Meteors chase things?
-
Follow denotes activeness as well. Would you like me to show you where Ibn Kathir says that Angels throw these things? Would that help clear it up for you? Isn't that a more respected interpretor for the meanings of the Quran than you are?
Which is a sign of subjective, self fulfilling brainwashing
Which exact question did I miss? Be specific.
Either way, the jinn has nothing to do with na clear error about meterorites. THAT's the issue, not the jinn. But you keep wanting to make it about the jinn as a diversion.
I've already had Muslims correct me by saying that samawat does not refer to the lowest heaven, but rather to the sky. so you disagree with them.
Oh, so the jinn are plasma in the lower samawat? So what are they when they are hanging out in graveyards and garbage dumps eating bones? This is really getting very far out. My how your imagination is working overtime to solve this problem.
Then what is in the sky, that is bright to see, that appears to chase things or fly across the sky? I'm open to any good alternatives, as long as it doesn't have holes in it. interpreting those verses as speaking as meteorites has no holes in it.
No no no. I was laughing at your incorrect notion of comets. Don't try to hide it, it won't work. My definition of meteorites is perfectly accurate and i can substantiate it any time you please. Here.
http//starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question12.html
What's the problem?
Follow does not denote activeness. For instance, I follow the laws of physics. This is passive. We follow the laws of physics, willingly or unwillingly.
As for Ibn Kathir, LOL. rotfl
Appeal to authority, in any case.
Which is a sign of subjective, self fulfilling brainwashing
Not at all. Unlike you, I am at peace with Christians and Jews and whoever else (aside from, maybe, Scientology) and I genuinely don't care for their books when I have this book I believe to be the word of God stating it encompasses, explains and supersedes those books. As the Quran says, to them their religion, to me, mine. The only things I care for are my self-study of the Quran and concepts of God, these two being heavily intertwined.
Which exact question did I miss? Be specific.
Mostly a reference to the other thread where you failed to bring a reference for "angels". In this thread, you failed to bring a tangible definition of "jinn" and conceded to the obvious intangible/conceptual meaning.
Well, it says that plasmas can be lightning and a bunch of other stuff. So I'm not so sure how much this qualifies as smokeless flame. Anyway, so the jinn are made of plasma? So how does a flame chase away or hurt or burn plasma? Boy, you're really digging yourself deep.
You are digging yourself ever so slightly deeper than my hole
Very simply, if the "jinn" (notice the quotation marks) has one uniform electrical charge, as demonstrated by beloved Roy C. Sullivan, 7 times in his life, and if the fire in space has an opposing charge, the flame will "chase" or "hurt" or whatever else. How does a solid chase away or hurt or burn another solid? Or a gas to a gas? Or a liquid to a liquid? Use your sense.
I've already had Muslims correct me by saying that samawat does not refer to the lowest heaven, but rather to the sky. so you disagree with them.
Thank you for pointing that out. As for "lowest heaven" or "sky", I don't care what it means in English's restricted meanings, as far as I'm concerned, we are dealing with the "lowest samawat".
So what are they when they are hanging out in graveyards and garbage dumps eating bones? This is really getting very far out. My how your imagination is working overtime to solve this problem.
You have slight issues that can be better solved with a psychiatrist than on Free-Minds.
Then what is in the sky, that is bright to see, that appears to chase things or fly across the sky? I'm open to any good alternatives, as long as it doesn't have holes in it. interpreting those verses as speaking as meteorites has no holes in it.
Correction, the lowest samawat which is decked with planets, that is distinct, and that follows the unseen.
No no no. I was laughing at your incorrect notion of comets. Don't try to hide it, it won't work. My definition of meteorites is perfectly accurate and i can substantiate it any time you please. Here.
We are not talking about comets, but meteors. I already stated comets are made from dust and gas.
Here's one definition
A small body drifting through space. If a meteoroid is pulled into a planet's or moons gravitational field, it is called a meteor. if the meteor survives a trip through the atmosphere and lands, it is called a meteorite. If meteorites are not burned up in the process of entering an atmosphere (or if there is no atmosphere), they may strike the surface and if large enough create a craters.
Another here, http//www.space.com/spacewatch/meteor_forecast.html that states it can be smaller than an asteroid and larger than a few atoms.
As far as I'm concerned, the Arabic wording, which you conveniently sidestep each time it is mentioned, is nowhere restricted to mean "meteor" and that definition is extracted from your erroneous understanding as seen above.
-
My understanding now of those verses is that meteorites keep jinns around the earth.
Oh, NOW you have a NEW understanding of the verses. Sure, try anything. Anything that you can pull out of your pocket. Who knows, if you keep arbitrarily trying different things, one of them just might work, eh?
Actually, they don't keep them around the earth, they chase only the jinn who by stealth manage to actually grab a hearing from heaven, and not the ones who don't make it to the lowest heaven or don't grab a hearing. So this doesn't work as well. But, I know you probably have about at least 10 more angles you'll try. Doesn't it bother you to have to keep on inventing stories to cover for this?.
-
Actually, they don't keep them around the earth, they chase only the jinn who by stealth manage to actually grab a hearing from heaven, and not the ones who don't make it to the lowest heaven or don't grab a hearing.
They do not have to go near heaven to grab a hearing.
-
What? Oh yeah, they go to the sky, right? Either way, doesn't change the point. Meteorites only chase the ones who manage to snatch a hearing, and that was my point about your error.
No, they do not go to the sky. They try to get to the sky but the presence of meteorites prevents them.
-
What? Oh yeah, they go to the sky, right? Either way, doesn't change the point. Meteorites only chase the ones who manage to snatch a hearing, and that was my point about your error.
Ah... Have you thought that the process of stealing a hearing could involve the entity in question being ionised and hence, causing the two to attract? Remember, the "meteor" which can be a normal flame, if you wish, does not have to change its charge, a change in charge on the "jinn" can also cause them to attract.
So, if that is the case, it simply tends more towards my understanding, which may or may not be correct.
-
Ah... Have you thought that the process of stealing a hearing could involve the entity in question being ionised and hence, causing the two to attract?Remember, the "meteor" which can be a normal flame, if you wish, does not have to change its charge, a change in charge on the "jinn" can also cause them to attract.
Didn't I already ask you if plasma eats bones and hangs around in graveyards? Didn't I already ask you how a flame can hurt plasma? This is getting as crazy as your imagination wants to make it.
So, if that is the case, it simply tends more towards my understanding, which may or may not be correct.
;D It's amazing how far the human mind will go if it thinks it's treasured notions are being threatened.
-
It's amazing how far the human mind will go if it thinks it's treasured notions are being threatened.
You are not threatening here really because you are debating the undebateable (Invisible jinns). We want to reason with your awkward thinking.
-
Didn't I already ask you if plasma eats bones and hangs around in graveyards? Didn't I already ask you how a flame can hurt plasma? This is getting as crazy as your imagination wants to make it.
;D It's amazing how far the human mind will go if it thinks it's treasured notions are being threatened.
How does a solid hurt a solid, a liquid with a liquid, gas with a gas? Chemical reaction...
It's amazing how far the human mind will go if it thinks it's treasured notions are being threatened.
Correct, you even attempted to restrict the meaning of "tautology" to fit in with your preconceptions. Funny, eh? And still, not a single Arabic reference from you, which would have put the supposed discrepancy in Quran to rest...
-
How does a solid hurt a solid, a liquid with a liquid, gas with a gas? Chemical reaction...
What is the chemical reaction between plasma and fire? Does one destroy the other?
Correct, you even attempted to restrict the meaning of "tautology" to fit in with your preconceptions.
Didn't I quote from what YOU linked? Why yes I did.
Funny, eh? And still, not a single Arabic reference from you, which would have put the supposed discrepancy in Quran to rest...
How about some Arabic and some Ibn Kathir? Would that do? By now, you can tell that I know where to find this, but I'm not going to bother if you are merely in stonewall mode, because you would merely find yet another excuse to not accept it. And again, plasma eats bones? Come on.
-
What is the chemical reaction between plasma and fire?
What is the chemical reaction between solid and nickel?
Didn't I quote from what YOU linked? Why yes I did.
Your point? You chose the most restrictive definition, when the broadest definition applied.
How about some Arabic and some Ibn Kathir? Would that do? By now, you can tell that I know where to find this, but I'm not going to bother if you are merely in stonewall mode, because you would merely find yet another excuse to not accept it. And again, plasma eats bones? Come on.
I have no idea about "plasma eats bones" and I don't care about Ibn Kathir, I just want to see Arabic references for "angels".
-
What is the chemical reaction between solid and nickel?
I don't know and i don't care. Why don't you simply answer the question? What is the chemical reaction between plasma and flame?
I have no idea about "plasma eats bones" and I don't care about Ibn Kathir, I just want to see Arabic references for "angels".
You didn't ask for that. Maybe you asked for that in another thread?
-
I don't know and i don't care. Why don't you simply answer the question? What is the chemical reaction between plasma and flame?
You didn't ask for that. Maybe you asked for that in another thread?
What is the chemical reaction between plasma and flame?
I don't know and i don't care. A fire, is a form of plasma, which is why I asked you those. Again, chemical reactions. Depends on the smokeless fire and the space plasma.
You didn't ask for that. Maybe you asked for that in another thread?
Yes. The Quran cannot be taken piece by piece, because themes recur in it. One theme is "angels", but I wish to know where "angels" are supposedly mentioned in the Quran.
-
I don't know and i don't care. A fire, is a form of plasma, which is why I asked you those. Again, chemical reactions. Depends on the smokeless fire and the space plasma.
Okay, so you bring up chemical reactions without even having any idea what the reactions are between the two. You're just fishing.
Yes. The Quran cannot be taken piece by piece, because themes recur in it. One theme is "angels", but I wish to know where "angels" are supposedly mentioned in the Quran.
Again, aren't you asking for this on another thread? If not, then what the heck do you mean? Angels are all over the quran.
-
Okay, so you bring up chemical reactions without even having any idea what the reactions are between the two. You're just fishing.
Again, aren't you asking for this on another thread? If not, then what the heck do you mean? Angels are all over the quran.
Of course I'm fishing. The purpose is to show there can be a mundane, rational explanation. As for the reactions, I already asked, you are trying to compare chemical reactions between states of matter. If we take the Quran's word, then all living things are made of/from water, so the smokeless fire of jinn must also be derived from that.
Angels are all over the quran.
Evidence please. What is an "angel"? For all intents and purposes, I don't know what an "angel" is. Enlighten me.
-
Of course I'm fishing. The purpose is to show there can be a mundane, rational explanation.
One doesn't "fish" or basically just try anything that they can if one is searching for the truth.
As for the reactions, I already asked, you are trying to compare chemical reactions between states of matter.
Well to be specific, I asked how smokeless flame can be hurt by flame. I asked the question that way because some people put the jinn in another dimension, thereby making them non physical entities altogether. But according to what I've read, the jinn are indeed physical entities that are merely invisible when they wish to be or can be visible and change their shapes
If we take the Quran's word, then all living things are made of/from water, so the smokeless fire of jinn must also be derived from that.
On earth or in the sky?
Evidence please. What is an "angel"? For all intents and purposes, I don't know what an "angel" is. Enlighten me.
Well, they are mentioned in the Quran 85 times, and apparently, Gabriel was an angel. But I'm guessing that you must know the Quran better than me.
-
One doesn't "fish" or basically just try anything that they can if one is searching for the truth.
Well to be specific, I asked how smokeless flame can be hurt by flame. I asked the question that way because some people put the jinn in another dimension, thereby making them non physical entities altogether. But according to what I've read, the jinn are indeed physical entities that are merely invisible when they wish to be or can be visible and change their shapes
On earth or in the sky?
Well, they are mentioned in the Quran 85 times, and apparently, Gabriel was an angel. But I'm guessing that you must know the Quran better than me.
The "fishing" is to test if it is plausible. And it is. There is a rational explanation for everything, and this is the assumption I am testing the Quran on when "fishing". In 3680, does it mean fire literally blew out from the green tree or does it mean the components of fire (oxygen, carbon and friction) originated from the specifically GREEN tree? What gives a tree or any plant its green colour, and what is its relationship with fire?
Well to be specific, I asked how smokeless flame can be hurt by flame. I asked the question that way because some people put the jinn in another dimension, thereby making them non physical entities altogether. But according to what I've read, the jinn are indeed physical entities that are merely invisible when they wish to be or can be visible and change their shapes
If "jinn" are deterministic machines like us, then by disrupting their chemical balance or structure. In the same way that prolonged contact with potassium will hurt, by reacting with our skin, or gas by burning, or by a 2 ton block by crushing, such can plasma interact. If "jinn" are pursued actively or passively by objects in the lower samawat, then that could be rationally explained by them becoming charged in some way, or having a net change in some kind of energy content that interacts with the plasma. I said electric charge because of the nature of plasma as ionised gas, and the nature of jinn as smokeless fire, living in relation to water (though whether the Quran states "jinn" are alive, I have to recheck). The Quran should be used to show the described nature of "jinn", and not any external source, if we are to challenge the Quran. So far, verses in the Quran show "jinn" are alive entities who are hidden away.
Now, on the nature, "iblees" in 3873-76 is shown to not be a "malaika", because all the "malaika" did their "sujood" towards "adam", but there is a comparison - in the words of this "iblees", humans are created from clay (see clayparticles theory) and he was created from fire, and iblees was of the jinn (1850). If these have the same nature, then it can be said that "jinn" are living beings, consisting of water in some form, in the same way as humans - we may originate from clay, but we are not made from clay.
Another thing, when you consider that all living beings are made of water (2445), another plausible explanation has to do with radio waves attacking the "jinn", or some form of EM radiation (See John Kanzius, for instance). There is a rational explanation for everything the Quran gave so far to my understanding in regards to "jinn".
On earth or in the sky?
Just says every living creature.
Well, they are mentioned in the Quran 85 times, and apparently, Gabriel was an angel. But I'm guessing that you must know the Quran better than me.
Quite complex.
-
The "fishing" is to test if it is plausible. And it is.
It is? Have you been reading any of my responses?
There is a rational explanation for everything, and this is the assumption I am testing the Quran on when "fishing".
OK, whatever.
In 3680, does it mean fire literally blew out from the green tree or does it mean the components of fire (oxygen, carbon and friction) originated from the specifically GREEN tree? What gives a tree or any plant its green colour, and what is its relationship with fire?
Chloroform? Or maybe even it's pigment? Why don't you just say it? I'm not responding to a time wasting little game. Why do you do this? you're not being clever in the least, so stop trying so hard and just say it in plain, simple terms.If "jinn" are deterministic machines like us,
Now us and the jinn are deterministic machines? My God, you are all over the map. I'm losing patience with the conversation.
then by disrupting their chemical balance or structure. In the same way that prolonged contact with potassium will hurt, by reacting with our skin, or gas by burning, or by a 2 ton block by crushing, such can plasma interact. If "jinn" are pursued actively or passively by objects in the lower samawat, then that could be rationally explained by them becoming charged in some way, or having a net change in some kind of energy content that interacts with the plasma. I said electric charge because of the nature of plasma as ionised gas, and the nature of jinn as smokeless fire, living in relation to water (though whether the Quran states "jinn" are alive, I have to recheck). The Quran should be used to show the described nature of "jinn", and not any external source, if we are to challenge the Quran. So far, verses in the Quran show "jinn" are alive entities who are hidden away.
This conversation is simply going into outer space. Go right a science fiction novel. By the way, as far as the Jinn being alive, go read sura 72 Al-Jinn, okay? What's you're point?
Now, on the nature, "iblees" in 3873-76 is shown to not be a "malaika", because all the "malaika" did their "sujood" towards "adam", but there is a comparison - in the words of this "iblees", humans are created from clay (see clayparticles theory) and he was created from fire, and iblees was of the jinn (1850). If these have the same nature, then it can be said that "jinn" are living beings, consisting of water in some form, in the same way as humans - we may originate from clay, but we are not made from clay.
So what? What's your point?
Another thing, when you consider that all living beings are made of water (2445), another plausible explanation has to do with radio waves attacking the "jinn", or some form of EM radiation (See John Kanzius, for instance).
Are radio waves bright for us to see as per 1518? What are you on?
There is a rational explanation for everything the Quran gave so far to my understanding in regards to "jinn".
Just says every living creature.
Quite complex.
OMG WTF
-
Check out a mirror sometime
I'm not inventing anything. I'm going with the most obvious, simplest interpretation. And my interpretation works across the board for all verses. There's only one problem with my interpretation, and that is that it puts the Quran at odds with science. But science should be totally irrelevant when interpreting the Quran. One should not "fudge" the Quran to make it work with science. That is inaccurate, and some might even go as far as calling it dishonest.