MUSLIMS Threaten California Church with “Allahu Akbars” During Sunday Mass

My search for: Allahu Akbar "Our God is Great" vs "God is Great" .

They might actually mean the same, possibly interchangeable - imo, according to these few results:

"
15 Nov 2015 ... Covenant promises made to God are tossed aside or ignored. ... night terror, one gunman, in firing off his weapon in a local restaurant cried out, “Allahu Akbar” which in Arabic means, “God is Great.” Yes, our God is great.
"

"
Shop Zazzle's God Is Great necklaces for yourself or a loved one. ... Get your God Is Great locket today! ... Allahu akbar God is the greatest islamic necklace ... Our God Is Great necklace pendant designs can be printed in full color and come ...
"

"
1 Jul 2016 ... The head of the elite anti-crime force, Rapid Action Battalion, or RAB, told ... chanted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) as they launched the attack. ...... drudge actually is quoted saying “gunmen were hear saying Our God is Great.
"

"
1 Feb 2015 ... ... Mail reports Hayley Haynes was born without a womb, ovaries or fallopian tubes. .... Allahu Akbar(God is Great) ... Our God is Great indeed.
"

All other results in the 2.5 pages mostly say "our God is great".

 

In the same way most westerners don't understand what Jihad actually means.

 

Most of us know exactly what they mean, and it is not a call for ecumenical solidarity.

 

Two facts:

Murderers often punctuate their murders with a rousing chorus of "Allahu Akbar".

The term is ARABIC, which is more suited to speech in [Saudi] ARABIA.

Oh, a third fact: California is in the US which speaks mainly ENGLISH.


So, if the drunk high-schoolers from the cross-town rival Catholic church [Our Lady of Greatest Faith] wanted to say, "Our God is Great", or "God is Great" then they would have said it...in ENGLISH.

But wait, who were these people?

I suggest that under the circumstances it warrants an INVESTIGATION almost as serious as any drive by shooting. We should know who these death-threat perps were.

Yes, "death-threat"...because while the term Al$#% Ak@b^! could be used daily to punctuate speech, it has been used ENOUGH to punctuate murder to give MOST OF ITS MEANING to an aspect of IDEOLOGY attached to COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT.

So, you who KNOW, if Allahu Akbar means "God is Great" , then what, exactly, is the Arabic punctuation for the term "God is Greatest"?

 

Questions:

What does a Sunni Muslim with a bullhorn say when passing by a Sh!!#t mosque?

What does a Sh!!#t Muslim (with a bullhorn) say when passing by a Sunni mosque?



What does a Sunni Muslim with a bullhorn (and an AK-47 and a suicide vest) say when passing by a Sh!!#t mosque?

What does a Sh!!#t Muslim (with a bullhorn and an AK-47 and a suicide vest) say when passing by a Sunni mosque?



What does a white Lutheran in Lake Wobegon (with a bullhorn, an AK-47 and a suicide vest) say when passing Our Lady of Most Hope (Catholic church...in Lake Wobegon) ?

visa versa, when passing the First Most Reformed Lutheran church in Lake Wobegon?


Seriously though, those who take the term (Alllalala Akakbarakobama) seriously, also take seriously their own, personal SALVATION. Why do i say that? Because due to an ideology somewhere espoused in the Koran, the Hadith, the Sharia or some other revered holy book of mostly racists, it is said, that if you die punctuating your death with such term, you are assured of a place in paradise. This is the main reason WHY you hear this term used by murderers in the mist of a high risk proposition where their own life could be snuffed out if any victim manages to retaliate immediately.

Sorry, but this is now it's PRIME meaning: An AID to the personal SALVATION of a religio-ethnic RACIST with a death wish.

Don't make me quote sources.

 

The most you'll get out of the word Allah is 'the god' but most popular and broad usage of Allah has always been 'God'

There is nothing in Arabic to directly lead anyone into translating the meaning of Allahu Akbar as "Our God is great" except by the tortuous misrepresentation of the meaning of words.
However, pretty much everyone knows by now that strident muslims and extremists and christian evangelicals, will argue any bs to make some wild claim or other.

Allahu (god is [the god is -at a stretch]) Akbar (great [the greatest - at another stretch] )

Should've been more careful who you talked to when in Islam land. Might have helped you better in your translations and understanding.

 

You know, you have a very good point there! But of course you realize the cross-town rival protestant church would be that much brighter and teach themselves enough Arabic to shout Allahu Akbar

 

Why don't you go ask a Sunni Muslim who speak Arabic as their native tongue to translate it for you.

While you are at it ask them to translate "Jihad" for you and see if you can get this correct.

 

The solution is clear. We must build a wall to keep out the crazy Catholics.

 

I can't believe you are trying the same thing the previous iteration of stu... from you content provider company did years ago.

next time provide a link... so we can read your quotes of carroll in context.

I don't know where that quote came from but it must have been a long time ago.
Because the cosmological constant being tuned to over 120 decimals places was proven at CERN about 2 years ago when they used the the standard model of physics to locate the Higgs Boson.

How many times do I have to explain the same thing to your sock puppets. Please make a note for the next person who takes over your handle.



I will address the first part of you quote here... note the part where wienberg gives you the tuning to 120 decimal points.



http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=49

The Fine Tuning of the Universe
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so “finely-tuned,” and so many “coincidences” have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In fact, this “fine-tuning” is so pronounced, and the “coincidences” are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the “fine-tuning” and conclude that the universe is “too contrived” to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called “The Big Bang.” At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the “blast-furnaces” of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous “fortunate” one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful “adjustments” had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF FINE TUNING
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment’s most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August ’97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

In his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as “remarkable.”

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125).

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of Life” was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on:
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

but instead:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues,

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe — and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure — we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.

It is appropriate to complete this section on “fine tuning” with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, “How could it have ever been otherwise?”