The World Blog by humble servant.

To counter the arguments presented in Dr. Shimba’s paper, we have to look at the linguistic definitions of Islamic terms and examine the New Testament scriptures within their original historical, cultural, and textual contexts. ​From an Islamic and unitarian theological perspective, the claims made in the paper rely on reading later, post-Nicene trinitarian theology back into the texts, rather than understanding the words as a first-century Jewish audience would have understood them. ​.The Linguistic Definition of "Muslim" and "Allah" ​Before breaking down specific verses, the foundational misunderstanding of the paper rests on what the words Muslim and Allah actually mean. ​What does "Muslim" mean? Astronomers, theologians, and linguists agree that Muslim is an Arabic active participle meaning "one who submits their will to the Almighty Creator." In this linguistic and theological sense, every biblical prophet who said "not my will, but You...

Dizzy shit" is the perfect way to put it. That endless, circular corporate-speak where people use a hundred words just to say absolutely nothing. It’s the linguistic equivalent of spinning in circles until you're sick. When people layer on top of fake optimism, it’s usually just a desperate attempt to validate a bad hand or double down on a narrative that isn't matching up with reality. It’s fluff designed to bypass critical thinking and mask a lack of actual substance, execution, or hard truth. In the real world, you don't need a dizzying pep speech to know what's real. The data, the ground truth, and the results speak for themselves. Everything else is just noise. What specific brand of dizzy nonsense are you cutting through today? This whole culture of forced positive thinking is nothing but an absolute con game. It’s a mechanism designed for the weak-minded to cope with a reality they don’t have the stomach to face. They want to sit in a room, close their eyes...