt! and not everyone who criticizes the Quran is a non muslim (i can only think of Salman Rushdie though)

So if there's something good- just say '" look there's something there that i dont have a prob with, its cool! but i dont believe in it; i know you do- im happy for ya! i have my own thing you have yours "'

and then this thread can come to a close!

 

[NT-social]

well spoken..all of u ..im speechless..ill come back when i have something good to say

 

[mr EaZy]

my point with putting up those quotes was this:

take for example GBS
"If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness." George Bernard Shaw

He wasnt a muslim, but he studied islam because perhaps, perchance there was something to be gained from it. i not saying that everyone should go and study islam; what i am saying is that people shouldnt turn their back on a subject on face value- perhaps there is more to it than we think is there. What; you think i havent read about athiesm??? (actually, no i havent- not in any great detail)

I was impressed when i read accounts of Hitler's characteristics as a leader and statesman. But it wasnt written by some neo-nazi; it was written by a jew- but that doesnt matter! because intellectuals dont take subjects or their authors on face value- they deconstruct the matter into its components and judge them academically- the topic is for you to choose; but in the end- what you gain is for your benefit.

now with regards to the Quran and science; my experience tells me that the Quran uses it in two ways: (again- just my understanding)
1) it states facts- which can be questioned by the scientific community if they so wish
2) it states observations- the underlying factor behind these observations are the laws of science- and again the sci comm can question these if they so wish.

thats just for science and the Quran though.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's hard to win an argument when someone attacks the very notion of the validity of logic.

 

[sly fly]

Who attacked the validity of logic?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

my point with putting up those quotes was this:

take for example GBS
"If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness." George Bernard Shaw

He wasnt a muslim, but he studied islam because perhaps, perchance there was something to be gained from it. i not saying that everyone should go and study islam; what i am saying is that people shouldnt turn their back on a subject on face value- perhaps there is more to it than we think is there. What; you think i havent read about athiesm??? (actually, no i havent- not in any great detail)

I was impressed when i read accounts of Hitler's characteristics as a leader and statesman. But it wasnt written by some neo-nazi; it was written by a jew- but that doesnt matter! because intellectuals dont take subjects or their authors on face value- they deconstruct the matter into its components and judge them academically- the topic is for you to choose; but in the end- what you gain is for your benefit. [...]

Now taking a Muslim perspective.... forget that..

"If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness." George Bernard Shaw

true intellectuals will engage any form of ideology no matter how crazy they seem and judge them intellectually and not on the basis on preconceived notions- even if your preconcieved notions are correct; you should still challenge them to prove that you are correct.

Leopold Weiss in this article: http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/m_asad_04.shtml

Professor Yushudi Kusan: Director of the Tokyo Observatory,
I can say, I am very mush impressed by finding true astronomical facts in the Qur’aan.

from: http://www.al-sunnah.com/call_to_islam/articles/what_they_say_about_islaam.html

also note that not everyone who praises the Quran is a muslim- Nepoleon wasnt! and not everyone who criticizes the Quran is a non muslim (i can only think of Salman Rushdie though)

Your point throughout those comments, as I understand it, is not to write-off something without having read it; you suggest that one should approach issues openly. I sincerely agree.

What I do not agree with is using a religious text as proof of the existence of a supernatural being, or (and probably subsequently) the moral validity of certain behaviour. If you are relying on actual arguments in a specific text, then let's hear the arguments.

But taking an non- religious perspective, i think your second statement does not hold out once we leave the old judeo-christian texts aside - which have perhaps unfairly coped a big bashing over the last hundred years (by people of all backgrounds)

Take for example Buddha- they call buddhism 'a religion without religion' in a sense that you can learn from his teachings and what he understood out of this world- albeit they are his 'opinions' correct?

Whats wrong with me reading what Karl Marx wrote? Its just his opinions, and opinions dont hurt anyone right? there's all this talk about fundamentalist muslims running around with weird ideologies- but a lot of them were influenced by Marxism (in the 1950s when Egypt was allied to Russia, a lot of literature came in the country) one of the people mentioned appeared in this article:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=245473&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/

(My comment was "But the unfounded opinions of the authors of religious texts are for the most part not worthy of our adherance.")

The crucial word that you have overlooked is "unfounded".

What I meant by that comment is that, in so far as religious texts are relied upon as the proof for dieties (which also no doubt subsequently influence morality), they are untenable. This is because they are not proof at all. If those texts contained actual arguments for certain beliefs, then we can extract those arguments and deal with them one by one. But that is not the case. Religious texts are either used to prove the existence of a deity - which is wrong because they do not - or they are not used to prove the existence of a deity and people simply have "faith", which is also wrong because they do not have any evidence of their (rather far-fetched) belief.

Thus the reason why Marx and a religious text are not analogous is this. Marx sets out arguments in his texts. People do not rely on Marx to prove the existence of a God, nor do they rely on Marx to prove what is moral. They rely on Marx's arguments, which can be (and are) dealt with openly.

now with regards to the Quran and science; my experience tells me that the Quran uses it in two ways: (again- just my understanding)
1) it states facts- which can be questioned by the scientific community if they so wish
2) it states observations- the underlying factor behind these observations are the laws of science- and again the sci comm can question these if they so wish.

thats just for science and the Quran though.

If I may take this opportunity to deal with claims about scientific accuracy in these texts. They are effectively addressed in the following quote. It actually speaks of the Bible but the main points (and maybe all) are undoubtedly applicable to the Quran:
--------------
Claim:
The Bible's accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy.

Response:
1. The accuracy of the Bible is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures.

2. Accuracy on individual points does not indicate overall accuracy. Just about every thesis that is wrong overall still has some accurate points in it.

3. Claims about accuracy assume that the purpose of the Bible is to document scientific data. There is not the slightest indication that the Bible was ever intended as a scientific textbook. It is intended to teach people about God; even those who claim scientific accuracy for it use it with that intent. For at least some of the Bible's teachings, scientific accuracy is unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive.

4. The Bible is not entirely accurate. If its value is made to depend on scientific accuracy, it becomes valueless when people find errors in it, as some people invariably will.

5. If occasional scientific accuracy shows overall accuracy of the Bible, then the same conclusion must be granted to the Qur'an, Zend Avesta, and several other works from other religions, all of which can make the same claims to scientific accuracy.
--------------
(The crucial point is 3)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think this thread has gone a tad off topic

 

[googooloo]

Bingo! Ureka!

Your probably right although science has at times been based on preconceived notions of how the world works- albeit a very long time ago (like the Earth is the centre of the universe theory).


But taking an non- religious perspective, i think your second statement does not hold out once we leave the old judeo-christian texts aside - which have perhaps unfairly coped a big bashing over the last hundred years (by people of all backgrounds)

Take for example Buddha- they call buddhism 'a religion without religion' in a sense that you can learn from his teachings and what he understood out of this world- albeit they are his 'opinions' correct?

Whats wrong with me reading what Karl Marx wrote? Its just his opinions, and opinions dont hurt anyone right? there's all this talk about fundamentalist muslims running around with weird ideologies- but a lot of them were influenced by Marxism (in the 1950s when Egypt was allied to Russia, a lot of literature came in the country) one of the people mentioned appeared in this article:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=245473&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/


Now taking a Muslim perspective.... forget that..

"If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness." George Bernard Shaw

true intellectuals will engage any form of ideology no matter how crazy they seem and judge them intellectually and not on the basis on preconceived notions- even if your preconcieved notions are correct; you should still challenge them to prove that you are correct.

Leopold Weiss in this article: http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/m_asad_04.shtml

Professor Yushudi Kusan: Director of the Tokyo Observatory,
I can say, I am very mush impressed by finding true astronomical facts in the Qur’aan.

from: http://www.al-sunnah.com/call_to_islam/articles/what_they_say_about_islaam.html

also note that not everyone who praises the Quran is a muslim- Nepoleon wasnt! and not everyone who criticizes the Quran is a non muslim (i can only think of Salman Rushdie though)

So if there's something good- just say '" look there's something there that i dont have a prob with, its cool! but i dont believe in it; i know you do- im happy for ya! i have my own thing you have yours "'

and then this thread can come to a close!

Okay, I agree with much, I have a dislike for Moonlight Sonatan cause wateva i say on the topic of Islam he doesn't take, I i don't like take of just syaing it's stupid to believe a old book wirtten by men ages ago...that's not a good reason.

Like you've said in other postings, u shouldn't bag somethign out and ignore jsut becuase u've been portrayed to u in one way.

You don't have to be muslim to read qur'an, i mean u should read it and not jsut hear form others to truely see why muslims do thigs and are the way they are. It is jsut good to have that knowledge, with knowledge comes understanding and therfore no prejudice and racism and so on....But on the science topic.:
The renaissance of europe(is that how u spell it? it looks right...blah!) was taken from the science and logics and philosophies being studied in Bagdad( I don't think that's how u spell the city name! but blah!)....The msulims their were looking and discovering the stars, comos, and science way before all others....I mean the chicken pox guy didn't discover bateria they did, in the middle-east, muslims! They knew of infections, who they worked, how disease spread adn the meaning of isolation and bateria and soap (whom the eurpopeans discovered becuase of the crusades to asia) way before all others. So logic, science, and outerspace knowledge adn the ideaa of the renaissance was all thanx to muslims of asia in Bagdad....take that Moonlight Sontana---and if u say u already knew this and all the stuff u've said is fasade.

 

[viviena]

The renaissance of europe(is that how u spell it? it looks right...blah!) was taken from the science and logics and philosophies being studied in Bagdad( I don't think that's how u spell the city name! but blah!)....The msulims their were looking and discovering the stars, comos, and science way before all others....

('renaissance', & 'Baghdad'.)

The Renaissance was largely a hearkening for classical values and philosophies -- Ancient Greek, Roman. While there was some Islamic influence, it's a bit rich to claim that 'the ideaa of the renaissance was all thanx to muslims of asia in Bagdad....'.

The msulims their were looking and discovering the stars, comos, and science way before all others.... [snip] So logic, science, and outerspace knowledge adn the ideaa of the renaissance was all thanx to muslims of asia in Bagdad....

'Before all others', eh? How about the Ancient Greeks, Romans, and even the Babylonians? Indians? (Arabs borrowed the concept of '0' from them.) The ancient Chinese?

They knew of infections, who they worked, how disease spread adn the meaning of isolation and bateria and soap (whom the eurpopeans discovered becuase of the crusades to asia) way before all others.

Didn't stop them from dying of the bubonic plague.

...

I suggest you pick up a history book and try reading it.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Okay, I agree with much, I have a dislike for Moonlight Sonatan cause wateva i say on the topic of Islam he doesn't take, I i don't like take of just syaing it's stupid to believe a old book wirtten by men ages ago...that's not a good reason.

Actually, the onus is on you to give a good reason for people to believe it, not for me to say why it shouldn't be believed.

Like you've said in other postings, u shouldn't bag somethign out and ignore jsut becuase u've been portrayed to u in one way.

You don't have to be muslim to read qur'an, i mean u should read it and not jsut hear form others to truely see why muslims do thigs and are the way they are. It is jsut good to have that knowledge, with knowledge comes understanding and therfore no prejudice and racism and so on....But on the science topic.:
The renaissance of europe(is that how u spell it? it looks right...blah!) was taken from the science and logics and philosophies being studied in Bagdad( I don't think that's how u spell the city name! but blah!)....The msulims their were looking and discovering the stars, comos, and science way before all others....I mean the chicken pox guy didn't discover bateria they did, in the middle-east, muslims! They knew of infections, who they worked, how disease spread adn the meaning of isolation and bateria and soap (whom the eurpopeans discovered becuase of the crusades to asia) way before all others. So logic, science, and outerspace knowledge adn the ideaa of the renaissance was all thanx to muslims of asia in Bagdad....take that Moonlight Sontana---and if u say u already knew this and all the stuff u've said is fasade.

Just a note - I have great difficulty in reading and understanding your posts - if you could format them into proper sentences and paragraphs it would really help.

As to the above comment of yours, even if what you say is entirely true (which it isn't, but I'm not going to waste time arguing on it, because it is irrelevant), that doesn't change a thing about this discussion.

 

[tempco]

Actually, the onus is on you to give a good reason for people to believe it, not for me to say why it shouldn't be believed.

not true. most converts find this "good reason" through their own research, and not because muslims have tried to convince them into believing.

As to the above comment of yours, even if what you say is entirely true (which it isn't, but I'm not going to waste time arguing on it, because it is irrelevant), that doesn't change a thing about this discussion.

heh, i'm not even too sure what the topic of the discussion is. all i know is that it isn't supposed to be another god thread.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

not true. most converts find this "good reason" through their own research, and not because muslims have tried to convince them into believing.

I think you misunderstand - as a matter of argument and logic, the onus is not on people to say why the book should not be believed, it is up to those who say it should be believed to demonstrate why.

 

[googooloo]

('renaissance', & 'Baghdad'.)

The Renaissance was largely a hearkening for classical values and philosophies -- Ancient Greek, Roman. While there was some Islamic influence, it's a bit rich to claim that 'the ideaa of the renaissance was all thanx to muslims of asia in Bagdad....'.



'Before all others', eh? How about the Ancient Greeks, Romans, and even the Babylonians? Indians? (Arabs borrowed the concept of '0' from them.) The ancient Chinese?



Didn't stop them from dying of the bubonic plague.

...

I suggest you pick up a history book and try reading it.

I do not need a history book I study history myself, both modern and ancient...and my infomation is from an islamic history video...it goes thru muhammad(pbuh), the sialmic golden age and the ottoman empire--fact: ottomans made the cannon to work properly so it didn't blow-up itself when firing cannon balls..good thing/bad thing i'm not sure.

The plague--you mean the euro's? or in the case of it beign a plague that relaly encompasses everyone since it is a PLAGUE and all--and don't ask me what im tlakign baout modern history/ancient history study burnout makes me inco-herent---it's so much easier to say htis stuff thu voice rather than thru words on a canvas so to speak...lol---im lame , anywho..what am i saying again..dat's right!...oh and people will die in a spread of disease, you can contian it, but people will still die...depends on statistics, and if more peopel dies in teh east then eruo. but if you introduce a poeple who are unfamiliar to a disease they will die of it quicker, it's just like giving people to many anti-biotics and vitamins, it beings to reverse itself and you get sicker easier and quicker, you must build up an immune system. It's like when the brits/us, which eva, gave a tribe of native americans the flu in bedding so they'd die out without mroe bloodshed. They didn't have an immune system so they did die---liek a person with AIDS they die form somethign else not the AIDS cause the disease htey already have destroys thier immune system.


It was clearly stated that the eruo's wen tot the east, cause it has such great music, alchohol--which was created by them or so ive heard form good sources---and fabric and such---and prob. for the women too, it's always bout da women---and learnt of the universities in Bagdad

So rih guys sent ehir sons to learn there, and soem went themselves, they came back with amazing ideas, and applied it to their country, city, whateva,a dn booom! renaisance in europe!

 

[googooloo]

Actually, the onus is on you to give a good reason for people to believe it, not for me to say why it shouldn't be believed.
Just a note - I have great difficulty in reading and understanding your posts - if you could format them into proper sentences and paragraphs it would really help.

a) i can right my posts which eva way i want to
b) evidence has been given and u have ignored, no more can be said to u to make u understnad cause u neva will....in the end we will all be told of what we have done and what the reward is, fire and burning, or to dance with the angels amongst pure streams and in shade, where htose who burn shall have none.

The End (( copyright deegs 2004-5)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yes, you can write however and whatever you want. But if you want people to be able to understand it and be bothered reading it, I suggest you make it coherent. Secondly, no evidence has been given. I suggest you take a look at the Argument Guide I posted a while ago.

 

[viviena]

I do not need a history book I study history myself, both modern and ancient...

That doesn't matter as much as you seem to think. Just because you've studied both Ancient and Modern doesn't mean that your uncorroborated opinion is all the more valid. If it matters, I've studied Ancient, Modern, and Extension, and am continuing to study history at uni. Nevertheless, I wouldn't turn away from a good history book. Since you're studying history, you should know the relevance of secondary sources.

Oh yes, you should know that I'm not going to reply extensively to the rest of your post because your typing is somewhat hard to read for me... I suppose I could ask you to type properly if you want a serious response, but then, I don't think you'd oblige.

The plague--you mean the euro's?

I mean the outbreaks of the bubonic plague that swept across Europe and Asia from the 14th century onwards. I avoided using the term Black Plague as that refers more specifically to the major 14th century outbreak in Europe.

and don't ask me what im tlakign baout modern history/ancient history study burnout makes me inco-herent

I've studied both histories too, and they don't kill your ability to be coherent. In fact, studying both should improve it.

It's like when the brits/us, which eva, gave a tribe of native americans the flu in bedding so they'd die out without mroe bloodshed. They didn't have an immune system so they did die---liek a person with AIDS they die form somethign else not the AIDS cause the disease htey already have destroys thier immune system.

You're partly describing the Columbian Exchange between the Old World and the New. In any case, I fail to see the point you're making here.

It was clearly stated that the eruo's wen tot the east, cause it has such great music, alchohol--which was created by them or so ive heard form good sources---and fabric and such---and prob. for the women too, it's always bout da women---and learnt of the universities in Bagdad

If I'm reading your words correctly... they went to the East for good grog and other luxuries? Hmm. While there was trade, especially along the Silk Road, I would think that the main reason why Europeans went to the East in such large numbers was to reclaim Jerusalem and the Holy Land, you know, in a series of incidents called the Crusades.

So rih guys sent ehir sons to learn there, and soem went themselves, they came back with amazing ideas, and applied it to their country, city, whateva,a dn booom! renaisance in europe!

It wasn't that simple -- it was more like a gradual change in ideas, like the emergence of humanists educated in the Greek and Roman classics, e.g. Petrarch, Niccolò Machiavelli. Again, I'm not denying that there was some Islamic influence, and there were some Greek and Roman classics preserved through the ages by Muslims. However, the Renaissance isn't as simple as UNCULTURED EUROPEANS + ENLIGHTENED ISLAMIC CULTURE = RENAISSANCE, as you seem to be suggesting.

I'll rephrase my previous suggestion... I suggest you pick up a book that treats the Renaissance from a European p.o.v. and read it. How could you try to understand such a characteristically European period otherwise?

 

[googooloo]

the Renaissance isn't as simple as UNCULTURED EUROPEANS + ENLIGHTENED ISLAMIC CULTURE = RENAISSANCE, as you seem to be suggesting.

It is as simple as this, ppl dont want to belive the east influenced the west, it is as simple as, pride, beleiveing that im beta than u and racism. You ppl may not wish to beleive such a thing, but it is tru. History books dont tell everyhting u kno. LIke how i was readn da ohtr day that the holy trinity nad divnity of god came about when soem humans deicded to define the doctrines and such 300-500yrs afta christ. By that tiem poor jesus' messgae as been lost , thereofre equalling the whole thigns a sham. CUase humans made up the divinity of jesus and god in 3 parts. God is god, and he was not born nor cannot die, god does not have sons, ifso then adam and eve are divine, if so then abrahams son form his barren wife is divine, those idiots didn't think of those things before they made that stuff up. Why im saying this? Becuase it re-enforces thae fact hat history can be changed, books dont tell u everything, u'd really have to go back in time to see but u cannot, but if u look carefully enoug u'll see the truth in soem places, but i dont suspect u'll understand even when i speak the plainest truths to u. People beleive what htey want ot hear.