(November 10, 2018 at 9:32 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(November 10, 2018 at 9:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: A.  It would have finally gotten something right.


What do I win?

A smile from me.

I'll take that.

For example the context of Suratal Tahreem of the variation of the word there, it means, helper.

The context makes it clear it means helper there.

So it is always determined by context.

You Atlas wish to prey on people's ignorance but I expose the truth regardless of what haters of Ali try to hide.

(November 10, 2018 at 3:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Kit and I got in a discussion in another thread.

What I wanted to mentioned is an example of what I meant by analogy, if Quran said "2+2=4", and the dark magic is veiling them from that, they will see it something like (2+) means somethings, (2=) means something else and (4) is a whole different thing and talk about multiple meanings.

A blessed translation of 33:6 supported by other verses in Quran as well Shiite hadiths attributed to Imams:

The Prophet has more right/authority to the believers then their souls while his wives are their mothers, as well those who hold family/blood relationship, some of them with more right then others in the book of God from the believers and travellers/emigrants - only so that you do good to your Masters, this has been written in the book.


33:7 then emphasis on covenant with the Prophets of the past, and so similarly 33:6 is a firm covenant, and this set's the tone. So that if we are to bless the Prophet as commanded later in the Surah it applies to his family as well as confirmed by hadiths. And with this flow, it's easy to see 33:33 to be about them in the latter half.

If you see how 33:6 is seen by Muslims, they cut the flow of it, they butcher it and disconnect it from one another. 

It's as if all these different subjects are being discussed instead with no relationship to one another!

This is a clear proof that something is mind fucking us that doesn't let us see it for what it says.

I was more or less following you until my bolded. Is this a proof based on "dark magic"?

(November 10, 2018 at 9:42 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I was more or less following you until my bolded.  Is this a proof based on "dark magic"?

It's proof based on witnessing it happening in real time with sentences that should be seen one way but are not.

2+2=5.

---

Two legs good. Four legs bad.

People are free to research. Whatever I say, you are going to call me a liar.

(November 10, 2018 at 9:48 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 2+2=5. For large enough values of 2, this is true.

---

Two legs good. Four legs bad.

Red being mine. Can someone just ban this stupid motherfucker, like he actually wants? It's what he's really trying for, FFS. Make me a mod (shudder) and it'll be my first act. It would be a mercy killing, right?

(November 10, 2018 at 10:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: People are free to research. Whatever I say, you are going to call me a liar.

Because you are.

If the Quran said 2+2=4? The Qurans says plently of things which match reality, and also plently of things which I believe don't. What if Donald Trump explicitly said 2+2=4? That doesn't mean I have to like him. The saying goes: "a broken clock is right twice a day."