View Full Version : Is Islam true?.
total relism
11-03-2012, 09:54
Here are some debates that Muslims will no longer debate on, is Islam true, or was Muhammad a true prophet. These and many other reasons, I cannot accept the Koran or Islam as being true.
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008...-wood-was.html
Sheikh Jalal Abualrub vs. David Wood: "Is Muhammad a Prophet
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008...d-wood-is.html
Who Was Muhammad? Qureshi vs. Wood
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009...i-vs-wood.html
Bassam Zawadi vs. David Wood: “Does the Evidence Show That Islam Is True?”
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008...wood-does.html
Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi: “Is the Qur’an Miraculous?”
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009...s-qureshi.html
Ali Ataie vs. David Wood: “Who Was Muhammad? The Christian and Muslim Perspectives”
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008...e-who-was.html
Omar Bakri & Shah Jalal Hussain vs. Sam Shamoun & David Wood: “Who Was Muhammad?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUGTZOYeF3U
Here is a great website that contains hundreds of debates on all subjects.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com
You will find on these debates, that Islam cannot be defended logically. One cannot remain Muslims and watch all these debates without ignoring alot of info.
For some of the reasons I reject Islam besides the info in debates, read post 16,20,23,50,58 ,59,77,145,163,207,227,250,344]
and my twc thread here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
Sarmatian
11-03-2012, 10:11
There is no spoon.
Kadagar_AV
11-03-2012, 10:12
Sorry, I very much resist living my life after some pedophile living in a desert some couple of hundred years ago.
Civilization has evolved since, you know? I'm not talking about USA, but the civilized world who have culture enough to separate religion from state.
At the end of the day, no one cares what you believe in, as long as it doesn't affect your work or participation in society at large.
BTW, all your links are failing: Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
HoreTore
11-03-2012, 10:12
Likr all other religions, your answer to that question depends on who you ask.
A Muslim will say that his god is true.
A christian will say his is true.
A jew will say his god is true.
A non-believer, however, will say that none of them are true(or at least he won't acknowledge them to be true). If a non-believer said the gods of the religions were true, that would make him a believer, wouldn't it?
All these religions look irrational to me. Hence, I am a non-believer. That, however, does not mean that those who disagree with me do so because they are irrational. Those who have found a god are as rational as the rest of us.
I'd say Islam has some truths when strictly taken as a social system, I am not religious. For me the costs kinda outweight the benefit though. Welcome to the backroom by the way.
Kadagar_AV
11-03-2012, 10:19
Likr all other religions, your answer to that question depends on who you ask.
A Muslim will say that his god is true.
A christian will say his is true.
A jew will say his god is true.
A non-believer, however, will say that none of them are true(or at least he won't acknowledge them to be true). If a non-believer said the gods of the religions were true, that would make him a believer, wouldn't it?
All these religions look irrational to me. Hence, I am a non-believer. That, however, does not mean that those who disagree with me do so because they are irrational. Those who have found a god are as rational as the rest of us.
DUDE, before replying at least try and fact check if you want to be taken seriously. None of his sources works, you MIGHT want to at least pretend to be interested before you start sprouting your propaganda.
This thread is hilarious.
Kadagar_AV
11-03-2012, 10:27
This thread is hilarious.
You can't accuse me of being unable to multitask though.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-03-2012, 10:50
This is the blog in question:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/)
Yawn - I can't even be bothered.
total relism
11-03-2012, 10:53
BTW, all your links are failing: Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
Ty, how do I fix that?. But if your interested just go on that page, hit debates, than look for the titles i posted. great debates if your interested.
Welcome to the backroom by the way.
Ty
If muslims won't debate this, why would I want to answer them? Surely they won't even ask me about it.
Why did you even make this thread?
total relism
11-03-2012, 11:11
Why did you even make this thread?
well I watched this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLKarYXjG4c
I think many in america [were I live] are so politically correct that they do not see the dangers of Islam. I also have studied the koran/islam and wish for people to at least have the info to have a educated understanding of the negatives of it, its truth claims. I also like to discus/debate subjects such as this one.
Kadagar_AV
11-03-2012, 11:19
well I watched this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLKarYXjG4c
I think many in america [were I live] are so politically correct that they do not see the dangers of Islam. I also have studied the koran/islam and wish for people to at least have the info to have a educated understanding of the negatives of it, its truth claims. I also like to discus/debate subjects such as this one.
I'm interested, and have some sources of my own.
To introduce yourself, why dont you make a new thread explaining what YOU think, and let us discuss it :)
total relism
11-03-2012, 11:22
I'm interested, and have some sources of my own.
To introduce yourself, why dont you make a new thread explaining what YOU think, and let us discuss it :)
I think Islam is a false religion, false belief, I think Muhammad was a false prophet, who elevated 7th century pagan beliefs and local moon deity allah to religious single god status.
total relism
11-03-2012, 11:24
For example
pre -Islamic Arabia-human teachings
Muhammad took 7th century Arabian culture and elevated it to religious status pre Islamic Jewish monotheism, many non biblical apocrypha teachings found in Koran of Jesus clay birds to life speaking at birth [bible says his first miracle was in john 2.11 as adult], Mary giving birth under tree, 5 prayers, pray towards mecca, fast of Ramadan,circling the ka'bah,dietary laws clothing shirke? Chief authority civil rights,woman's veil, woman wear black ,men wear white, virgins in heaven ka'bah was holiest site in pre Islamic Arabia, jinn, lunar calender,the acount of cain and abel came from pre islamic jewish sources, all done by pre Islamic pagans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91hXGWrU6j4
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Koran-Quick-Christian-Muslim/dp/0310248124
Mohamed just brought his local tribe god in Arabia Allah to a higher status there were many gods in Arabia at the time he just brought his local tribes already existing moon god to higher status.
that is why they have a crescent moon thats Allah the local pagan deity of Arabia
http://www.christianministriesintl.org/resources.html the religion of Islam
word Muslim used in pre Islamic Arabia and story of sun setting in mirkey water from pre islam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91hXGWrU6j4HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?
well I watched this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLKarYXjG4c
I think many in america [were I live] are so politically correct that they do not see the dangers of Islam. I also have studied the koran/islam and wish for people to at least have the info to have a educated understanding of the negatives of it, its truth claims. I also like to discus/debate subjects such as this one.
You are absolutely right. 70% of the mosks in the US that were investigated by the FBI advocated violence against non-muslims. I am not even going to bother linking anything.
Montmorency
11-03-2012, 11:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOk4LDFSmPc
spankythehippo
11-03-2012, 11:31
Are we responding with videos now? Here's my contribution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOORvpiu4co
total relism
11-03-2012, 11:38
You are absolutely right. 70% of the mosks in the US that were investigated by the FBI advocated violence against non-muslims. I am not even going to bother linking anything.
agreed, that is what koran says to do.
Islam is only religion in world that has mandate violence against non believers verse 9.5
unbelievers are enemies 4.101
fight against them until idolatry is no more and gods religion reigns supreme 2.192-93
Muhammad is to make war with nonbelievers and deal sternly with them 66.9
Sahih Muslim 33—“I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah.”
Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
non believers will be known by there looks, and will be sieged by there feet 55.41
large numbers of mass killings by allah towards unbelievers in koran
god tells Muhammad to make war on unbelievers and hypocrites and to deal rigorously with them 9.73-74
make war on infidels who who live around you 9.123
god will strike off the heads and fingertips of unbelievers,if any believer turns his back to infidels on the march,he will receive wrath from god and hell fire 8.15-16
make war on idolaters until islam reins supreme 8.29-40
dont let unbelievers think they will ever get away,muster against them all men and Calvary strike terror into the enemies of god 8.57-60
make war with unbelievers 9.1-13 unless they join the faith
fight against unbelievers who have been given scripture and do not believe [jews Christians] until they pay tribute and are subdued 9.29-31
[Koran: 47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them
“I have been ordered to fight with the people until they say none has the right to be worshiped but allah” vol 4 book 52 hadith 196 Muhammad
believers are told to not be friends with non-believers 60.1 and to not show them kindness 60 8-9 believers do not be friends with jews or Christians 5.51 5.57 believers do not be friends with jews or Christians 5.51 5.57 it is evil to be friends with unbelievers 5 80-82
jews Christians are perverse 9.29-30
Qur’an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.
Qur’an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.
those that make war against allah or Muhammad shall be slain or crucified 5.33
if anyone thinks god will not give victory to Muhammad they should hang themselves 22.15-16
a son killed for his unbelief 18.75-18.82
believers will kill,and be killed for the cause of god 9.111
Muhammad was called to rose believers to fight 8.62-66
a call to fight any who break their oath with islam or who conspire to banish Muhammad9.13
go to war well armed or ill equipped to march and fight for the cause of allah 9.41
true believers will beg to go to war 9.43-47
for cristising islam your fingers are chopped off than your had than you go to hell 8.10-13
those who do mischief cut there hands and feet from opposite sides and crucify them 5.33 Muhammad himself did so to jews vol 8 book 82 hadith 795
about 100 times jihad is mentioned in hadiths with sword war or military effort,at the end he mentions jihad within the spiritual struggle once.
when Muslims die in jihad mosque celebrate wedding not funeral because he is know married in haven to his hours in paradise family celebrates. [in middle east]
[Koran: 47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them
Muhammad told believers to fight them till they convert paradise for anyone who dies in war vol 4 book 53 hadith 586
Sahih Muslim 4366—It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOk4LDFSmPc
Not sure what you think this video does? It does nothing to make Islam true, in fact this guy contradicts the Koran by saying the bible is false.
when Muslims claim the bible has contradictions, they go against Muhammad who believed in previous scripture
Also the koran in dozens of places says the bible ot and gospels of NT at his time 600 ad, that they were the word of god and were true in what they say. Yet the bible in 600 ad is same as today, so you cant claim bad translation. So how can they both be true? the koran has to be wrong on this because if it were right, it would prove koran wrong anyways.
The koran itself says man cannot change the words of allah, the koran says the torah and gospel cannot be corrupted by man, yet you claim the gospel has been corrupted you contradict your own koran by claiming the bible is corrupted, read your own koran 6.115 and 18.27.
allah promised jesus his followers will have power over those that try to corrupt his words. 40 70-72
61.14 says O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, "Who are my supporters for Allah ?" The disciples said, "We are supporters of Allah ." And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.
you cannot believe in some parts of scripture but not others 2.84-85 173-175 or you will go to hell
believers are to believe in all scripture 42.15
have faith in previous scripture formerly reveled 4.135-137
10.94 koran says to ask people who have read scripture before you
jews at the time of Muhammad are said to have gods own word in the torah 5 42-44
jews Christians were reading true scripture at time of Muhammad 2.113-114
4.46-jews twisting words of Muhammad not ot we here and disobey also 15.90-91
allah and those who have been given the book, have one and the same god ,Muslims believe in what was reveled to jews and Christians before Muhammad 29.46-49
gospel ot gods word 62,5-8 61.1-8 22.78-end of sura 20.131-135 ot moses called previous scripture and truth, the Israelite have had gods word 45 14-17 6.154 17.1-3 37 113-126 moses and Israelites were given scripture as a guide 40.52-53
psalms and torah are scripture 21.104-106 allah is author of torah
the torah[what was given to moses] is same as koran 28.48-50
scripture given before koran 34.31 28.51-55
scripture apostles given to all people 35.19-27
issac and jacob were given the book from allah 29.27-28
scripture previously given to jews Christians 6.19-22 in line with Koranic teachings
scripture was given to ot believers 6.83-90 we are told to follow them 6.91-93
Muslims are told to trust and get truth from previous scripture [jews]
Koran reveled to Abraham Issac Jacob Jesus Moses 3.84-85
some ot jews believed in Muhammad 4 .52 -56
Muslims must be inconsistent believing gospels are not accurate and same times accepting information from gospel of Thomas and others written far later.
koran confirms earlier ot and gospel teachings
Koran makes almost no references to ot while nt does hundreds of times
nothing new in koran that was not taught to earlier generations 41.42-44
no change though time in god ot nt islam 48.23
koran confirms ot law and gospel 46 10-14 4 47-50 2.38-43 koran came and confirmed both the torah and gospal 5.47-48 2.91-92 96-98 101 3.1-6
jews and Christians that receive scripture and observe it will be blessed 5.65-66 68-69
the koran was given to moses 25.33-38 32.21-26
koran says it contains previous scripture [the bible] 35.31-33
issac and jacob were given the book from allah 29.27-28
allah and those who have been given the book, have one and the same god ,Muslims believe in what was reveled to jews and Christians before Muhammad 29.46-49
the book was given to moses 28.43
the torah[what was given to moses] is same as koran 28.48-50
koran foretold in previous scripture ot 26.193-205
Muhammad is said to be described in ot and gospel 7.157-158
scripture previously given to jews Christians 6.19-22 in line with Koranic teachings
scripture was given to ot believers 6.83-90 we are told to follow them 6.91-93
koran confirms earlier scripture ot-gospal 6.91-93 12.111-end of chapter 10.36-38
Muslims must be inconsistent believing gospels are not accurate and same times accepting information from gospel of Thomas and others written far later.
Also the claim Jesus was not god as taught in Nt only works on videos like these,not in debates.
Jesus was the worst possible teacher ever [according to Muslims] because all his followers [the apostles] and earliest Christian worshiped him as god from the beginning, in scholarly debates the idea that Jesus never claimed to be god or the nt does not teach so never ends well for the Muslim.
Here are a few
James White vs. Jalal Abualrub: "Does the New Testament Teach that Jesus Is God?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/11/james-white-vs-jalal-abualrub-does-new.html
James White and Farhan Qureshi, "Did Jesus Claim to be God"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XARqD0LmqWM
Laugh all you want but the OP has a point, there really aren't enough deers in the world for the amount of the bambi-eyes I would need to defend islam. They would get extinct.
Let me just say this: Islam is nothing more than a mould (I don't mean a fungus). If you think it's a horrible violent desert ideology (interestingly, early Christianity and Judaism fit that idea much more, as Islam was developed in a cosmopolitan environment), that's okay. If you believe Muhammad was a proto-feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism), that's okay too. If you believe he and the early Muslims were socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati), that's okay too.
Don't forget that most of the things we know about Muhammad date from over a hundred to two-hundred years after his death. What makes him interesting as a character is not so much what he did or said, but what different kinds of Muslims think he did or said.
The question "is Islam true?" is a question that only works when you're actively trying to look for the truth. Personally, I'm not interested in that at all. I would much rather look at how many different kinds of people hold vastly differing opinions about what Islam is and still all regard themselves as Muslims. Confronted with this diversity within the religious framework itself, we can't possibly say something such as "Islam is x".
I also have studied the koran/islam and wish for people to at least have the info to have a educated understanding of the negatives of it,
Can you read Arabic? Aramaic? Hebrew? Syriac? Greek? In order to fully understand the Qur‘ân in its historical context, knowledge of interaction between religions in the Arabian peninsula is absolutely vital.
total relism
11-03-2012, 12:02
Let me just say this: Islam is nothing more than a mould (I don't mean a fungus). If you think it's a horrible violent desert ideology (interestingly, early Christianity and Judaism fit that idea much more, as Islam was developed in a cosmopolitan environment), that's okay. If you believe Muhammad was a proto-feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism), that's okay too. If you believe he and the early Muslims were socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati), that's okay too.
Don't forget that most of the things we know about Muhammad date from over a hundred to two-hundred years after his death. What makes him interesting as a character is not so much what he did or said, but what different kinds of Muslims think he did or said.
The question "is Islam true?" is a question that only works when you're actively trying to look for the truth. Personally, I'm not interested in that at all. I would much rather look at how many different kinds of people hold vastly differing opinions about what Islam is and still all regard themselves as Muslims. Confronted with this diversity within the religious framework itself, we can't possibly say something such as "Islam is x".
I disagree fully, first you claimed early chirtianity was violent, what do you base that on? the only violence was romans/jews killing christian. I do belive islam is violent, based on the koran the very word of god to Muslims. Also based on Muhammad life and early islam and how it spread.
am Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/HYPERLINK "http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/sam-shamoun-vs-nadir-ahmed-is-islam.html"2008HYPERLINK "http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/sam-shamoun-vs-nadir-ahmed-is-islam.html"/HYPERLINK
Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/is-islam-religion-of-peace-abdullah.html
Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/09/sami-zaatari-vs-david-wood-is-islam.html
Nadir Ahmed vs. David Wood: "Does Islam Promote Violence Towards Non-Muslims?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/09/nadir-ahmed-vs-david-wood-does-islam.html?utm_source=feedburnerHYPERLINK
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?"
[url]http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/09/osama-abdallah-vs-david-wood-HYPERLINK "http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/09/osama-abdallah-vs-david-wood-was.html"was.html
From koran, I listed many a few post back number 20 about non believers but here are some more
violent passages-
Muslims feel threaten they can seek peace,they can pretend to be peaceful outwardly,but not inwardly 3.28
when Islam has upper hand such as Muhammad after he became leader of medina
47.35 they are to never ask for peace
reward for fighting
only sure way of going to heaven is to die in battle for islam
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah.
Sahih Muslim 33—“I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah.”
cannot enter paradise until you proven in battle your a true believer 3.140-144
those that fight [in battle] for islam in war receive heaven, hell for those that dont 48.16-20
those that die in battle for islam will go to paradise 47 4-6
anyone who dies in battle for god will be richly compensated 4.74
those that die in battle will be forgiven all there sins, and will go to heaven 3.195
promised reward for those that fight in battle 4.95-97 98-101
reward of heaven for those that die in battle 3.169-172
those who fight in war for allah and Muhammad get rewarded with paradise 9.87-90
Muslims were created to help Muhammad in war 9.40
allah rewards for fighting and jihad 4.74 9.89
in hadiths Muhammad taught if a person died in jihad they would get 70 virgins with 70 palaces
hadith 53 vol 4 book 52 praises dying for islam martyrdom
die in jihad guarantee paradise, not suicide intent to kill others 9.111
Muhammad told believers to fight them till they convert paradise for anyone who dies in war vol 4 book 53 hadith 586
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it."
in the first century after Muhammad died and start of abu bakr Islam spread through battle from across north Africa up to Spain across Asia and India
If believers do not fight
fighting is obligated for believers,much as they dislike it 2.216
cannot enter paradise until you proven in battle your a true believer 3.140-144
Muslims were created to help Muhammad in war 9.40
those that fight [in battle] for islam in war receive heaven, hell for those that dont 48.16-20
a woeful scourge falls on arabs who do not fight in war 9.87-90
put to death deserter wherever you find them 4 87-90
those that dont fight in battle for god are not equal to those that do 4.95
those that dont fight that are able, are unclean and will be punished in hell 9.94-96
god will strike off the heads and fingertips of unbelievers,if any believer turns his back to infidels on the march,he will receive wrath from god and hell fire 8.15-16
believers who fight in war for islam,are not to be friends with those who have yet to join in war 8.70-75
Muslims who fight for god,are held higher by god than others and are promised paradise 9.20-22
if Muslims will not go to war god will punish them sternly 9.38-39
You claim Muhammad/Koran was pro woman?
please watch here
Omar Bakri & Shah Jalal Hussain vs. Sam Shamoun & David Wood: "Who Was Muhammad?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/06/omar-bakri-shah-jalal-hussain-vs-sam.html
Robert Spencer vs. Moustafa Zayed: Does Islam Grant Equal Rights to Women? http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011...html?HYPERLINK
also
woman
Qur’an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Qur’an 2:282— . . . and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other . . .
Sahih al-Bukhari 2658—The Prophet said: “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said: “Yes.” He said: “This is because of the deficiency of her mind.”
woman must breast feed 2 years if men wish 2.223
wives need to do good works to go to heaven 33.27-30
men get two times the inheritance that woman get 4 10-12 different punishment for men and woman, woman get more severe 4 15-16 men have authority over woman 4 34-35
iron fist of Islam reminds woman whos in control in jedd Saudi Arabia
Muhammad allowed rape in woman in territories they conquered 4.24 right hand refers to those taken in battle explained in hadith
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
Qur’an 4:3—And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
I say islam is what the koran says it is, not someone opinion.
Ser Clegane
11-03-2012, 12:06
Somehow this "new Backroomer makes a cut-and-paste-from-other-websites thread about Christianity or Islam" exercise looks familiar...
Kadagar_AV
11-03-2012, 12:11
Nvm.
You are twisting my words. I said desert ideology, I said nothing about violence. Interestingly, the case of Hypatia of Alexandria could be used as an example of militant Christianity in its early years. As Phillipvs or Rhyfelwyr will probably point out soon, I probably can't say "Christianity" or something like that.
Additionally, I never stated my own opinion. You can spin it whatever way you like, but it is impossible to deny that there are Muslim women that defend their ideas of feminism on Islamic grounds. That says nothing about Islam, but only about how Islamic texts are perceived. Just as Ali Shar‘iati created the idea of khoda parast-e sosiyalist (the God-worshipping socialist) within the framework of Shi‘a theology. Many of the Shi‘a ulema’ didn't agree with him, but that doesn't mean that his ideas were false.
I do belive islam is violent, based on the koran the very word of god to Muslims.
Indeed. I personally dislike the way the Qur‘ân appears to be an idol of worship to (at least) some Muslims nowadays, but in the end it doesn't really matter that much what you and I think. It's not going to change their belief, and in almost all cases, the expression their faith is non-violent. It shouldn't even be an issue.
You also appear to use "Qur‘ân", "Islam" and "Muslims" interchangeably. These three things are not the same.
total relism
11-03-2012, 12:30
You are twisting my words. I said desert ideology, I said nothing about violence. Interestingly, the case of Hypatia of Alexandria could be used as an example of militant Christianity in its early years. As Phillipvs or Rhyfelwyr will probably point out soon, I probably can't say "Christianity" or something like that.
Additionally, I never stated my own opinion. You can spin it whatever way you like, but it is impossible to deny that there are Muslim women that defend their ideas of feminism on Islamic grounds. That says nothing about Islam, but only about how Islamic texts are perceived. Just as Ali Shar‘iati created the idea of khoda parast-e sosiyalist (the God-worshipping socialist) within the framework of Shi‘a theology. Many of the Shi‘a ulema’ didn't agree with him, but that doesn't mean that his ideas were false.
Indeed. I personally dislike the way the Qur‘ân appears to be an idol of worship to (at least) some Muslims nowadays, but in the end it doesn't really matter that much what you and I think. It's not going to change their belief, and in almost all cases, the expression their faith is non-violent. It shouldn't even be an issue.
You also appear to use "Qur‘ân", "Islam" and "Muslims" interchangeably. These three things are not the same.
Big differences,muslims doing what they did is constant with koran, also this tale was recently exposed as being false by atheist scholars. It was for political reasons i believe about Hypatia of Alexandria , I will post if brought up. If someone comes up with idea contradictory to koran than it is false theology weather they are "Muslim" or not. What I meant was if koran is word of god, than I dont care what some Muslim may believe about islam, as the source comes from allah and muhhumd, whatever some may say after matters not if it contridits either of these two.
total relism
11-03-2012, 12:55
wanted to post this.
Hypatia of Alexandria 415 AD
"Lindberg debunkes the myth that an anti-scincetfic christian mob killed pagan mathemtician Hypatia of Alexandria in ad 415. The truth is that hypatia was killed by a mob, but for poltical reasons unrelated to scince.
http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Science-Religion-Companions/dp/0521712513
The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge Companions to Religion)#[Paperback]edited by peter harrison
See also
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion/dp/0674033272
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion#[Hardcover]
Ronald L. Numbers#(Editor)
If that is what you think, I have nothing to say.
CrossLOPER
11-03-2012, 15:56
I would be convinced that this guy is an alt-nick of frag's, if not for the fact this guy seems to know how to run a spell check.
Rhyfelwyr
11-03-2012, 15:58
The OP seems to be mainly attacking Islam on the grounds that it is pagan, violent and mysogenistic.
Now, I'm guessing from the OP's signature that he is a Christian. So I'm pretty sure that he will himself believe in a lot of pagan mythology. And the Bible is violent too. Granted, Christians aren't called to violence (that's to be left to God), but if you read the book literally then you should approve of the massacres in the Old Testament. And as for how it treats women, remember women are forbidden from speaking at meetings, are told to cover their heads in them, are said to be rebelling against God if they cut their hair short, and of course were created for Adam's pleasure from one of his ribs.
tbh, I don't expect any ancient religion to fit with modern values.
Nah, I've seen him on twc, too.
And Frags isn't like him. Frags got style.
total relism
11-03-2012, 16:56
The OP seems to be mainly attacking Islam on the grounds that it is pagan, violent and mysogenistic.
Now, I'm guessing from the OP's signature that he is a Christian. So I'm pretty sure that he will himself believe in a lot of pagan mythology. And the Bible is violent too. Granted, Christians aren't called to violence (that's to be left to God), but if you read the book literally then you should approve of the massacres in the Old Testament. And as for how it treats women, remember women are forbidden from speaking at meetings, are told to cover their heads in them, are said to be rebelling against God if they cut their hair short, and of course were created for Adam's pleasure from one of his ribs.
tbh, I don't expect any ancient religion to fit with modern values.
I would be attacking it on the grounds mostly of the arguments in those debates on OP. Someone brought up violence/unbelievers woman so I responded. I do not believe in any pagan mythology, please create a thread with claiming this I will join. I do approve of the conquest, sorry "massacre"[it was none of the sort] of Canaan, were believers [OT jews] were indeed commanded to destroy Canaanite towns. 3 in fact. This is a topic I love to discus, perhaps on another thread as it has nothing to do with this thread. There is much info that needs to be understood, that very well may give you a very different outlook on the conquest.But because threads get off topic so easy, I hope we can do this another thread/time. I certainly will be bringing it up on these forums as I have on twc multiple times.
woman first I suggest reading this book http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260
od Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?
I have to disagree with your intepritation of what is going on with the chruch at Corinth.
In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27
Modern morality
I agree the bible disagrees with much of modern morality,if it feels good do it, no marriage, sex with any partner and multiple partners , kill millions of innocent babies through abortion, homosexuality,slap on wrist for criminals,guilty run free, harder on Innocent, racism etc. But I have to ask, what makes you moral? is not the modern thought you refer to atheism? there can be no morals in a atheistic society.
morality
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within
This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.
In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.
Nah, I've seen him on twc, too.
And Frags isn't like him. Frags got style.
Who are you over there? have you seen my thread on islam?.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
SoFarSoGood
11-03-2012, 17:29
In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.
That's not quite 'true' itself: Murder is the illegal killing of someone as opposed to the numerous other times when killing is perfectly legal; same for rape which basicly means 'illegal sex'. The law - and human society of which the law is now more than standardised reflection - dictates the definitions and not 'chemical reactions'.
Rhyfelwyr
11-03-2012, 17:38
You're branching off into all sorts of topics here, which seems to be 95% copypasta, I can only handle so much in one sitting.
My point with bringing Christianity into things was to show that first of all it's easy to pull passages from holy books out of context, and secondly it's not that 'progressive' (horrible term) anyway.
If you want a separate thread for Christianity, I will make one.
Montmorency
11-03-2012, 17:45
In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.
Why do you say that the chemical reactions are random? Anyway, there are some electrical ones as well.
I may be like hitler and think murdering is good
He didn't believe murder as a principle or in general was a good. He believed in eliminating threats and furthering the prosperity and security of his Volk. His ideas didn't hit the mark...
what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.
We could ask the same of you. That leaves us at an impasse. The first to kill the other wins, I suppose.
Rhyfelwyr
11-03-2012, 17:55
We could ask the same of you. That leaves us at an impasse. The first to kill the other wins, I suppose.
When it comes to these sorts of situations, there's only one way to find out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6gyUb0E7o
total relism
11-03-2012, 18:05
First Rhyfhylwyr is right, we are branching off topic. Something that is easy and that I dont want to happen. So lets please stay on topic.
That's not quite 'true' itself: Murder is the illegal killing of someone as opposed to the numerous other times when killing is perfectly legal; same for rape which basicly means 'illegal sex'. The law - and human society of which the law is now more than standardised reflection - dictates the definitions and not 'chemical reactions'.
I was not saying laws are based on chemical reactions, I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
You're branching off into all sorts of topics here, which seems to be 95% copypasta, I can only handle so much in one sitting.
My point with bringing Christianity into things was to show that first of all it's easy to pull passages from holy books out of context, and secondly it's not that 'progressive' (horrible term) anyway.
If you want a separate thread for Christianity, I will make one.
I was under the impression that you thought Christianity was pagan mythology, I would love you to start that thread if willing. I will gladly soon start a thread on all the major objections to the bible/Christianity, as I have done on twc including the conquest of Canaan.
I agree you are correct, passages can be pulled out of context, in fact I have done so with the koran on at least 2 occasions and been corrected. That is for people to show not assume. Also if you watch debates i posted, you than can see 2 intepritations of many passages be debated.
As far as 'progressive', i would like to argue the bible is not 'progressive', I see this as a very bad thing. Progress usually means allow anything, no one is wrong. This is very bad idea that can easily be shown false and to lead to people such as hitler.
Why do you say that the chemical reactions are random? Anyway, there are some electrical ones as well.
He didn't believe murder as a principle or in general was a good. He believed in eliminating threats and furthering the prosperity and security of his Volk. His ideas didn't hit the mark...
We could ask the same of you. That leaves us at an impasse. The first to kill the other wins, I suppose.
The human brain [if atheism is true] is just random chemical reactions, random matter united.
Agree with second part, But what do you mean did not hit the mark? It hit the mark perfect atheism. Survival of the fittest etc. Why are you correct and him wrong?.
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003
“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003
Agreed fully, proving my point.
Speaking of hitler
Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
Montmorency
11-03-2012, 19:11
In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
Which belies your condemnation of Islam...
Agree with second part, But what do you mean did not hit the mark? It hit the mark perfect atheism. Survival of the fittest etc. Why are you correct and him wrong?.
How did his ideas and policies further the prosperity and security of his people? He didn't even come close to eliminating the subhuman threats to his country....
The human brain [if atheism is true] is just random chemical reactions,
But why random? Do you believe that your response to me, and mine to you, are necessarily random? They have nothing to do with each other?
And why "if atheism is true"? Why can't causality obtain without a higher power?
Sir Moody
11-03-2012, 19:24
I was not saying laws are based on chemical reactions, I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good . That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
wow you clearly read/watched too much of the garbage you are linking too - Atheists believe the law and moral codes are a product of society and not handed down by a great sky wizard - that chemical reaction garbage is tossed around generally by Fundamentalist groups of all faiths when arguing that Atheism is "immoral" - no Atheists actually believe that morality or law should be handled by chemical impulses .. hell we would all be in one hell of a state if we did...
I was under the impression that you thought Christianity was pagan mythology, I would love you to start that thread if willing. I will gladly soon start a thread on all the major objections to the bible/Christianity, as I have done on twc including the conquest of Canaan.
no Christianity is no more Pagan than Islam - they both however adopted a rather large number of traditions and/or festivals from Paganism however - part of this was to make it "easier" for the newly converted
I agree you are correct, passages can be pulled out of context, in fact I have done so with the koran on at least 2 occasions and been corrected. That is for people to show not assume. Also if you watch debates i posted, you than can see 2 intepritations of many passages be debated.
As far as 'progressive', i would like to argue the bible is not 'progressive', I see this as a very bad thing. Progress usually means allow anything, no one is wrong. This is very bad idea that can easily be shown false and to lead to people such as hitler.
wow ... just wow...
Definition of progressive[h=3]adjective
1happening or developing gradually or in stages:[I]a progressive decline in popularity
(of a medical condition) increasing in severity:progressive liver failure
(of taxation or a tax) increasing as a proportion of the sum taxed as that sum increases:steeply progressive income taxes
2(of a person or idea) favouring social reform:a relatively progressive Minister of Education
favouring change or innovation:the most progressive art school in Britain
relating to or denoting a style of rock music popular especially in the 1970s and characterized by classical influences, the use of keyboard instruments, and lengthy compositions.
3 Grammar denoting an aspect or tense of a verb that expresses an action in progress, e.g. am writing, was writing. Also called continuous (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/continuous).
4(of a card game or dance) involving a series of sections for which participants successively change place or relative position.
5 archaic engaging in or constituting forward motion.
To be progressive means to adapt to changes in society/technology not to allow anything (seriously where did you pick that one up...)
Most religions have been very slow to adapt to the new world (hence the rise of Atheism)- their Bronze age ideals are less and less relevant in an age where Men and Woman are (almost) equal and the free transfer of ideas happens instantly via the internet
Thankfully several are trying - The Church of England allows woman vicars (and hopefully soon bishops as well) and there is even a movement within the Papacy to allow the same for Roman Catholics (whether they will succeed is another matter) - if they don't adapt they will over time simply lose any relevance
The human brain [if atheism is true] is just random chemical reactions, random matter united.
seriously you cant even get basic science right - if a Human brain was only "random" chemical reactions we would all be utterly unpredictable - hell we wouldn't even be able to predict what our bodies would be doing - your very personality is controlled by your brain and while no two people are the same there is nothing "Random" about the pattern of Chemical and Electrical reactions
Agree with second part, But what do you mean did not hit the mark? It hit the mark perfect atheism. Survival of the fittest etc. Why are you correct and him wrong?.
... your thinking of Darwin who incidentally enough was Christian - Survival of the Fittest is part of the Theory of Evolution (and is often abused by people who have no real understanding of it) - it has NOTHING to do with Atheism - Atheism is LITERALLY not believing in sky wizards - that is it
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003
“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003
oh good we are breaking out Hitler - one of the worlds most evil CHRISTIANS - incidentally he never understood Survival of the Fittest either
total relism
11-03-2012, 19:31
Please stay on topic.
Which belies your condemnation of Islam...
How did his ideas and policies further the prosperity and security of his people? He didn't even come close to eliminating the subhuman threats to his country....
But why random? Do you believe that your response to me, and mine to you, are necessarily random? They have nothing to do with each other?
And why "if atheism is true"? Why can't causality obtain without a higher power?
Agreed 100%, but did you not notice I disagree with the atheist asumtions? I do not think we are just chemical reactions. So I have reson to object to what i see as "bad" killing murder rape etc.
You said "further the prosperity and security of his people? He didn't even come close to eliminating the subhuman threats to his country...."
ok I agree, kind of, as he eliminated many "sub human" from Germany Holocaust. What I thought you were saying is you disagree with him. But I have to ask if you agree with him, what makes the two of you right, or if you dont, what makes him wrong.
Because our brains are completely random matter and chemical reactions if atheism is true. No guided direction or higher power. I do not believe this is so at all. I am not atheist, but it is so if atheism is true.
Sir Moody
11-03-2012, 19:49
Because our brains are completely random matter and chemical reactions if atheism is true. No guided direction or higher power. I do not believe this is so at all. I am not atheist, but it is so if atheism is true.
Yes Atheists believe there is no Higher power but there is most certainly guided direction - Atheists believe we guide our own direction as a society moving towards common goals
you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Atheism - which means you probably don't really understand the original topic of Islam either
total relism
11-03-2012, 19:54
Please all stay on topic You also have made many clearly false claims/misunderstanding below.
wow you clearly read/watched too much of the garbage you are linking too - Atheists believe the law and moral codes are a product of society and not handed down by a great sky wizard - that chemical reaction garbage is tossed around generally by Fundamentalist groups of all faiths when arguing that Atheism is "immoral" - no Atheists actually believe that morality or law should be handled by chemical impulses .. hell we would all be in one hell of a state if we did...
no Christianity is no more Pagan than Islam - they both however adopted a rather large number of traditions and/or festivals from Paganism however - part of this was to make it "easier" for the newly converted
wow ... just wow...
To be progressive means to adapt to changes in society/technology not to allow anything (seriously where did you pick that one up...)
Most religions have been very slow to adapt to the new world (hence the rise of Atheism)- their Bronze age ideals are less and less relevant in an age where Men and Woman are (almost) equal and the free transfer of ideas happens instantly via the internet
Thankfully several are trying - The Church of England allows woman vicars (and hopefully soon bishops as well) and there is even a movement within the Papacy to allow the same for Roman Catholics (whether they will succeed is another matter) - if they don't adapt they will over time simply lose any relevance
seriously you cant even get basic science right - if a Human brain was only "random" chemical reactions we would all be utterly unpredictable - hell we wouldn't even be able to predict what our bodies would be doing - your very personality is controlled by your brain and while no two people are the same there is nothing "Random" about the pattern of Chemical and Electrical reactions
... your thinking of Darwin who incidentally enough was Christian - Survival of the Fittest is part of the Theory of Evolution (and is often abused by people who have no real understanding of it) - it has NOTHING to do with Atheism - Atheism is LITERALLY not believing in sky wizards - that is it
oh good we are breaking out Hitler - one of the worlds most evil CHRISTIANS - incidentally he never understood Survival of the Fittest either
You misunderstand, I will post my original point and we can take it from there. I in no way am saying atheist think there are no morals or that there should be no moral laws.
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within
This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.
I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
As I said, please start a thread on this, I assure you 100% the bible does no such thing, if you mean chritmas, Easter etc I would love to talk on those as well,please start separate thread.
Misunderstand again, I said the tendency of "progressive" social change is for allow anything, no one is wrong, etc. I agree that chritanity luckily does not adapt to your new atheism, such as killing millions of innocent babies through abortion. You than commit a logical fallacies called logical fallacy known as chronological snobbery by assuming the age of an idea demonstrates its truth or falsity. The age of the biblical record does not invalidate its witness or render it irrelevant
I would say the bible is very relevant to today. You than claim that woman are not equal in bible somehow, I am not sure how at all. But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.
For example why is darwin wrong in your eye?
Darwin listed the advantages of marrying, which included: ". . . constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house . . ." (Darwin, 1958:232,233).
Darwin reasoned that as a married man he would be a "poor slave, . . . worse than a Negro," but then reminisces that, "one cannot live the solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless ... and childless staring in one's face...." Darwin concludes his discussion on the philosophical note, "there is many a happy slave" and shortly thereafter, married (1958:234).
, "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (Kevles, 1986:8). Many anthropologists contemporary to Darwin concluded that "women's brains were analogous to those of animals," which had "overdeveloped" sense organs "to the detriment of the brain" (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of "the conclusions of England's great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin," argued that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro" (1863:192). Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning, including George Romanes, who concluded that evolution caused females to become, as Kevles postulated:
One reason nineteenth century biologists argued for women's inferiority was because Darwin believed that
[progressive idea woman rights] threatened to produce a perturbance of the races" and to "divert the orderly process of evolution" (Fee, 1979:415).
. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).
Darwin, Charles. 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
The creation of our brain was just what happened to gather, random is key word. So our beliefs are random and have no authority. I disagree with this asumtion of atheism. I was pointing out that atheist not chrsitianity demands this.
Missed point, what I said was how can anyone claim hitler was wrong, as he was just doing the law of nature or survival of the fittest. You claim to know about evolution and darwin, it should amuse to to know he was not christian, not after evolution.
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003
“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003
A great claim here that hitler was a christian lol
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)
From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
total relism
11-03-2012, 20:10
Yes Atheists believe there is no Higher power but there is most certainly guided direction - Atheists believe we guide our own direction as a society moving towards common goals
you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Atheism - which means you probably don't really understand the original topic of Islam either
You misunderstand my entire point, but given I have explained this many times, just go over to this thread as it will be brought up there.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142777-Christianity-Religious-System-or-the-True-Natural-State-of-Man
Rhyfelwyr
11-03-2012, 20:34
TR why are you going on this murderous rampage against strawmen?
Just because Darwin developed some concept of evolution doesn't mean his word on every topic has canonical status for atheists, the theory of evolution has evolved immensely since his time. Its proponents are also overwhelmingly not racist nowadays.
Sir Moody
11-03-2012, 20:35
morality
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within
This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.
Hogwash - society already had law and a moral code long before Christianity was born - The Ancient Egyptians had them, the Babylonians hand them and I wouldn't be surprised to learn we had them even further back than that
Morals are a product of HUMANITY and can be found where ever Humans call home - no matter if Religion or lack of Religion hold sway
We as a society shape the Moral code - this is precisely why different societies have different Moral's
I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
... please for the sake of your Sky Wizard would you please READ MY POSTS - Atheists don't believe morals or the law are derived from chemical impulses - and those very chemical impulses you keep brining up are NOT random at all
As I said, please start a thread on this, I assure you 100% the bible does no such thing, if you mean chritmas, Easter etc I would love to talk on those as well,please start separate thread.
your clearly misinformed then - I suggest you talk it over with someone who cares
oh and no I will keep posting in this thread - I would rather keep this garbage in one place so, when the Admins get around to closing it, it doesn't spread like a cancer through the backroom
Misunderstand again, I said the tendency of "progressive" social change is for allow anything, no one is wrong, etc. I agree that chritanity luckily does not adapt to your new atheism, such as killing millions of innocent babies through abortion. You than commit a logical fallacies called logical fallacy known as chronological snobbery by assuming the age of an idea demonstrates its truth or falsity. The age of the biblical record does not invalidate its witness or render it irrelevant
I would say the bible is very relevant to today. You than claim that woman are not equal in bible somehow, I am not sure how at all. But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.
Women are human beings - all human beings (White, Black, Men or Women) deserve to be treated as equals - it has nothing to do with a Sky Wizard or what ever image they were "made in" - it is Empathy pure and simple
The very fact women until very recently (in historical terms) didn't share the same rights as men is a product of the Christian and other churches - go re-read your bible its riddled with Woman being subjected
A great claim here that hitler was a christian lol
Hitler WAS Christian - he was born Catholic - he followed Catholic teachings - early on he actively encouraged his followers to be Christian - later after the German Church distanced itself from him and actively criticised him he "lost faith" in Christianity and actively blamed them for his failures - he never stoped believing in god however and instead created his own church
It is a historical fact he was Christian - accept it and move on - that doesn't mean Christianity bares the brunt blame for Hitler - that lies on the shoulders of Fascism
Now clearly you are a member of the "Christian Taliban" so I don't expect you to actually accept this and frankly I am done argueing with a brick wall - at least for tonight
total relism
11-03-2012, 22:05
TR why are you going on this murderous rampage against strawmen?
Just because Darwin developed some concept of evolution doesn't mean his word on every topic has canonical status for atheists, the theory of evolution has evolved immensely since his time. Its proponents are also overwhelmingly not racist nowadays.
I could ask the same thing, as people are missing what I am saying over and over. For example what you just posted.
My point with darwin, was not that because he was racist sexist that atheist must be, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong" in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.
Hogwash - society already had law and a moral code long before Christianity was born - The Ancient Egyptians had them, the Babylonians hand them and I wouldn't be surprised to learn we had them even further back than that
Morals are a product of HUMANITY and can be found where ever Humans call home - no matter if Religion or lack of Religion hold sway
We as a society shape the Moral code - this is precisely why different societies have different Moral's
... please for the sake of your Sky Wizard would you please READ MY POSTS - Atheists don't believe morals or the law are derived from chemical impulses - and those very chemical impulses you keep brining up are NOT random at all
your clearly misinformed then - I suggest you talk it over with someone who cares
oh and no I will keep posting in this thread - I would rather keep this garbage in one place so, when the Admins get around to closing it, it doesn't spread like a cancer through the backroom
Women are human beings - all human beings (White, Black, Men or Women) deserve to be treated as equals - it has nothing to do with a Sky Wizard or what ever image they were "made in" - it is Empathy pure and simple
The very fact women until very recently (in historical terms) didn't share the same rights as men is a product of the Christian and other churches - go re-read your bible its riddled with Woman being subjected
Hitler WAS Christian - he was born Catholic - he followed Catholic teachings - early on he actively encouraged his followers to be Christian - later after the German Church distanced itself from him and actively criticised him he "lost faith" in Christianity and actively blamed them for his failures - he never stoped believing in god however and instead created his own church
It is a historical fact he was Christian - accept it and move on - that doesn't mean Christianity bares the brunt blame for Hitler - that lies on the shoulders of Fascism
Now clearly you are a member of the "Christian Taliban" so I don't expect you to actually accept this and frankly I am done argueing with a brick wall - at least for tonight
I will reply to you over here, I included your above response.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&p=2053493625#post2053493625
I started new thread to try to keep this on topic. Titled was hitler a christian/atheistic morality.
Post over there or I will report you.
ICantSpellDawg
11-03-2012, 22:17
Yep. Totally true
total relism
11-03-2012, 22:33
To get back on topic Islamic heaven
no one can speak with god in haven 78 37-38
sin seems to continue in heaven 47.12-16
believers will mock unbelievers in hell, as they recline apone there couches 83.35
these to me do not seem like a ideal haven people wish to go to.
7 heavens 23. 15-17
only Muslims go to haven 84,24-25
forgery in koran
Jesus made a bird from clay and preached from the cradle 5 109-111
Jesus preaching from cradle 3.46
Jesus speaking as baby 19.30-37 clay bird to life by Jesus 3.49-52
These come from the infancy gospel of Thomas, that noone non-muslim sees as authoritative, but a forgery written in local Arabia
the satanic verses
pretty funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v20VvP19kCI
here is debate on it
Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Authentic?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/11/adnan-rashid-vs-david-wood-satanic.html
Could a BR mod please merge this with the Drunkards' Thread?
Rhyfelwyr
11-03-2012, 23:57
I could ask the same thing, as people are missing what I am saying over and over. For example what you just posted.
My point with darwin, was not that because he was racist sexist that atheist must be, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong" in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.
Nobody has missed your point, you just keep flipping from topic to topic. For example, flying from "Darwin is racist and therefore immoral" to "atheists can't believe in morality anyway" as soon as atheists tell you that they are not racist.
Address one point at a time. Atheists should tell you what they believe, not the other way around.
Montmorency
11-04-2012, 00:04
Because our brains are completely random matter and chemical reactions if atheism is true. No guided direction or higher power. I do not believe this is so at all. I am not atheist, but it is so if atheism is true.
That doesn't really follow. In fact, you appear to be putting forth a lot of premises, and heaping further premises upon them, without anything to support the initial premises.
And why do you insist on the "random matter" angle? How did you come to the conclusion that atheism = no causality?
How about: 'if materialism is valid, then humans must be the sum of their material components mediating external material stimuli'?
Or: 'without a higher force exerting influence on the universe, fluctuations of energy and matter can not be "intentional"'?
I believe those are the core claims you are trying to make.
total relism
11-04-2012, 00:05
Nobody has missed your point, you just keep flipping from topic to topic. For example, flying from "Darwin is racist and therefore immoral" to "atheists can't believe in morality anyway" as soon as atheists tell you that they are not racist.
Address one point at a time. Atheists should tell you what they believe, not the other way around.
I gota say you have done it once again, but there is new thread for this subject here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity
This is islam.
Rhyfelwyr
11-04-2012, 00:14
If you didn't want to talk about it here you shouldn't have slapped down several walls of copypasta text about it.
Nah, I've seen him on twc, too.
And Frags isn't like him. Frags got style.
That's nice of you Haxie
total relism
11-04-2012, 09:24
That doesn't really follow. In fact, you appear to be putting forth a lot of premises, and heaping further premises upon them, without anything to support the initial premises.
And why do you insist on the "random matter" angle? How did you come to the conclusion that atheism = no causality?
How about: 'if materialism is valid, then humans must be the sum of their material components mediating external material stimuli'?
Or: 'without a higher force exerting influence on the universe, fluctuations of energy and matter can not be "intentional"'?
I believe those are the core claims you are trying to make.
Glad to discuss it over here, please read my op here slowly, than post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity
If you didn't want to talk about it here you shouldn't have slapped down several walls of copypasta text about it.
Good point
total relism
11-04-2012, 09:30
Back on topic if possible? anyone want to talk of atheistic morality post here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity
As I outlined here in OP.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
I see the morality of god of bible and jesus as far above and beyond Allah of koran and Muhammad. I got the idea from this debate and built apone it.
Concept of God in Christianity and Islam craig vs alley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=741gF4A_k3A
Also how do Muslims reconcile contradictions between koran and bible when Muhammad and the koran say the bible was 100% true in 600AD? The same bible we have today.
Also were is the evidence of Muslim faith in either the OT Jews or NT christian, there is no historical evidence for Muslim type faith, yet the koran claims it is true.
total relism
11-04-2012, 10:12
More on woman and islam
Muslim men can have sex with captures slaves and wives.
#The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those "whom their right hands possess"). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives:
Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (Eventually) win through—Those who humble themselves In their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds Of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined To them in the marriage bond, Or (the captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (in their case) they are Free from blame.
Qur'an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted To Prayer—Those who remain steadfast To their prayer; And those in whose wealth Is a recognized right For the (needy) who asks And him who is prevented (For some reason from asking); And those who hold To the truth of the Day Of Judgement; And those who fear The displeasure of their Lord—For their Lord’s displeasure Is the opposite of Peace And Tranquility—And those who guard Their chastity, Except with their wives And the (captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (then) they are not To be blamed.
Sahih Muslim 3432—Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (4:24)" (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Sahih Al-Bukhari 4138—We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl" above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: "How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist."
Sahih Muslim 3384—Jabir bin Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.
woman often not smart enough to get to haven
Sahih Muslim 142—[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense.
Sahih Al-Bukhari 1462—[Muhammad said], "O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women." The women asked, "O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He said: "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray."
However, even if these women were to stop cursing and to start thanking their husbands, their prospects for the afterlife would still leave much to be desired. According to Muhammad, Muslim women can look forward to an eternity of standing in corners, waiting for men to come and have sex with them:
Sahih Al-Bukhari 4879—Allah’s Apostle said: "In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them."
What do you want to achieve these are mostly old texts. I don't think I am going to be accused of apoligising anything of it very soon here but there IS a context in which it was said most of the time, some just don't understand these times are over. Example, it's not true that muslims aren't allowed to have non-muslims as friends, it really says 'protectors' in arab and that sits perfectly well with the situation at the time being.
total relism
11-04-2012, 10:59
So woman are now smart enough and are no longer minority in haven? or woman only had to stand in corner of heaven for there husbands to come have sex with them in 600 ad when the eternal book the koran was written? the koran that has no mistakes or lies in it?. Can you provide any verse that abrogate these? as that is what would happen for a old passage to pass away as koran says.
thank you for being on topic sir.
So woman are now smart enough and are no longer minority in haven? or woman only had to stand in corner of heaven for there husbands to come have sex with them in 600 ad when the eternal book the koran was written? the koran that has no mistakes or lies in it?. Can you provide any verse that abrogate these? as that is what would happen for a old passage to pass away as koran says.
thank you for being on topic sir.
Of course I can't provide anything like that. And my opinion on the islam isn't very different from yours probably. But at least be fair you can't explain a culture with a book things are always more complicated.
total relism
11-04-2012, 12:14
I agree 100%.
I agree 100%.
And I am not really sure about you
Yes Islam is true. If Christianity is true, Islam pretty much has to be.
Example, it's not true that muslims aren't allowed to have non-muslims as friends, it really says 'protectors' in arab and that sits perfectly well with the situation at the time being.
There are interpretations of Islam that condemn exactly that. The Kharijites were particularly prone to the idea of "stay away from non-believers" (i.e. everyone except them) and the idea of walâyah wa bara‘a (inclusion and exclusion) still carries some importance in Ibadism and certain groups within the Salafist movement.
Strike For The South
11-04-2012, 20:32
Do I need to break out all the odd verses in the bible or would that be an excise in futility at this point.
Kadagar_AV
11-04-2012, 21:04
Do I need to break out all the odd verses in the bible or would that be an excise in futility at this point.
I already did the exercise in futility in the other thread. Well, quite some at least.
Not so long ago I was told that the cake was a lie.
total relism
11-05-2012, 09:29
Yes Islam is true. If Christianity is true, Islam pretty much has to be.
That seems a wee bit like a form of circular logic.
Do I need to break out all the odd verses in the bible or would that be an excise in futility at this point.
Please star a thread.Not here.
HoreTore
11-05-2012, 10:25
Please star a thread.Not here.
Very few threads here maintain the same topic for more than the first two pages. If a thread is still discussing the original topic on page 3, that's an exception...
There's both an upside and a downside to that, of course...
Please star a thread.Not here.
Very few threads here maintain the same topic for more than the first two pages.
What's more, when someone wades into the BR with walls of copy&paste, striking about twenty controversial assertions per paragraph, it's kinda absurd/laughable to keep demanding that the posters stay on topic. If you begin with a shotgun blast of far-right Christianist talking points, you can hardly object when people respond in kind.
In other words, if I post a fourteen-paragraph screed about how the world is flat, and the Illuminati control all media, and monarchy is the natural state of man, and all of this is merely an accepted underpinning for the obvious conclusion that moon Nazis are going to invade Earth, I can hardly demand that everyone stay on topic for questioning/poking the assumptions that underpin my moon Nazi theory.
Kadagar_AV
11-05-2012, 15:30
What's more, when someone wades into the BR with walls of copy&paste, striking about twenty controversial assertions per paragraph, it's kinda absurd/laughable to keep demanding that the posters stay on topic. If you begin with a shotgun blast of far-right Christianist talking points, you can hardly object when people respond in kind.
In other words, if I post a fourteen-paragraph screed about how the world is flat, and the Illuminati control all media, and monarchy is the natural state of man, and all of this is merely an accepted underpinning for the obvious conclusion that moon Nazis are going to invade Earth, I can hardly demand that everyone stay on topic for questioning/poking the assumptions that underpin my moon Nazi theory.
I think people use "LOL" way-y-y-y too much.... but LOL!!! :2thumbsup:
Kralizec
11-05-2012, 15:41
Lemur that is ridiculous.
Everyone who has his eyes open knows that the Freemasons are the real power behind the Illuminati, and by extension, the media.
total relism
11-05-2012, 15:51
What's more, when someone wades into the BR with walls of copy&paste, striking about twenty controversial assertions per paragraph, it's kinda absurd/laughable to keep demanding that the posters stay on topic. If you begin with a shotgun blast of far-right Christianist talking points, you can hardly object when people respond in kind.
In other words, if I post a fourteen-paragraph screed about how the world is flat, and the Illuminati control all media, and monarchy is the natural state of man, and all of this is merely an accepted underpinning for the obvious conclusion that moon Nazis are going to invade Earth, I can hardly demand that everyone stay on topic for questioning/poking the assumptions that underpin my moon Nazi theory.
Agreed and good point, however, I did start another thread for that topic. So it would be better to post on that thread.
Are you afraid of Muslims, total_relism?
total relism
11-05-2012, 16:05
So what are people opinion on Islam, are there no Muslims wishing to defend the things that have been said here.?
Some more reasons to question islam.
koran says in many places, that apostles went out into all nations teaching isalm before Muhammad. Why is there no evidence for islam in preislamic nations?
shadows are animals bowing down to god 16.48-54
the lowest heaven [stars] filled with missiles to pelt the devils with 67 4-5
false idea of trinity mary as god 5 114- 117
confusion on who mary is 19.26-30
sun setting in a pool of dark muddy water 18.84-86
shadows are animals bowing down to god 16.48-54
satan can be in upper part of peoples nose while they sleep causing them to make up in middle of night, so people should blow there nose
satan urinated in a Muslims ears,causing him to not get up from bed to do his prayers.
Satan farts,so he does not hear certain prayers of Muslims.
Yawning is from satan
the sun rises between the two heads of satan
fever is from the heat of hell fire so treat with water
hell fire causes heat and cold summer winter.
Muhammad taught one wing on fly has disease,other wing the cure.
Adam was 90 feet tall
allah transformed some jews into apes because they did not follow the Sabbath 2.65-66
Is it true that the koran is not to be left open and untended so a devil or jinn cannot come along and read it? Or put on the ground,witch would cause wrath from allah?
The hadith says “if the koran was wrapped in a skin and thrown into a fire it would not burn” [al-tirmidui.652
Muhammad hates poets Ibn Ishaq, p. 106—[Muhammad said:] Now none of God’s creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed—Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest.
Muhammad said he could be found in the bible and that the bible told of his coming,yet he is not in there at all, islams top debater trying to desperatley, show this to be true,but fails.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/08/shabir-ally-vs-james-white-muhammad-in.html
Christianity can explain the origin of Islam,but Islam cannot explain Christianity
The bible says that there will be false prophets who will mislead many after the bible. So we would aspect a religion like Islam. But if Islam is true than Allah created the world biggest religion Christianity, by deceiving people and accidentally creating the worlds largest belief system counter to his own.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm
Allah is all knowing yet in 18.22 he is unsure how many people are saved.
some things forbidden in Koran, like many sexual partners and liberal use of wine, are allowed in haven.
If Islam is so great were are the Islamic nations that everyone is trying to get to? Islam has direct access to a lot of wealth oil etc.
allah tells us not to sin.but created us imperfect
If allah is impersonal and does not reveal himself, than how do we know that allah reveled to Muhammad?
If the jews and christian corrupted scripture, how can we know the Muslims didn't? Maybe the Mormons came and corrected us all
why would gods perfect word from haven need to be corrected? 2.110
why did god not protect his earlier scripture the torah and gospal?
How can koran be a eternal book in haven if it will be abrogated later when Jesus returns? Abolishing christian -Muslim relation rules in koran.such as jiza
allah is not all just, he allows sin to go unpunished
Rhyfelwyr
11-05-2012, 16:11
In other words, if I post a fourteen-paragraph screed about how the world is flat, and the Illuminati control all media, and monarchy is the natural state of man, and all of this is merely an accepted underpinning for the obvious conclusion that moon Nazis are going to invade Earth, I can hardly demand that everyone stay on topic for questioning/poking the assumptions that underpin my moon Nazi theory.
Brilliant! That laugh was just what I needed, thank you. :bow:
HoreTore
11-05-2012, 16:16
So what are people opinion on Islam, are there no Muslims wishing to defend the things that have been said here.?
If you wish to debate a muslim, might I suggest you go to a place where you can actually find muslims...?
The closest thing we have among the regular contributors in the backroom is Hax, our resident weird buddhist.
Edit: I'm not asking you to leave, of course, just informing you that the kind of discussion you seem to be after is impossible to get at this forum, due to a lack of that particular kind of person.
The closest thing we have among the regular contributors in the backroom is Hax, our resident weird buddhist.
Edit: I'm not asking you to leave, of course, just informing you that the kind of discussion you seem to be after is impossible to get at this forum, due to a lack of that particular kind of person.
Hmm, we have a couple of Muslims, such as LEN, but I think they're so sick and tired of the anti-Muslim stuff that they've stopped responding.
Can't say I blame 'em.
total relism
11-05-2012, 16:33
If you wish to debate a muslim, might I suggest you go to a place where you can actually find muslims...?
The closest thing we have among the regular contributors in the backroom is Hax, our resident weird buddhist.
Edit: I'm not asking you to leave, of course, just informing you that the kind of discussion you seem to be after is impossible to get at this forum, due to a lack of that particular kind of person.
Damn, interesting though, twc has many. They often dont debate long though. I was hoping they would here more. But yes, good to keep thread going,good info for people who are interested.
Strike For The South
11-05-2012, 16:39
Its hard to debate someone who has no idea about what hes talking about.
If someone tells me AIDS is God punishment for the gays, well that's obviously untrue.
I can point to a subculture that was repressed and was subsequently forced underground, leading to lots of unprotected sex and unknown partners.
it is in fact Anal sex (and IV drug use but that's another bag of cats) that is the root cause for the higher incidence of the disease among people, not just gays. The risk of catching aids assuming you are on the receiving end of anal sex is 1 in 4. In heterosexual sex it is something like 1 in 800.
The anonymity alluded to earlier lead to a lot of rapid turnover of partners leading to a rapid exchange of the disease when viral loads are at their higherst
The fastest growing group of the infected are heterosexual black females, no doubt many of whom worship the same God whose intent it supposedly was to kill off the homos
At which point the goalposts get moved to punishment as a society for tolerating gays and God just KNEW anal sex would be the perfect incubator for this diseases.
It is not a debate, it is not a quest for knowledge. It is a conformation bias circle jerk
Kadagar_AV
11-05-2012, 16:40
TR, I think people will take your one-man crusade more seriously if you framed more thoughts of your own mate.
You seem to copy paste material you have barely understood yourself, then you skim what others write and get a basic understanding for about what arguments they have, then you hit them with even more quotes you have barely understood yourself.
It's like you follow some script instead of thinking for yourself, sorry, but that is really what you come off as. So again, frame your OWN thoughts... Think hard about what people try and tell you, and frame your OWN reply.
To use other people as sources is great, but only to the extent of highlighting your own points.
But then, you seem more interested in getting your opinion heard, than you are of debating.
HoreTore
11-05-2012, 16:51
Its hard to debate someone who has no idea about what hes talking about.
If someone tells me AIDS is God punishment for the gays, well that's obviously untrue.
I can point to a subculture that was repressed and was subsequently forced underground, leading to lots of unprotected sex and unknown partners.
it is in fact Anal sex (and IV drug use but that's another bag of cats) that is the root cause for the higher incidence of the disease among people, not just gays. The risk of catching aids assuming you are on the receiving end of anal sex is 1 in 4. In heterosexual sex it is something like 1 in 800.
The anonymity alluded to earlier lead to a lot of rapid turnover of partners leading to a rapid exchange of the disease when viral loads are at their higherst
The fastest growing group of the infected are heterosexual black females, no doubt many of whom worship the same God whose intent it supposedly was to kill off the homos
At which point the goalposts get moved to punishment as a society for tolerating gays and God just KNEW anal sex would be the perfect incubator for this diseases.
It is not a debate, it is not a quest for knowledge. It is a conformation bias circle jerk
So.... You're saying god hates homos and black people...?
Possibly women as well? An eye-opener!!
total relism
11-05-2012, 19:55
TR, I think people will take your one-man crusade more seriously if you framed more thoughts of your own mate.
You seem to copy paste material you have barely understood yourself, then you skim what others write and get a basic understanding for about what arguments they have, then you hit them with even more quotes you have barely understood yourself.
It's like you follow some script instead of thinking for yourself, sorry, but that is really what you come off as. So again, frame your OWN thoughts... Think hard about what people try and tell you, and frame your OWN reply.
To use other people as sources is great, but only to the extent of highlighting your own points.
But then, you seem more interested in getting your opinion heard, than you are of debating.
Thank you for the tip,I am sorry you get this impression, could i ask what you are referring to. What part of this thread i have done so? I have given my thought throughout. When I copy paste, it is references, quotes, Koranic verse, or debates. I feel debate is about contesting two diffident opinions.
It's a rather silly discussion though. In the end, it's not for us to decide how people regard their faith.
You see, these discussions eventually boil down to something like "but the Qur‘an says this!", to which somebody else will reply "but it means this!"
That seems a wee bit like a form of circular logic.
Not really. Islam is just as much a Semitic death cult as Judaism or Christianity. And just as valid. As either all religions are right, or none of them are.
total relism
11-05-2012, 20:21
Not really. Islam is just as much a Semitic death cult as Judaism or Christianity. And just as valid. As either all religions are right, or none of them are.
That is terrible logic, all contradictory "religions" are true. or they are all false. They can neither be all true or all false, as they contradict. Well they could all be false.
All pizza has ham as a toping
either all pizzas have ham as a topping or none do
so all have ham.
Some do some dont.
Sir Moody
11-05-2012, 22:48
Muslims believe the God they worship is the same God both Jews and Christians Worship - the differences come from the prophets
Islam rejects Jesus's Divinity and instead consider him a messenger of god - since Muhammad (also a messenger of God) arrived on the scene later his words take precedence over Jesus's
Christianity believes that their namesake was the son of God and as such his teachings are the direct word of God
Judaism rejects both Jesus and Muhammad as prophets
the core beliefs are the same (follow Gods code and lead a good life and be rewarded in the afterlife, deviate and you will be punished for all eternity) - this is what is refereed to as a "Death cult"
to use your Pizza analogy - all 3 Pizza's have ham, you are just arguing over how much ham is right...
Why use the example of ham?
That's offensive.
The intent of this post was humorous.
That is terrible logic, all contradictory "religions" are true. or they are all false. They can neither be all true or all false, as they contradict. Well they could all be false.
All pizza has ham as a toping
either all pizzas have ham as a topping or none do
so all have ham.
Some do some dont.
Analogy fail. Really all three are different slices of the same pizza. That is all three religions worship the same god. So the followers of one prophet or the other of the same god can't be wrong.
But I was really saying that if Yaweh/Jehova is real, then Odin, Zeus, Brahmin, Raiden, the Jade Emperor, etc are all real too. Or (and this is the most likely) none of them are real.
a completely inoffensive name
11-06-2012, 07:30
That is terrible logic, all contradictory "religions" are true. or they are all false. They can neither be all true or all false, as they contradict. Well they could all be false.
All pizza has ham as a toping
either all pizzas have ham as a topping or none do
so all have ham.
Some do some dont.
Do you even eat pizza?
EDIT: Just to clarify, this is the new topic for this thread. Whether or not TR eats pizza and what possible foods he puts on his pizza.
Modern morality
I agree the bible disagrees with much of modern morality,if it feels good do it, no marriage, sex with any partner and multiple partners , kill millions of innocent babies through abortion, homosexuality,slap on wrist for criminals,guilty run free, harder on Innocent, racism etc. But I have to ask, what makes you moral? is not the modern thought you refer to atheism? there can be no morals in a atheistic society.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
Perhpas this is off topic but I can't let this slide! How dare you?! This is such utter, utter, utter, utter, ..., bollocks that I don't even know how to start responding to such nonesense!
Quiddy
Greyblades
11-06-2012, 14:59
*Reads Quiddy's post*
*Reads Quiddy's first signature line*
*Runs off to make Total realism's funeral arrangements*
HoreTore
11-06-2012, 15:11
*Reads Quiddy's post*
*Reads Quiddy's first signature line*
*Runs off to make Total realism's funeral arrangements*
This seems to be getting a little out of hand...
Greyblades
11-06-2012, 15:14
This seems to be getting a little out of hand...
Note to self; must include some sort of joke tag for the humorously disabled.
HoreTore
11-06-2012, 15:15
Note to self; must include some sort of joke tag for the humorously disabled.
Oh I know it was a joke, don't worry about that ~;)
It wasn't the content of the joke itself that prompted my comment, but rather that the joke appeared ~;)
Make them quickly. I'm itching.
On second thought, it's just not worth it. Statements like the one highlighted in my previous post are so far off the proverbial line drawn in the sand that you would end up in the bloody rain forest contending it.
Quid
Analogy fail. Really all three are different slices of the same pizza. That is all three religions worship the same god. So the followers of one prophet or the other of the same god can't be wrong.
But I was really saying that if Yaweh/Jehova is real, then Odin, Zeus, Brahmin, Raiden, the Jade Emperor, etc are all real too. Or (and this is the most likely) none of them are real.
So ... you do subscribe to an "original religion" theory.
The original pizza if we use TR's analogy.
Some people picks off the capsicum or the pepperoni, because they don't like those. Others do... but doze it with a layer of chilli "to spice things up".
Some think pizza need only cheese and tomato sauce and strip away all the extras.
Some eat the whole pizza, because that will get you the approval of the pizza baker.
Others just nibbles and give the rest to the dog, expecting the approval of the pizza baker.
Some just look at the pizza with disgust and will NEVER partake.
Kadagar_AV
11-06-2012, 15:54
Now I got cravings for pizza...
I guess you never know what to expect when you read these boards... *off to the pizza restaurant it is!*
HoreTore
11-06-2012, 15:58
Now I got cravings for pizza...
I guess you never know what to expect when you read these boards... *off to the pizza restaurant it is!*
It's Champions League night, manly food like kebabpizza is mandatory anyway...
Perhpas this is off topic but I can't let this slide! How dare you?! This is such utter, utter, utter, utter, ..., bollocks that I don't even know how to start responding to such nonesense!
Quiddy
He just worded it wrong. Of course the atheistic society use morals. What he should have written was: The atheistic world view can't account for what they are doing.
:sneaky:
So would this quote from Under the Banner of Heaven (http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806) apply to the OP, his subject, or both?
For some, the province of the extreme holds an allure that's irresistible. And a certain percentage of such fanatics will inevitably fixate on matters of the spirit. The zealot may be outwardly motivated by the anticipation of a great reward at the other end—wealth, fame, eternal salvation—but the real recompense is probably the obsession itself. This is no less true for the religious fanatic than for the fanatical pianist or fanatical mountain climber. As a result of his (or her) infatuation, existence overflows with purpose. Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance displaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.Or this quote, from Sully (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/which-side-is-now-pauline-kael.html):
Fundamentalism is not about belief; it's about the rigidity required because of faltering belief. It's not faith; it's neurosis. [...] [T]hey cannot look at things empirically, refuse to acknowledge nuance, and cannot trust anyone who might be in touch with the reality fundamentalists secretly fear may be true.
He just worded it wrong. Of course the atheistic society use morals. What he should have written was: The atheistic world view can't account for what they are doing.
:sneaky:
I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you implying that I am not accountable for my actions? Or are you saying that I can't name a specific source for my morals?
Quid
total relism
11-06-2012, 20:25
the core beliefs are the same (follow Gods code and lead a good life and be rewarded in the afterlife, deviate and you will be punished for all eternity) - this is what is refereed to as a "Death cult"
to use your Pizza analogy - all 3 Pizza's have ham, you are just arguing over how much ham is right...
core beliefs in one god, but you just described every religion in the world but christianity. Witch says, god want all in haven no matter what you have done, good,bad etc. But cant allow you in with sin. Here is a free sacrifice and forgiveness because i love you. Please accept and go live life they way I you should.
Analogy fail. Really all three are different slices of the same pizza. That is all three religions worship the same god. So the followers of one prophet or the other of the same god can't be wrong.
But I was really saying that if Yaweh/Jehova is real, then Odin, Zeus, Brahmin, Raiden, the Jade Emperor, etc are all real too. Or (and this is the most likely) none of them are real.
They do not follow the same god, I do recommend you try reading the bible and koran, that come back and honestly claim this.
I understood what your saying, but again that is impossible, have you not herd of the law of contradiction? Something that claims to be blue [bible] cant also be black [islam]. That should be simple enough to get.
total relism
11-06-2012, 20:31
To try and get off pizza, maybe even back on topic?
Allah is not all loving, he does not love all,he loves those who do good works, he does not love those that do bad works, god is the enemy of unbelievers 2.97-100 god does not love the unbelievers 3.30-35 god does not love the evil doers 3.56-57 god bears no love for the sinful 2.275-277 god does not love wrongdoers 42.38-44 god does not love the proud 16.22-26 allah does not love the unbelievers 30.44-46 god does not love transgressors 7.54-57 so his love is conditional based on the works of a individual.
Qur’an 3:31-32—Say [O Muhammad]: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely#Allah does not love the unbelievers.#
Qur’an 30:43-45—Then turn thy face straight to the right religion before there come from Allah the day which cannot be averted; on that day they shall become separated. Whoever disbelieves, he shall be responsible for his disbelief, and whoever does good, they prepare (good) for their own souls, that He may reward those who believe and do good out of His grace; surely#He does not love the unbelievers.
Notice that 3:31-32 makes Allah’s love contingent on whether a person believes in#Muhammad. This is similar to what we find in#19:46, which declares: “Lo! those who believe and do good works, the Beneficent will appoint for them love.”#
Hence, although Allah is called “the Loving,” the Qur’an only means by this that Allah will love people once they believe in him and obey his prophet. The god of Islam has no love for sinners and unbelievers.#
the god of the bible loves all and loves unconditional, but god demonstrated his love for us that while we were sinners Christ died for us Romans 5.8
allah said god will love you, if you love him first 3.30-35 and believers need to help god for him to help them 47.5-11
Jesus said of those who love only those who love them -if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? Matt 5.46 also when being nailed to the cross after being beaten, scourged, spat at etc he said of those persecuting him he prayed to god "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". Luke 23.34
allah does not will all to be saved 32.12-32 god wishes to scourge unbelievers for his sins 5.48-50 god could have led all man to him, but he leads them astray because of there bad deeds 13.31 allah punishes unbelievers,so there souls shall depart in unbelief 9.55 … Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills ... (Q.14:4; 16:93). god wishes to scourge sinners 5.49
Allah does not care if people go to haven or hell “these to eternal fire, and I care not”and these to paradise I care not”kisasul-anbiya 21.9150 abu-dawood 2203 al timidhi 38 mishkat al misablih 3.112-13
one of my fav
unbelievers are allowed to live longer only so they sin more, and receive a greater punishment 3.178
total relism
11-06-2012, 20:34
what haven will be like for the Muslims
alot of relaxing i guess
believers will mock unbelievers in hell, as they recline apone there couches 83.35
high bosomed maidens for companions in haven 78 31-33 young boy servers who will seem like sprinkled pears 76 15-17 young boys will be there as waiters as fine as virgin pearls 52 22-31 bashful virgins in the garden of eden [heaven] 38.47-52 virgins and dark eyed virgins in heaven 55 53-67 53 -78 dark eyed virgins and flesh of fowls in heaven 56 17-33 recline in couches and wed black eyed houries 52 15-22 37.37-50 36.55-60 reclining couches in haven 76 55.13 18.30-18.34 jeweled couches in heaven 56.16 eat meat, in hadiths Muhammad taught if a person died in jihad they would get 70 virgins with 70 palaces
a completely inoffensive name
11-06-2012, 20:48
You didn't answer the question about whether you eat pizza.
Yeah, could you please get back on topic, tr?
They do not follow the same god, I do recommend you try reading the bible and koran, that come back and honestly claim this.
OK, I'll bite on this one. If they don't follow the same god, why is Jesus considered a prophet in Islam?
total relism
11-06-2012, 22:21
OK, I'll bite on this one. If they don't follow the same god, why is Jesus considered a prophet in Islam?
Yes jesus is, but a very different jesus than the jesus of bible. Watch debates on Op Muhammad got info from local jews/christians, but only by word. That is why he also contains material from books like the infancy gospel of thomas in the koran.Bible says jesus first miracle was water into wine, koran says from childhood, many other exsaplmes but that is just one. T
forgery in koran
Jesus made a bird from clay and preached from the cradle 5 109-111
Jesus preaching from cradle 3.46
Jesus speaking as baby 19.30-37 clay bird to life by Jesus 3.49-52
These come from the infancy gospel of Thomas, that noone non-muslim sees as authoritative, but a forgery written in local Arabia hundered of years after jesus and thomas died. ps jesus still living.
the satanic verses
pretty funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v20VvP19kCI
here is debate on it
Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Authentic?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008...d-satanic.html
And the 4 gospels, written many lifetimes after the death of Jesus, handpicked by the church leaders into the canon, and translated, are 100% historically accurate? :laugh4:
My question was not how Muslims and Christians perceive and portray Jesus. They both accept that he existed, but Muslims do not believe him to be a son of god, merely a prophet so of course there will be differences. However, the fact that they consider him a prophet and not some random heretic point to the Christian god and Muslim God being one and the same. We can get into the angels if you want.
Kadagar_AV
11-07-2012, 00:05
It's kind of endearing how he goes on nilly willy... By now he even gave up arguing against someone, he goes straight to sprouting propaganda.
I am curious how he plans on explaining Abraham. :yes:
total relism
11-07-2012, 01:12
And the 4 gospels, written many lifetimes after the death of Jesus, handpicked by the church leaders into the canon, and translated, are 100% historically accurate? :laugh4:
My question was not how Muslims and Christians perceive and portray Jesus. They both accept that he existed, but Muslims do not believe him to be a son of god, merely a prophet so of course there will be differences. However, the fact that they consider him a prophet and not some random heretic point to the Christian god and Muslim God being one and the same. We can get into the angels if you want.
evidence to the contrary? have you ever seen any debates on translation of bible? my guess not so much, nt was written last book by 95 ad latest by apostle john before his death. Church choosing cannon? not so much either, accurate yes over 99% only 1,000 words in question, none effect doctrine. Please watch here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI
As you are clearly Muslim [its about time you guys started to show up, atheist get predictable] How do you reconcile differences,contradictions in koran.bible when Muhammad said bible is 100% accurate in 600 AD. We have complete bibles from 400 ad on.
The koran itself says man cannot change the words of allah, the koran says the torah and gospel cannot be corrupted by man, yet you claim the gospel has been corrupted you contradict your own koran by claiming the bible is corrupted, read your own koran 6.115 and 18.27.
allah promised jesus his followers will have power over those that try to corrupt his words. 40 70-72
61.14 says O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, "Who are my supporters for Allah ?" The disciples said, "We are supporters of Allah ." And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.
you cannot believe in some parts of scripture but not others 2.84-85 173-175 or you will go to hell
believers are to believe in all scripture 42.15
have faith in previous scripture formerly reveled 4.135-137
10.94 koran says to ask people who have read scripture before you
jews at the time of Muhammad are said to have gods own word in the torah 5 42-44
jews Christians were reading true scripture at time of Muhammad 2.113-114
allah and those who have been given the book, have one and the same god ,Muslims believe in what was reveled to jews and Christians before Muhammad 29.46-49
Muslims must be inconsistent believing gospels are not accurate and same times accepting information from gospel of Thomas and others written far later.
many more passages could be sited, but if you claim the bible has been corrupted, than you go against Allahs eternal word and Prophet Muhammad.
bud-ism or Hindu say jesus was prophet as well,does that mean they are the same? what about Mormon/Jehovah witness,they do as well. We all worship the same god, he is just very diffident in every other way lol.
a completely inoffensive name
11-07-2012, 01:15
TR stay on the original topic.
Do you eat pizza?
As you are clearly Muslim [its about time you guys started to show up, atheist get predictable] How do you reconcile differences,contradictions in koran.bible when Muhammad said bible is 100% accurate in 600 AD. We have complete bibles from 400 ad on.
Well, that's the first time I've been "accused" of being a Muslim. :laugh4:
Before this goes any farther, I'll ask you this question: Do you believe the Christian god is the same as the Hebrew god?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-07-2012, 02:10
OK - well I almost feel like I should jump in and bale TR out - but I've been over this so many time now.
The argument you are having is one of definitions. The lot of you are going round in circles for lack of a common definition of "moral".
Traditionally, in religious and pre-Socratic thought "morals" were arbitrarily determined by a God of Justice or Law - after the coming of the Sophists moral philosophy developed a potentially utilitarian dimension - the essence of which is the Protagorean statement that "whatever morals best serve a society are the right ones."
As far as Lars thoughts of religion go - they're hogwash.
A single God has a single will, it does not matter how many times his followers splinter and argue, some will always be closer to Him than others. Personally, I think Islam is not credible primarily because it reads like a tinfoil hat conspiracy of a religion - the Jews were lied to, the Christians were lied to, but now Islam is here and it's the truth.
Yeah...
At least Christianity's relationship to Judaism makes something approaching sense - Christians being Jewish heretics.
Having read the Quran I can say I was unimpressed by the plagiaristic dictation of a mediocre and illiterate business man and member of a semi-powerful Arabic clan. Wilfully taking and rewording the Torah and New Testaments after allegedly meeting with god 20 times and satan 4 times into a "new" book with which to leverage his own earthly aims is not something to follow or be impressed by. Like any fiction, it should be taken as the metaphor of the times it was constructed in. And certainly not followed as true, "holy" or any other such way.
But, no doubt the availability cascade of your society and your support mechanisms will ensure whatever discourse against your chosen believe will suffer from the backfire effect.
Papewaio
11-07-2012, 09:05
He just worded it wrong. Of course the atheistic society use morals. What he should have written was: The atheistic world view can't account for what they are doing.
:sneaky:
Accounting well how about economics and a Nobel prize no less. Game Theory is just one of the many bits of the puzzle that mathematically account for the emergent system of morality.
=][=
As for the three Abrahamic religions only one of these who share the same creator could have the Hawaiian.
total relism
11-07-2012, 22:49
TR stay on the original topic.
Do you eat pizza?
Of course I eat pizza,who does not, only those crazies would not eat such a magical meal.
Well, that's the first time I've been "accused" of being a Muslim. :laugh4:
Before this goes any farther, I'll ask you this question: Do you believe the Christian god is the same as the Hebrew god?
Yes.
Yes.
Then I've got news for you, the christian god is the same as the muslim god. All the good fluff from jewish scripture was repackaged into the koran, Adam, Noah, etc. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C (where A = God, B = Jehovah, and C = Allah).
From a strictly philosophical standpoint, they have to be the same. Each of the three religions specify that there is only one deity. Each chooses to apply highlight specific aspects to this deity, but none of them are necessarily correct in their interpretation. If monotheistic individual A worships a god one way, and monotheistic individual B worships a god another, they are praying to the same thing. They just might not be doing it correctly.
Having read the Quran I can say I was unimpressed by the plagiaristic dictation of a mediocre and illiterate business man and member of a semi-powerful Arabic clan. Wilfully taking and rewording the Torah and New Testaments after allegedly meeting with god 20 times and satan 4 times into a "new" book with which to leverage his own earthly aims is not something to follow or be impressed by. Like any fiction, it should be taken as the metaphor of the times it was constructed in. And certainly not followed as true, "holy" or any other such way.
Correct. There are just two things:
Firstly, the notion of Muhammad as being illiterate is based on pretty flimsy evidence: the Qur‘ân notes: "alladhina yattabi‘una al-rasul al-nabî al-ummî alladhi (etc)" (7:158), its meaning was taken to be "those who follow the messenger, the mother-like prophet", and assumed on the false premise that women were generally illiterate, that Muhammad was illiterate as well. An Arabic term most people are familiar with is "umma", meaning "nation" (much like how Hebrew goy used to mean the same thing). So why not read "the nation's prophet" or "the pure prophet" (which is actually the translation one of the Qur‘âns I own uses)? I don't know, that's tradition for you.
Interestingly, my other Dutch Qur‘ân reads "unschooled" (which is still different from "illiterate"). My French translation does read "illetré". Interesting.
Secondly, the notion of Muhammad wilfully plagiarising the New and Old Testament. Okay, that's a way of seeing that, but you have to look at the context of the Arabian peninsula at the time. It was definitely not a place isolated from the outside (Graeco-Roman and Persian and Indian, what-have-you) worlds, but was an interesting crossroads where all different kinds of beliefs pretty much came together and mixed and did other interesting stuff. So I don't actually believe the theory that Muhammad just went out to Syria, read (or heard) Christian and Jewish scripture, plagiarised and edited it slightly, and then inserted it in the Qur'an.
It is far more likely that in this region, where many different "heresies" and folk beliefs manifested themselves without there actually being an authority (like the Church in the Byzantine-controlled Levant and Egypt, or the Zoroastrian clergy in Persia) and got mashed together into all kinds of mythologies. It does not mean that Muhammad was the first to steal/borrow/loan Christian, Zoroastrian, Jewish and Arabic folk beliefs, it just means that these kinds of beliefs pretty much existed side-by-side and influenced eachother.
HoreTore
11-08-2012, 00:24
That's a big misconception you're pointing out there, Hax.
Arabia was populated by mostly Nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes pre-Islam. When we read "nomad", we tend to think "primitive" or similar terms.
In the context of how Islam was born, this is a far from proper. Nomads are mobile traders. They both moved around a lot, they interacted with everyone they came across, and they exchanged both money, wares and ideas(a good conversation is a must for a good deal). As such, I find it highly likely that they not only knew about, but had in-depth knowledge of neighboring traditions, customs, laws and religions.
And that's before you add the fact that Arabia was a trade hub, of course.
Very good!
We have huge amounts of inscriptions made by pre-Islamic nomads in the Arabian peninsula. The notion that we're dealing with illiterate barbarian nomads is something that needs to be discarded. Basically, almost all nomads knew how to write in one script or another. It's crazy.
Interestingly, my other Dutch Qur‘ân reads "unschooled" (which is still different from "illiterate"). My French translation does read "illetré". Interesting.
Yes.. the injected notion of a divine intervention that must have taken place because the receiver was unschooled and thus had not the faculties to forge such a manuscript. There is a few of those around. :sneaky:
Well, that's exactly why they interpreted it like that: "He's illiterate! How could he have come up with that amazing work we call the Qur‘an?!"
So yeah.
Kadagar_AV
11-08-2012, 01:36
Would it be Total Realism, to aim for divine status?
That's a big misconception you're pointing out there, Hax.
Arabia was populated by mostly Nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes pre-Islam. When we read "nomad", we tend to think "primitive" or similar terms.
In the context of how Islam was born, this is a far from proper. Nomads are mobile traders. They both moved around a lot, they interacted with everyone they came across, and they exchanged both money, wares and ideas(a good conversation is a must for a good deal). As such, I find it highly likely that they not only knew about, but had in-depth knowledge of neighboring traditions, customs, laws and religions.
And that's before you add the fact that Arabia was a trade hub, of course.
Mohammed was no nomad though, he was a city merchant. Which makes it pretty unlikely he was illiterate of course. Hax is probably right that he just wasn't educated in the way educated meant; highly educated.
total relism
11-08-2012, 17:04
Then I've got news for you, the christian god is the same as the muslim god. All the good fluff from jewish scripture was repackaged into the koran, Adam, Noah, etc. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C (where A = God, B = Jehovah, and C = Allah).
From a strictly philosophical standpoint, they have to be the same. Each of the three religions specify that there is only one deity. Each chooses to apply highlight specific aspects to this deity, but none of them are necessarily correct in their interpretation. If monotheistic individual A worships a god one way, and monotheistic individual B worships a god another, they are praying to the same thing. They just might not be doing it correctly.
I disagree fully with you, as does the bible,the koran, and any jewish text. They all claim absolute truth, they all contradict each other. Just because someone believes in one god, does not mean they believe in the same god. Jahovahs witness also believe in one god. Nt jesus says he is last profit none to come after, either the nt is gods word inspired and koran false, or it is wrong in witch case as I pointed out they are both false. Your koran does not speak well of christian and jews either.
believers do not be friends with jews or Christians 5.51 5.57 believers do not be friends with jews or Christians 5.51 5.57 it is evil to be friends with unbelievers 5 80-82
jews Christians are perverse 9.29-30
Qur’an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
those who do mischief cut there hands and feet from opposite sides and crucify them 5.33 Muhammad himself did so to jews vol 8 book 82 hadith 795
Sahih Muslim 4366—It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
But here is a post I did on clear differences between the bible/koran
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
I haven't read this thread through, but I do have few questions for the OP.
You're trying to prove that Islam is a false religion based on what the Quran has to say. Say I agree with you (because I'm neither Christian nor Jew nor Muslim....in fact I'm not religious at all). But then I also believe that like the Quran while the Bible makes a good read, it is more or less fiction too. As are many of the religious stories told about other religions.
Can you prove otherwise? Can you prove that any religion is true?
total relism
11-08-2012, 18:51
I haven't read this thread through, but I do have few questions for the OP.
You're trying to prove that Islam is a false religion based on what the Quran has to say. Say I agree with you (because I'm neither Christian nor Jew nor Muslim....in fact I'm not religious at all). But then I also believe that like the Quran while the Bible makes a good read, it is more or less fiction too. As are many of the religious stories told about other religions.
Can you prove otherwise? Can you prove that any religion is true?
Great question, I believe it can be shown to be true, but at same time cannot prove it to be true. Just as anything that is past event, we cant prove abraham Lincoln was a real person. We can show all evidence indicates this, body with his name on tombstone, photos,people claim its him etc etc. So it would be constant with belief he is true. I believe the same can be shown with bible. I will eventually do a thread on this very subject.
I disagree fully with you, as does the bible,the koran, and any jewish text. They all claim absolute truth, they all contradict each other. Just because someone believes in one god, does not mean they believe in the same god. Jahovahs witness also believe in one god. Nt jesus says he is last profit none to come after, either the nt is gods word inspired and koran false, or it is wrong in witch case as I pointed out they are both false.
And yet you just repeated my argument back to me. Of course each claims absolute truth, they are religions after all. How they depict their deity and how they choose to worship their deity will be different. You said you believe the hebrew god is the same as the christian god, why do you choose to ignore those contradictions but not regarding the muslim god?
Your koran does not speak well of christian and jews either.
1. It's not my koran.
2. Muslims consider jews and christians "people of the book". You may not believe all three worship the same god, but muslims do. Look up the term "Abrahamic religions".
3. And since their book is a later edition, they get to badmouth the others in print.
2. Muslims consider jews and christians "people of the book".
True, but they're still supposed to hate both jews and christians. They can't treat jews and christians like cattle as would be the case with the pagans, but still.
You may not believe all three worship the same god, but muslims do.
That largely depends on whom you believe to have revealed koran to mohammed. If it was Gabriel, then yes. What if it was Lucifer though?
3. And since their book is a later edition, they get to badmouth the others in print.
And they do so in abundance.
True, but they're still supposed to hate both jews and christians. They can't treat jews and christians like cattle as would be the case with the pagans, but still.
...
And they do so in abundance.
Think of it as a dog humping another to assert dominance. About as apt a description of proselytizing religions as any, I guess.
Muslims may not like jews or christians, but this does not have any bearing on whether islam is the one true faith or not. It just means they are kinda dicks about it.
Great question, I believe it can be shown to be true, but at same time cannot prove it to be true. Just as anything that is past event, we cant prove abraham Lincoln was a real person. We can show all evidence indicates this, body with his name on tombstone, photos,people claim its him etc etc. So it would be constant with belief he is true. I believe the same can be shown with bible. I will eventually do a thread on this very subject.
I look forward to that thread.
I do however believe that statements/stories from religious texts, (no matter which is the religion in question) can also be used to show that what's written is anything more than a fairy tale. That would require some faith in modern science though.
Muslims may not like jews or christians, but this does not have any bearing on whether islam is the one true faith or not. It just means they are kinda dicks about it.
I would take it a step further and say that they're required to be dicks about it.
Strike For The South
11-08-2012, 21:12
, we cant prove abraham Lincoln was a real person.
This is the problem with mass literacy
Papewaio
11-08-2012, 21:58
I disagree fully with you, as does the bible,the koran, and any jewish text. They all claim absolute truth, they all contradict each other. Just because someone believes in one god, does not mean they believe in the same god. Jahovahs witness also believe in one god. Nt jesus says he is last profit none to come after, either the nt is gods word inspired and koran false, or it is wrong in witch case as I pointed out they are both false. Your koran does not speak well of christian and jews either.
Lets apply your standards, and to be internally consistent we should start with the book set most of us are more familiar wih. First standard for something to be true is to be non-contradictory.
Apart from contradictions between versions and editions within versions, the bible contradicts itself within books in an edition. The contradictions start with the very first two Gensis books. These have enough contradictions to be by your standards false.
Not only do the foundation pillars falsify themselves by not stating the same facts of a situation one only needs to read the gospels to see different versions of the same story. Again by your standards as they are not in one to one agreement this makes them false.
So by your rules that contradictions means they are false you've just proved that the bible is a false set of books.
Your rules, not mine.
total relism
11-09-2012, 17:55
And yet you just repeated my argument back to me. Of course each claims absolute truth, they are religions after all. How they depict their deity and how they choose to worship their deity will be different. You said you believe the hebrew god is the same as the christian god, why do you choose to ignore those contradictions but not regarding the muslim god?
1. It's not my koran.
2. Muslims consider jews and christians "people of the book". You may not believe all three worship the same god, but muslims do. Look up the term "Abrahamic religions".
3. And since their book is a later edition, they get to badmouth the others in print.
What contradictions between OT and NT? please let me now. But as I said the god of Islam and the bible are very diffident. The bible and jesus say right off anyone that comes after me is false, I am the last to be sent. the koran as well, if you are Muslim reads your own koran. Allah feels very diffident than you on christian and jews.
[9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.
[9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
Blasphemies
[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.
Upholding the Teachings of Religious Leaders Instead of God's Teachings
[9:31] They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords,* instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners
Footnote
[9:32] They want to put out GOD's light with their mouths, but GOD insists upon perfecting His light, in spite of the disbelievers.
"Submission" Destined to Prevail*
[9:33] He is the One who sent His messenger* with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers
So I have pointed out to you on two post, were allah disagrees with you on what christian/jews worship. You have what is called modern liberal politically correct view of religions, not based on any truth.
I look forward to that thread.
I do however believe that statements/stories from religious texts, (no matter which is the religion in question) can also be used to show that what's written is anything more than a fairy tale. That would require some faith in modern science though.
I look forward to hearing your objections when I do the post. I do hope you come to it with open mind and not outright dismiss something because it may be from god. that would not make scence true.
This is the problem with mass literacy
You cannot prove it, prove it to me show me it. Impossible, you can show me pictures,things people wrote,a body in a grave etc but you cant prove to me he is real. It could be a hoax etc. but all evidence is constant with the belief he was real so no reason to reject it.
Lets apply your standards, and to be internally consistent we should start with the book set most of us are more familiar wih. First standard for something to be true is to be non-contradictory.
Apart from contradictions between versions and editions within versions, the bible contradicts itself within books in an edition. The contradictions start with the very first two Gensis books. These have enough contradictions to be by your standards false.
Not only do the foundation pillars falsify themselves by not stating the same facts of a situation one only needs to read the gospels to see different versions of the same story. Again by your standards as they are not in one to one agreement this makes them false.
So by your rules that contradictions means they are false you've just proved that the bible is a false set of books.
Your rules, not mine.
Well you just made alot of claims about contradictions, that you claim genesis 1 and 2 contradict gives me good reason to assume you never read the bible. lets say you give your top 3 contradictions in bible. I will give my top 3 for koran. Does that sound good?
But allah agrees with me, as does bible and jesus, they cant both be true.
[9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.
[9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
Blasphemies
[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.
Upholding the Teachings of Religious Leaders Instead of God's Teachings
[9:31] They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords,* instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners
Footnote
[9:32] They want to put out GOD's light with their mouths, but GOD insists upon perfecting His light, in spite of the disbelievers.
"Submission" Destined to Prevail*
[9:33] He is the One who sent His messenger* with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers
also please try and explain these differences.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
I do hope you come to it with open mind and not outright dismiss something because it may be from god.
What.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-10-2012, 03:04
Then I've got news for you, the christian god is the same as the muslim god. All the good fluff from jewish scripture was repackaged into the koran, Adam, Noah, etc. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C (where A = God, B = Jehovah, and C = Allah).
From a strictly philosophical standpoint, they have to be the same. Each of the three religions specify that there is only one deity. Each chooses to apply highlight specific aspects to this deity, but none of them are necessarily correct in their interpretation. If monotheistic individual A worships a god one way, and monotheistic individual B worships a god another, they are praying to the same thing. They just might not be doing it correctly.
No, not really, but TR is wrong too.
In order for you to be right you'd need to demonstrate that all three religions are equally correct/wrong.
“What contradictions between OT and NT? please let me now”
It is so simple. It took me around 5 seconds on internet:
Contradiction OT/NT (and within):
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Elijah went up to heaven. 2 Ki.2:11.
A man, known to Paul, went up to heaven. 2 Cor.12:2-4.
Enoch went "to heaven". Gen.5:24; Heb.11:5.
Only "Jesus" ever went up to heaven. Jn.3:13.
It was impossible for God and Judah together to defeat the enemy. Jud.1:19.
Nothing is impossible for God. Lk.1:37.
Sacrifices were to take away sin. Num.15:24-28.
"Jesus" sacrifice took away sins. Heb.10:12; Heb.9:26-28.
Sacrifices never take away sin. Heb.10:11
Two dead persons were raised by Jesus. Mt.9:18-25; Jn.11:38-44.
Dead children were raised before the time of Jesus. 1 Ki. 17:17-23; 2 Ki.4:32-37.
Jesus was the first to be raised from the dead. Acts 26:23.
My dear friend TR (AKA Total Realism), you should read more before asking things.
total relism
11-11-2012, 12:13
“What contradictions between OT and NT? please let me now”
It is so simple. It took me around 5 seconds on internet:
Contradiction OT/NT (and within):
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Elijah went up to heaven. 2 Ki.2:11.
A man, known to Paul, went up to heaven. 2 Cor.12:2-4.
Enoch went "to heaven". Gen.5:24; Heb.11:5.
Only "Jesus" ever went up to heaven. Jn.3:13.
It was impossible for God and Judah together to defeat the enemy. Jud.1:19.
Nothing is impossible for God. Lk.1:37.
Sacrifices were to take away sin. Num.15:24-28.
"Jesus" sacrifice took away sins. Heb.10:12; Heb.9:26-28.
Sacrifices never take away sin. Heb.10:11
Two dead persons were raised by Jesus. Mt.9:18-25; Jn.11:38-44.
Dead children were raised before the time of Jesus. 1 Ki. 17:17-23; 2 Ki.4:32-37.
Jesus was the first to be raised from the dead. Acts 26:23.
My dear friend TR (AKA Total Realism), you should read more before asking things.
First I have to point out, if you are Muslim, than claiming the OT and NT are false is same as claiming koran is false. If you do not believe in all of scripture than you go to hell, both koran and bible. Muhammad said bible was word of god in 600 ad, so it had to be correct as it is today. Also the koran is clear that allahs word cannot be corrupted by man, that included ot and gospel. You have to have faith and trust in previous scripture.
You have to understand, you could find hundreds on "contradictions" on atheist websites etc. That does not mean any could stand, I have answered hundreds on my own before. I could do so with koran as well
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/by_name.html
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
First one. Not a contradiction between OT and NT, or ot.
proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7
This passages lets you now, that god is all loving ps 145.9 yet because he loves he judges jer 13.14. A all loving god must also hate sin, he must also punish sin, because he does love. This does not mean he does not love the sinner.
7#If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8#and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9#And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10#and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 18 7-10
"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11)
also this same claim could be pointed out of koran, yet I never saw this as a contradiction.
allah loves 2.222
allah does not love the unbelievers 3.30-35 god does not love the evil doers 3.56-57
Muslims were created to help Muhammad in war 9.40
unbelievers are enemies 4.101 etc etc
2 That is very good one I had never herd before, thank you. but no contradiction
first you must read proverbs 30.4. Than john 33.5-18. You will see the context in witch it is used clearly. No one can understand haven but those that come from haven, down to earth to exspalin haven. That happened once only jesus. Than read proverbs 30.4
3 That is just terrible and I am now depressed, its 100% true that you have never read bible to make a claim like this as a contradiction. No wonder you believe the koran/bible both worship same god, you never read bible.
Judges God could beat any army if he chose to do so, judges 4.13-15 [and rest of bible] had isreal obeyed god they would have won any battles as he would have fought for them to victory 2.1-3 18-22. This is a repeating cycle in the promise land, clearly seen by anyone who has read the bible.
4 sin
Ot sacrifices were a covering for sin, they could "sanctify" and "pruify" heb 9.13,23 But could never remove sin and guilt. Otherwise as paul points out in hebrews,they would not need to be repeated over and over. That is why in john 1.29 john the baptist says
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
john 1.29
Jesus took away the sins of the world, he did not cover the sins, to be scarficed over and over. Read hebrews for more on this, great book.
5 you must read Colossians 1
Colossians 1:18 states, “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Corinthians 15:20-22
Jesus Christ was not the first person ever raised from the dead, but the first to rise and not die again. in bodily form as well. He is our first-fruits [Jewish festival] fulfillment of ot.
Romans 6:9 says, “knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.”
Revelation 1:18 records Jesus' words to the Apostle John. “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.”
also firstborn can also refer to rank read psalm 89.27 ex 4,22, clearly not first in a series.
5 for you. between koran/bible, as that is the topic.
1 allah does not want all to be saved
llah does not will all to be saved 32.12-32 god wishes to scourge unbelievers for his sins 5.48-50 god could have led all man to him, but he leads them astray because of there bad deeds 13.31 allah punishes unbelievers,so there souls shall depart in unbelief 9.55 … Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills ... (Q.14:4; 16:93). god wishes to scourge sinners 5.49
Allah does not care if people go to haven or hell “these to eternal fire, and I care not”and these to paradise I care not”kisasul-anbiya 21.9150 abu-dawood 2203 al timidhi 38 mishkat al misablih 3.112-13
god of bible does
"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).
"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).
"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).
2 allah allows unbelievers to live longer only so they sin more, and receive a greater punishment 3.178
god of bible responding to a question from a church on why Jesus had not returned and what he was waiting for-
the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 peter 3.9
so god allows unbelievers to live,in hopes they will come to believe in him.
3 allah can lie
Allah – The Greatest Deceiver of them All
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm
god is deceitful 8.41-45 allah is a schemer like man 86.17
god of the bible cannot lie Titus 1:2 Hebrews 6:18
4]allah ordained death 40.67-73 god is the author of death,death was a original part of creation.
god of bible
Death is the last enemy to be destroyed
Corinthians 15.26
5 allah said god will love you, if you love him first 3.30-35 and believers need to help god for him to help them 47.5-11
Jesus said of those who love only those who love them -if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? Matt 5.46
My dear friend, try reading bible before you make claims it has contradictions, and before claiming the koran and bible worship the same god.
total relism
11-11-2012, 12:15
Since we are on the topic of some claiming bible/islam worship the same god.
names of some of the prophets such as Jonah,Elijah,and Issac,appear in Arabic of the Koran as translated from greek rather than Semitic[witch would be espected if those were divinely reveled]
Christianity can explain the origin of Islam,but Islam cannot explain Christianity
The bible says that there will be false prophets who will mislead many after the bible. So we would aspect a religion like Islam. But if Islam is true than Allah created the world biggest religion Christianity, by deceiving people and accidentally creating the worlds largest belief system counter to his own.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm
Koran makes almost no references to ot while nt does hundreds of times
Muhammad said he could be found in the bible and that the bible told of his coming,yet he is not in there at all
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/08/shabir-ally-vs-james-white-muhammad-in.html
"You have to understand, you could find hundreds on "contradictions" on atheist websites etc." You have to understand that there is no an atheist "doctrine" or Religion. By definition, you can't have a difference or contradiction in a non belief. There is no "holly" text in atheism. You might a different opinion on why you don't believe, but no body tell you what are the good reasons for not believing.
As soon you will understand this, your life will become more complex.
And the topic was: Contradiction OT/NT. Not if Muslim pray the same god or not.
For this, there is various interpretation, but the Muslim faith recognises the Religions from the Book (AKA the Bible) but kill all other tenants of others faiths, especially polytheist ones.
Not necessarily. The Sabaeans (i.e. probably moon-worshippers of some kind or another) were also named. The concept of ahl al-kitâb was extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists.
Just because something is written in a holy book, doesn't mean that the believers can't think for themselves. We tend to forget taht.
Not necessarily. The Sabaeans (i.e. probably moon-worshippers of some kind or another) were also named. The concept of ahl al-kitâb was extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists.
Nice to know. Do you happen to have some kind of source about which kind of religions were "protected" and which ones hunted?
To Hax: I didn't know. But the Bogomiles in Bosnia were persecuted. I was describing the most extreme interpretation of the Koran, or the one used by the Muslim Empire(s) do justify the conquest.
The Lurker Below
11-11-2012, 19:15
Would an athiest bookstore keep a copy of the bible on their fantasy shelves?
Would an athiest bookstore keep a copy of the bible on their fantasy shelves?
A secular book store keeps the bible under the "Religions" section.
total relism
11-11-2012, 22:59
"You have to understand, you could find hundreds on "contradictions" on atheist websites etc." You have to understand that there is no an atheist "doctrine" or Religion. By definition, you can't have a difference or contradiction in a non belief. There is no "holly" text in atheism. You might a different opinion on why you don't believe, but no body tell you what are the good reasons for not believing.
As soon you will understand this, your life will become more complex.
And the topic was: Contradiction OT/NT. Not if Muslim pray the same god or not.
For this, there is various interpretation, but the Muslim faith recognises the Religions from the Book (AKA the Bible) but kill all other tenants of others faiths, especially polytheist ones.
sorry thought you were Papewaio
Nice to know. Do you happen to have some kind of source about which kind of religions were "protected" and which ones hunted?
There wasn't a standard or anything, things like these fluctuated. For example, the Jewish minority in Andalusia were treated differently in the 11th century (the Massacre of Granada comes to mind) than their counterparts in the 15th century Ottoman Empire.
I have to catch a train now and I can't give you a source on the top of my head.
http://images.wikia.com/sonic/images/b/be/I'll_Be_Back.jpg
EDIT: From the Encyclopedia of the Qur‘an:
The use of this term was later extended to the Sabeans ( al-Ṣābiʾa [q.v.])—both the genuine Sabeans, mentioned in the Ḳurʾān alongside the Jews and the Christians (= Mandeans), and the spurious Sabeans (star-worshippers of Ḥarrān)—to the Zoroastrians (Mad̲j̲iūs [q.v.]), and, in India, even to idolaters.
On benzin archives (http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/unpublished_manuscripts/historical_interaction/pt3/history_cultures_18.html) there is an interesting bit about contacts between Islam and Buddhism (an interesting subject which needs more research).
total relism
11-11-2012, 23:55
Not saying I believe/agree with it, but worth watching.
In "Islam: The Untold Story," historian Tom Holland presents what we might call the "Skeptical Thesis." He rejects almost all of the standard Islamic account of Muhammad's life, concluding that stories about Islam's prophet were manufactured for a purpose other than accurate history.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012...ing+Muslims%29
Been there, done that. I read his recent book; "In the Shadow of the Sword".
He's stating nothing new. The interpretation of early Islamic history that he proposes has already been put forward by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. He's a good storyteller, but his historical work is nothing spectacular. My professor of Islamic history actually gave an interview about that book (http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/prophet-came-jordan).
HoreTore
11-12-2012, 00:32
Not saying I believe/agree with it, but worth watching.
In "Islam: The Untold Story," historian Tom Holland presents what we might call the "Skeptical Thesis." He rejects almost all of the standard Islamic account of Muhammad's life, concluding that stories about Islam's prophet were manufactured for a purpose other than accurate history.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012...ing+Muslims%29
If you want a debate, how about writing down your own thoughts instead of copypasting what others have written?
total relism
11-12-2012, 00:39
I was giving the description of the video, notice in bold what I did say.
Not saying I believe/agree with it, but worth watching.
In "Islam: The Untold Story," historian Tom Holland presents what we might call the "Skeptical Thesis." He rejects almost all of the standard Islamic account of Muhammad's life, concluding that stories about Islam's prophet were manufactured for a purpose other than accurate history.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012...ing+Muslims%29
HoreTore
11-12-2012, 00:48
I was giving the description of the video, notice in bold what I did say.
Not saying I believe/agree with it, but worth watching.
In "Islam: The Untold Story," historian Tom Holland presents what we might call the "Skeptical Thesis." He rejects almost all of the standard Islamic account of Muhammad's life, concluding that stories about Islam's prophet were manufactured for a purpose other than accurate history.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012...ing+Muslims%29
....and the point being that you said nothing at all....
Major Robert Dump
11-13-2012, 04:56
you misspelled Relism.
Mom??
Strike For The South
11-13-2012, 15:05
If you were half this critical of Christianity, you'd be a Jew
you misspelled Relism.
He meant Raëlism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism), the UFO religion founded in 1974. This whole thing about him being a Christian? Lies.
total relism
11-14-2012, 20:17
Muhammad
is he found in bible as claimed by Muslims? me thinks not.
"Muhammad in the Bible?" Shabir Ally vs. James White
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He87MiAWq90
who is Muhammad? was he a great man, great religious leader?
David Wood vs. Ali Ataie: "Who Was Muhammad?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/08/david-wood-vs-ali-ataie-who-was.html
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/09/osama-abdallah-vs-david-wood-was.html
Seymour vs. Wood:Was Muhammad a True Prophet?
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/seymour-vs-wood-was-muhammad-true.html
Omar Bakri & Shah Jalal Hussain vs. Sam Shamoun & David Wood: "Who Was Muhammad?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/06/omar-bakri-shah-jalal-hussain-vs-sam.html
He was born in mecca,arabia born 570 ad lived 62 years
at age 40 in 610 he received his first revelation, koran written over 22 years
arab christian and jews rejected Muhammad in mecca and drove him out in 622 ad, islam moved from mecca to medina 280 miles north in 622 AD. Year 0 for Muslims
Very early Muhammad was seeking acceptance from jews Christians and was very peaceful, he said things like be tolerant over other religions etc.Than he shifted after they would not accept him, and he moved to medina ,built first mosque in medina. He first perched on friday becoming islamic holy day .He received revaluations to drive out jews in medina,he led 66 battles in medina had 2,000 jews beheaded and there bodies burned in medina . 629 AD with 10,000 men he returned and conquered mecca and slaughtered thousands and forced conversions. following Muhammad death islam was spread by the sword in the “war of apostasy”witch lasted 100 years. Began first by caliph [leader] abu bakr, when many in Arabia wanted to leave Islam, after Muhammad death, killing tens of thousands,while caring out Muhammad orders of killing anyone who leaves Islam
many versus from in Koran that came from mecca sound peaceful tolerant,than when he gained power in median he starts to turn violent towards the end of his career
2.256 written in 614 ad 9.5 in 627 ad, chapter 9 is last chapter written and 2.108 does away with previous scripture so chapter 9 should be of most authority.
“I have been ordered to fight with the people until they say none has the right to be worshiped but allah” vol 4 book 52 hadith 196 Muhammad
he chopped off heads of jews and dug there graves first, 600-900 people also he ordered many assassinations of political opponents
in hadiths it said Muhammad tortured jews for information burned out there eyes
book of life of Muhammad p464
he wiped out 3 tribes of jews in arabia
Muhammad said on his death bed,whoever relinquishes his faith kill him
in hadiths Muhammad claimed god told him to fight people until they became Muslim.
those who do mischief cut there hands and feet from opposite sides and crucify them sura 5.33 Muhammad himself did so to jews vol 8 book 82 hadith 795
Muhammad ordered people to lie in order to kill other people
p307 the life of Muhammad
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:
Narrated Jabir:
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."
Muhammad had 12 wives the youngest was 6 years old vol 7 book 62 hadith 88
Sahih al-Bukhari 5134—Narrated Aishah that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: “I have been informed that Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).”
Sahih al-Bukhari 5158—Narrated Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Muhammad has fought within many large armies
believers cannot bother Muhammad with familiar talk or he will be annoyed anoyed
no speaking ill of Muhammad 33.53-54
Muhammad kept spoils from attacking a unarmed caravan to mecca from syria he led the battle in 624 AD 8.1
led battle in 630 ad vs meccans
Muhammad was called to rose believers to fight 8.62-66
Muhammad told believers to fight them till they convert paradise for anyone who dies in war vol 4 book 53 hadith 586
considered perfect man to try to replicate him
instead of starting a peaceful religion in medina when he was no longer oppressed, but instead waged war until his death many years later.
In the hadiths Muhammad said fighting is worth more than all the world
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it."
blessed a follower for driving a bow through someones eye and out the back
Al-Tabari, Volume 39, p. 185—Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi] – Kathir b. Zayd – al-Walid b. Rabah – Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said "God is the Greatest." He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet, "O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to harm) you." The Prophet laughed and said "Good."
Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess" [Qur’an 4:24]. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."
Al-Tabari, Volume 39, p. 194—The Prophet admired Umm Ibrahaim [Mary the Copt], who was fair-skinned and beautiful. He lodged her in al-Aliyah, at the property nowadays called the mashrabah of Umm Ibrahim. He used to visit her there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property.
comparing Muhammad and Jesus
Jesus Christ v. Muhammed
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/islam/Jesus-vs-Muhammed.pdf
Murdered by Muhammad:
The Brutal Deaths of Islam’s Earliest Enemies#
http://www.acts17.net/articles/murderedbymuhammad.htm
Muhammad is to make war with nonbelivers and deal sternly with them 66.9
the koran says Mohammad is to be blameless for all he does
jesus took on blame of all.
Muhammad alone has right to dowries slave-girls for boty,daughters of his maternal and paternal uncles and aunts and any believing woman 33.50 Muhammad can change and equire new slave girls 33.51-51
Jesus was given no special rights, and played the role of a servant [and slave] to mankind Philippians 2:5-8.
those that wrong Muhammad will be sternly punished -9.61
Jesus was wronged by us, and yet wishfully dies for us on the cross -Romans 5.8
Muhammad was brought a woman in adultery and stoned her to death vol 2 book 23 hadith 413
Jesus was brought a woman caught in adultery and forgave her. -John 7:53-8:11
Mohammad's body like all “religious” leaders is buried in the ground [Medina]
Were is jesus's body?
Muhammad killed many enemies and political rivals, led many battles, beheaded prisoners of war, ordered assassinations, tortured people,had 12 wives,one 9years old when he was 54, said things like he was sent by god to kill unbelievers [and much more] and commanded his followers to do the same.
Jesus lived a sinless life,even his enemies could not point to fault in him, his greatest commandment to his followers was to love god with all your heart and love your neighbors as yourself.
Muhammad said “I have been ordered to fight with the people until they say none has the right to be worshiped but allah” vol 4 book 52 hadith 196
Jesus said Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. And 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven
from the sermon on the mount
Good job, tr, a great response to all those posts mentioning Muhammad! Well-done!
total relism
11-17-2012, 23:40
Is posting about Muhammad off topic? people talk about pizza on thread your ok with that, but I talk about Muhammad and i should not?. I believe bringing in his history and things he did, has bearing on islam and if it is true.
a completely inoffensive name
11-17-2012, 23:56
My favorite pizza is with bacon bits sprinkled on top, but I also like the kind with ham and pineapple slices as long as the pineapple is fresh.
What kind of pizzas do you like Hax?
total relism
11-18-2012, 00:12
My favorite pizza is with bacon bits sprinkled on top, but I also like the kind with ham and pineapple slices as long as the pineapple is fresh.
What kind of pizzas do you like Hax?
you cant be muslim than because
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
2.173
lol, there we can talk about pizza and be on topic.
I shall follow the thread's title question with a few questions of my own:
What makes Christianity more true than Islam?
What makes Hellenic religion more true than Christianity?
What makes Zoroastriasnism more true than Hellenism?
What makes Norse mythology more true than Zoroastrianism?
What makes Hinduism more true than Norse mythology?
What makes Judaism more true than Hinduism?
What makes Celtic religion more true than Judaism?
What makes Joltaism (Whereby you worship me as a God and believe that I am all powerful) more true than Celtic religion?
What makes Islam more true than Joltaism?
Is it number of followers?
Is it the geographical spread of the religion?
Is it number of wrong predictions?
Is it the militancy/anger of its followers?
Is it the peacefulness of its followers?
Is it whoever has more coverage on newspapers/TV/Internet?
Is it who can shout louder?
Is it the degree of subjectivity in its sacred book which allows for various interpretations of the same phrase or the same word?
Is it the number of languages it is translated to, thereby losing its ultimate true meaning and idioms and significance, written in the original version?
Is it the lack of translated versions and therefore its authenticity?
Is it actually the lack of a sacred book?
Is it ultimately up to each person to decide what they make most sense and that becomes true in their own minds?
Is it ultimately up to me, Jolt, to decide what is actually the true religion, as you are all imaginary constructs and creations of my own brilliant mind?
I'd like the OP to answer to these questions of mine. Fortunately, I doubt they can be answered with a simple copy-paste.
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2012, 01:37
you cant be muslim than because
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
2.173
lol, there we can talk about pizza and be on topic.
My interpretation of swine is fat people. I still love and follow Allah and I still love my bacon.
You cannot characterize religions as being true or false. Religions are far away from truth or falsity. Truth and falsity are a property of judgments about experience. The possibility to have experience of what we state in our judgments is called evidence. Religion has no evidence, for its judgments are beyond experience. Science, on the other hand, studies the world we experience. Religion, on its side, states ideas about a supernatural invisible world, a world of pure faith. As we cannot verify nor have scientific evidence of this world, therefore all religions, i.e., Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are valid systems of faith and not scientific hypothesis or statements. To believe or not in a religion is part of our free will.
Peace to all.
total relism
11-18-2012, 11:49
I shall follow the thread's title question with a few questions of my own:
What makes Christianity more true than Islam?
What makes Hellenic religion more true than Christianity?
What makes Zoroastriasnism more true than Hellenism?
What makes Norse mythology more true than Zoroastrianism?
What makes Hinduism more true than Norse mythology?
What makes Judaism more true than Hinduism?
What makes Celtic religion more true than Judaism?
What makes Joltaism (Whereby you worship me as a God and believe that I am all powerful) more true than Celtic religion?
What makes Islam more true than Joltaism?
Is it number of followers?
Is it the geographical spread of the religion?
Is it number of wrong predictions?
Is it the militancy/anger of its followers?
Is it the peacefulness of its followers?
Is it whoever has more coverage on newspapers/TV/Internet?
Is it who can shout louder?
Is it the degree of subjectivity in its sacred book which allows for various interpretations of the same phrase or the same word?
Is it the number of languages it is translated to, thereby losing its ultimate true meaning and idioms and significance, written in the original version?
Is it the lack of translated versions and therefore its authenticity?
Is it actually the lack of a sacred book?
Is it ultimately up to each person to decide what they make most sense and that becomes true in their own minds?
Is it ultimately up to me, Jolt, to decide what is actually the true religion, as you are all imaginary constructs and creations of my own brilliant mind?
I'd like the OP to answer to these questions of mine. Fortunately, I doubt they can be answered with a simple copy-paste.
I shall ask in return,what makes 2 contradictory set of beliefs both true or false? I am christian, either the bible is 100% true, and gods word. Or it is false. Islam, either it is 100 true and gods word in the koran, or it is false. This applies to all those belief systems, atheism, Norse mythology,Hinduism,islam etc etc. This thread is on the question is Islam true. If you wish to debate me 1v1 on any religion vs christianity, I accept. The negative evidence against islam given in debates and post I have made,make me not think it is true.
As far as your questions go, I would say most none of them should be determining factors, but this
"Is it number of wrong predictions?" The bible says if even one is made,than you know it is false religion.
and this one
"Is it ultimately up to each person to decide what they make most sense and that becomes true in their own minds?"
if we are to trust in our own ability/mind, than yes it is up to us to decide. My thread is to hopefully help others decide on islam, give info many may not now.
You cannot characterize religions as being true or false. Religions are far away from truth or falsity. Truth and falsity are a property of judgments about experience. The possibility to have experience of what we state in our judgments is called evidence. Religion has no evidence, for its judgments are beyond experience. Science, on the other hand, studies the world we experience. Religion, on its side, states ideas about a supernatural invisible world, a world of pure faith. As we cannot verify nor have scientific evidence of this world, therefore all religions, i.e., Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are valid systems of faith and not scientific hypothesis or statements. To believe or not in a religion is part of our free will.
Peace to all.
This is a exstermely politically correct view, . I believe islam can be shown false very easily [read OP and my other posts]. It is also clear you have no idea or have not read bible/koran. Speaking of science,the koran makes many blunders regarding science. But it makes many other blunders as well. You seem to think only scientifically we can gain knowledge, could you scientifically show me that? I truly hope you do not think atheist dont have faith or believe in the unseen as they certainly do,as well as believing things contradictory to science. But yes science is a great tool to test hypothesis to see if they are valid. But overall,talking with you will get nowhere, as you have no clue of the belief systems you claim are all the same, and talk of a different world lol.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-18-2012, 13:47
You cannot characterize religions as being true or false. Religions are far away from truth or falsity. Truth and falsity are a property of judgments about experience. The possibility to have experience of what we state in our judgments is called evidence. Religion has no evidence, for its judgments are beyond experience. Science, on the other hand, studies the world we experience. Religion, on its side, states ideas about a supernatural invisible world, a world of pure faith. As we cannot verify nor have scientific evidence of this world, therefore all religions, i.e., Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are valid systems of faith and not scientific hypothesis or statements. To believe or not in a religion is part of our free will.
Peace to all.
Fundamentally wrong.
Religion is not "beyond experience" - it is beyond quantifiable measurement, which is completely different.
Further, "Truth" is a philosophical and not a scientific concept - nothing in Science is true, it is merely more or less likely to be an accurate aproximation of reality.
Fundamentally wrong.
Religion is not "beyond experience" - it is beyond quantifiable measurement, which is completely different.
Further, "Truth" is a philosophical and not a scientific concept - nothing in Science is true, it is merely more or less likely to be an accurate aproximation of reality.
Truth is not faith. Science doesn't pretend to be an absolute, it is well aware that it's an aproximation.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-18-2012, 21:07
Truth is not faith. Science doesn't pretend to be an absolute, it is well aware that it's an aproximation.
But the point is that Science does not deal with "Truth", "truth" is a useless concept for Science, and a potentially dangerous one.
As soon as a scientist makes a truth-claim he has stepped outside the Scientific method.
But the point is that Science does not deal with "Truth", "truth" is a useless concept for Science, and a potentially dangerous one.
As soon as a scientist makes a truth-claim he has stepped outside the Scientific method.
Of course, hard to disagree with that
I shall ask in return,what makes 2 contradictory set of beliefs both true or false?
If you're asking something in return, you are objectively, answering nothing. You're the one purporting to know that one religion is false and another true, so you are supposed to know that. I want specific answers on what makes one religion more true than all others.
As far as your questions go, I would say most none of them should be determining factors, but this
"Is it number of wrong predictions?" The bible says if even one is made,than you know it is false religion.
and this one
Bible has quite a few of them, unless you obviously start saying they are not literal, in which case, I guess the factor of how true a religion is, is how subjective its sacred book is.
"Is it ultimately up to each person to decide what they make most sense and that becomes true in their own minds?"
if we are to trust in our own ability/mind, than yes it is up to us to decide. My thread is to hopefully help others decide on islam, give info many may not now.
Then if it is up to each person to decide, it seems quite absurd and hilarious for one religious person to claim other religions are false and on his God is the real deal.
“I truly hope you do not think atheist dont have faith or believe in the unseen as they certainly do, as well as believing things contradictory to science.” Do you really believe that to repeat lies make them true? Atheism is not based on science. Atheism is not a belief system. I am atheist but I have my own certitudes in some values. They are intellectual values, as resistance to oppression, help in danger and hardship, saving lives, respecting ecological balance etc… Science asks a phenomenon to be repeated and to give always the same result (you drop an object, it falls, always, depending set physical conditions).
Protect the World where rationality based on science would lead. It is not rational to risk a 20 years old life to save a 3 years old baby. But we do.
“I am christian, either the bible is 100% true, and gods word” Gods? So you are not a Christian as the 3 Gods are allegedly one. So the Bible is wrong as there are too many discrepancies and contradictions in all these stories… So it is not God words, so there is no God. You finally get it.
total relism
11-19-2012, 18:45
If you're asking something in return, you are objectively, answering nothing. You're the one purporting to know that one religion is false and another true, so you are supposed to know that. I want specific answers on what makes one religion more true than all others.
Bible has quite a few of them, unless you obviously start saying they are not literal, in which case, I guess the factor of how true a religion is, is how subjective its sacred book is.
Then if it is up to each person to decide, it seems quite absurd and hilarious for one religious person to claim other religions are false and on his God is the real deal.
I said one religion is false on this thread Islam, I was simply stating they cannot be all true. Why my belief I feel is correct over islam will be for another thread. I believe islam is false for the many reasons i have posted, plus on the debates on OP.
Please show me one, no two, your two very best please.
how so? it is up to us to decide if something is true or not. I fail to see why that is hard to understand, I have decided atheism is false as well. I was just saying this thread should be for info to help people decide about islam.
“I truly hope you do not think atheist dont have faith or believe in the unseen as they certainly do, as well as believing things contradictory to science.” Do you really believe that to repeat lies make them true? Atheism is not based on science. Atheism is not a belief system. I am atheist but I have my own certitudes in some values. They are intellectual values, as resistance to oppression, help in danger and hardship, saving lives, respecting ecological balance etc… Science asks a phenomenon to be repeated and to give always the same result (you drop an object, it falls, always, depending set physical conditions).
Protect the World where rationality based on science would lead. It is not rational to risk a 20 years old life to save a 3 years old baby. But we do.
“I am christian, either the bible is 100% true, and gods word” Gods? So you are not a Christian as the 3 Gods are allegedly one. So the Bible is wrong as there are too many discrepancies and contradictions in all these stories… So it is not God words, so there is no God. You finally get it.
First part, I have no idea what your saying, I was just saying to be atheist you must have faith,and must believe things contradictory to science [upcoming thread]
god's own word, not multiple gods. There is one god, if the bible is true as I said. It is either 100% true, or all false. are you not the one that already tried contradictions? that I responded to? You think you have any pick your very best one, I will respond.
Atheism is no faith, we don't believe god doesn't exist we just can't be bothered
First part, I have no idea what your saying, I was just saying to be atheist you must have faith,and must believe things contradictory to science [upcoming thread]
Finally, we're getting on the same page here.
“I have no idea what your saying” Indeed…
“that I responded to?” You never answer. You just copy and paste, mostly from your holly texts (and I am polite and restrain). You have no idea of what you speak about. You have no idea at all. Faith is not religious, faith in freedom, faith in happiness, faith in better days to come thanks to centuries of fight against obscurantism, which burned the witches and blow-up towers.
So, who is your real God:
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
You want more? There you go:
Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
More?
For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
The list of Biblical non sense and contradictions is endless, probably as rapes, slaughters and paranoia described in the book.
So, what is 100 % true: The God who is killing everybody (even his own flock, probably why they are compare to sheep), or the God who is love?
I said one religion is false on this thread Islam, I was simply stating they cannot be all true. Why my belief I feel is correct over islam will be for another thread. I believe islam is false for the many reasons i have posted, plus on the debates on OP.
And I'm asking what makes one religion more true than other religions.
Please show me one, no two, your two very best please.
The bible is a compilation of texts written by normal folks, usually the folks at the Council of Nicaea grabbed the texts they had that were supposedly written by the Apostles. So they discarded the ones they didn't like very much, or it didn't agree with their religious dogmas back then, and put in the ones that made sense for them, and meshed them all together in one big book or set of books. As is obvious, different people usually have different accounts and write different things and remember different details (Or most probably it wasn't even the Apostles themselves that wrote the Gospels but rather were made up or written by students or students of students, or someone completely unrelated who just forged their accounts to give legitimacy to their preaches) that make them contain a lot of contradictions over what happened when, what exactly Jesus, God, or someone else said or did. And so, since the bible is a book written by normal people, edited further by other normal people to adapt to whatever they wanted it to become canon, with gospels accepted, edited or rejected, and then different churches since the dawn of Christianity dispute over which gospels were more and less accurate, then it is simply the work of men. As with all manmade accounts and books, the contradictions and inaccuracies are in the bible. And since the bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be 100% true.
Brennus was kind enough to give some examples, but it really goes without saying.
how so? it is up to us to decide if something is true or not. I fail to see why that is hard to understand, I have decided atheism is false as well. I was just saying this thread should be for info to help people decide about islam.
You say how so, but then immediately afterwards, you answer yourself. You have people believing in an invisible and unprovable higher force, saying your invisible and unprovable higher force is more true than the others invisible and unprovable higher force(s). It's a comedic behaviour. Religion is something utterly personal and mostly irrational. Since it is so, trying to argue that other religions are fakes while yours is the true one is folly, as your religion, from a neutral perspective, is itself in exactly the same situation as the others you posit as fake.
Is posting about Muhammad off topic? people talk about pizza on thread your ok with that, but I talk about Muhammad and i should not?. I believe bringing in his history and things he did, has bearing on islam and if it is true.
Not really,
Some great teacher in Christianity mentioned: Remember... The fruits, not the roots. Should one even start to consider the origins of e.g. the Bible, or the obscurity of its founders - Christianity would have been thrown out as dross a long time ago.
You shouldn't mix their private life with their prophetic missions... you would have to do a "Tu quoque" without the ad hominem part.
total relism
11-20-2012, 12:50
“I have no idea what your saying” Indeed…
“that I responded to?” You never answer. You just copy and paste, mostly from your holly texts (and I am polite and restrain). You have no idea of what you speak about. You have no idea at all. Faith is not religious, faith in freedom, faith in happiness, faith in better days to come thanks to centuries of fight against obscurantism, which burned the witches and blow-up towers.
So, who is your real God:
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
You want more? There you go:
Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
More?
For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
The list of Biblical non sense and contradictions is endless, probably as rapes, slaughters and paranoia described in the book.
So, what is 100 % true: The God who is killing everybody (even his own flock, probably why they are compare to sheep), or the God who is love?
when you claim the bible has contradictions, and use the bible and verse to try and prove it, that is ok with you. But when I use the bible to show those claimed contradictions are not contradictions at all. It is no longer ok for me to use the bible? How would you like me to show your claims about the bible false, if not using the bible?. You claimed contradictions are clearly copy pasted off a website on post 143. You also clearly have not read the bible to make the claims you have. My response next post, is clearly not copy pasted, so I have no idea what your claim is here. You than can claim I have no idea what I speak of, when it is you with no understanding of bible,or you would not claim those are contradictions.
You than say faith is
" Faith is not religious, faith in freedom, faith in happiness, faith in better days to come thanks to centuries of fight against obscurantism, which burned the witches and blow-up towers.'
I disagree fully, so does the bible. As I said, you claim I dont now bible,but you have no knowledge of what it is. How did we get here anyways? this is thread on isalm.
These will be the last I respond to, you have chosen your top 8-9. You clearly have not read bible, nor do you reject bible because of these claimed contradictions. You are looking for a excuse.
first claim
Answered on post 144, but just to add to it.
The opposite of love is not anger,but hate. God is angry at things that destroy his creation and his love for us.
If God Weren't Angry...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/if-god-werent-angry-80980/
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).
But go read post 144 first
second
this is the easiest one I have encountered from you,no the Joshua one. actually read Galatians [its a good book] v 2 is to help out each other financially/spiritually etc fufiling the law of Christ to love your neighbor as yourself.V 5 is saying everyone will be accountable to god for there own actions. Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.
Third
seriously? you gota try reading the bible some time. Look at those passages, Muslims come up with much better one than atheist websites [were is shabir alley when you need him] matt verse, is saying there is no neutral position, either your with him or against him. Both mark/luke verse are saying they are with jesus. Me thinks you did not even read these before posting. You could have found much better ones.
So in your best 8 or so attempts here and post 143, have yet to show a contradiction. Or "non sense" as you claim. Yes rapes/murder etc are recorded in bible, because they happen. Man is sinner,bad things happen, bible tells truth not a bedtime story. So what is true, both, the god who loves and is love. Please read
proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7
But please stay on topic, you clearly have not read bible, your claims are false and this is thread on Islam.
total relism
11-20-2012, 12:55
Not really,
Some great teacher in Christianity mentioned: Remember... The fruits, not the roots. Should one even start to consider the origins of e.g. the Bible, or the obscurity of its founders - Christianity would have been thrown out as dross a long time ago.
You shouldn't mix their private life with their prophetic missions... you would have to do a "Tu quoque" without the ad hominem part.
So you think bible should be thrown out because? you think it was written by men with bad fruits? Not sure what your saying,
And I'm asking what makes one religion more true than other religions.
As sated that is for another thread, happens to be my fav topic.
The bible is a compilation of texts written by normal folks, usually the folks at the Council of Nicaea grabbed the texts they had that were supposedly written by the Apostles. So they discarded the ones they didn't like very much, or it didn't agree with their religious dogmas back then, and put in the ones that made sense for them, and meshed them all together in one big book or set of books. As is obvious, different people usually have different accounts and write different things and remember different details (Or most probably it wasn't even the Apostles themselves that wrote the Gospels but rather were made up or written by students or students of students, or someone completely unrelated who just forged their accounts to give legitimacy to their preaches) that make them contain a lot of contradictions over what happened when, what exactly Jesus, God, or someone else said or did. And so, since the bible is a book written by normal people, edited further by other normal people to adapt to whatever they wanted it to become canon, with gospels accepted, edited or rejected, and then different churches since the dawn of Christianity dispute over which gospels were more and less accurate, then it is simply the work of men. As with all manmade accounts and books, the contradictions and inaccuracies are in the bible. And since the bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be 100% true.
Brennus was kind enough to give some examples, but it really goes without saying.
So what got use here, was your claim the bible made false profacies, I asked for your best 2. You have given me none. So you than go on a completely baseless devoid of all evidence, and contradictory to all manuscripts claim that the bible was edited by the council of Nicaea. This amazes me people truly believe this stuff there told. I challenge you now to support any of the above claims with evidence.. You have alot of problems with the claims you make, first is we have manuscripts from all over Europe/N Africa/middle east in diffident countries diffident times. How could a council of nicea find all these mansuripts in the desert and other places [many not found until 2000 ad etc] and rewrite all these manuscripts without leaving a trace.
we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=HYPERLINK "http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=42&products_id=288"42HYPERLINK
Besides we can reconstruct the entire bible but 11 verse from early church fathers quoting the bible from before the council. So another challenge to you I present, give me one example of were a doctrine from the original bible has been changed by man at the council of Nicaea or otherwise, give me one "gospel" that should be in the bible that is not, or any other book.. You cannot support your claims with any evidence.
You also have not given one exsapmle of a contradiction, please post your top 3. Brennus has given not one,read my responses.
You say how so, but then immediately afterwards, you answer yourself. You have people believing in an invisible and unprovable higher force, saying your invisible and unprovable higher force is more true than the others invisible and unprovable higher force(s). It's a comedic behaviour. Religion is something utterly personal and mostly irrational. Since it is so, trying to argue that other religions are fakes while yours is the true one is folly, as your religion, from a neutral perspective, is itself in exactly the same situation as the others you posit as fake.
I disagree i every-way, only if we are to assume as you do, start with your bias/presupistions that belief in god is "irrational" than can we make your above claim. Also are you claiming that if something is not seen it is irrational to believe in it?
So you think bible should be thrown out because? you think it was written by men with bad fruits? Not sure what your saying,
I think the teacher Sigurd referred to meant you need to teach about the good things Christianity brought us, not talk about the origin of the Bible. That teacher probably meant that it's not about figuring out who wrote it or to study it as an historical source, but to look more at the content, the general message and the good things it brought us.
I don't think he was talking about the testicles of those who wrote the Bible ...
total relism
11-20-2012, 13:50
I see,well to try and get back on topic, some basic teachings of islam.
Islam-means submission
Muslim-one who submits to allah
Koran-114 suras or chapters, and the very words of god koran means to recite
hadiths-are traditions,teachings and doings of the prophet Mohammad hadith means a message
sharia-Islamic law means “the way”
5 pillars of Islamic faith
1-declaration of faith “there is no god but allah and Mohammed is allahs messenger
2-prayer 5 times a day [must be cited in Arabic first 7 versus of koran and towards mecca]
3-almsgiving to poor to gain merit 2.5% at end of year
4-fasting month of Ramadan sunrise to sundown
5-pilgrimage [hajj]- to mecca at least once in lifetime
jihad [holy war] is often called the sixth pillar of faith
jihad means struggle
friday is holy day for islam, the day Muhammad first preached
mosque-meeting place
prayer 5 times a day the opening chapter of koran
In the name of god, the most beneficent, the most merciful
All appreciation, gratefulness and thankfulness are to Allah alone, lord of the worlds
The most beneficent, the most merciful
The possessor of the day of recompense (i.e., on the last day of judgment)
You we worship, and you we seek help
Direct all of us to the straight path (i.e., to the way of Islam)
The way of those on whom you have bestowed your grace, not the way of those who have earned your anger, nor of those who have lost their way and are astray
holiest sites mecca, Medina,dome of the rock,Umayyad great mosque in Damascus
in the last 50 years Islam has increased by 235% largely by birth rate to 1.2 billion people
Indonesia 154 million-Arab world 140 15% of Muslims live in middle east, most live in asia
month of ramadan, the koran was received 2.185 fast whole month
many stories in koran from ot just slightly altered
Ishmael a prophet 19.52-59
all deeds and actions will be recorded in a book and allah will judge 18.46-50
koran free from any flaw 39.27
no one can go into a mosque accept true believers and do good works 9.18-19 9.27-30
koran 37.100 feast of sacrifice from Abraham offering up Issac as sacrifice , slain animal on holy day
known as the religion of the sword-Saudi Arabia flag is a Islamic sword
mecca
Muhammad was born in mecca
mecca was center of worship before Islam, 360 tribal deities tribes in Arabia made the pilgrimage to mecca before Islam.
week long pilgrimage to mecca pillar number 5
In mecca is the ka'bah a black cubed shape building, they march around it 7 times believing this is were Abraham offered Ishmael as a sacrifice on the alter,they believe Abraham built it. Than they go to 3 pillars to stone it believing they are stoning satan, and freeing themselves from sin for the year. Than they go to the cave they believe Mohammad received revaluations to form Koran
walking around ka'bah at mecca 2.124-130
mecca is called the mother city 6.92-93
pilgrimage to sacred house-shaving heads 2.196
no meat during pilgrimage 5 1-3
pilgrimage to mecca 3.95-100
circling of mosque made for Abraham on pilgrimage 22.25-30
mecca center of islam
only Muslims can enter mecca
on the pilgrimage Muslims go to a place adam and eve found each other outside eden, and spot of final sermon of Muhammad.
medina
first mosque in medina [meeting place]
Islam moved from mecca to medina 280 miles north in 622 AD. Year 1 for Muslims
when Muhammad was leader of medina
So you think bible should be thrown out because? you think it was written by men with bad fruits? Not sure what your saying,
And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
You don't get my fruit vs. roots reference? HAVE you read you Bible at all?
Consider this:
Ye shall know them by their fruits
A well known scripture. Compare that to any other reference to fruit and fruit bearers and it is clear that Jesus wants his followers to look for the fruits, and not consider the obscurity where it was brought forth from. Hence.. fruits not roots.
It is a fallacy to judge a prophecy or a religious mission on the obscurity of the person/persons bringing it forth. And that is why when considering the life and acts of near all the church fathers, you'd find something to point to and COULD declare their message void, IF we went down that path.
If you want me to engage in a "the Bible can't be true because..." I would be not following the fruits vs. roots principle I just put forth.
BUT since I am not adhering to Christian teaching... I am not obliged to follow its "rules".
I would have asked which version of the Bible you considered most correct or true to the ... um original, and start from there.
komnenos
11-20-2012, 14:59
Actually I have read all of Koran.It can seems true , but some things which I have read are not true.For example the events about dying of S.t Jesus. Also it force Muslims to attack non-Muslims whenever they can.( In other words: Jihad) And many other things. Am I right?
The question "am I right" or "is this true" is problematic.
Firstly, it assumes that all Muslims interpret the Qur'an as you do. I don't think they do. The vast majority of the Muslims I know personally are more than willing to interpret these verses as being orders from God to Muhammad in a historical situation, a situation that has passed and is no longer relevant.
The problem with these discussions is that we equate our personal analysis of what the Qur'an says as how Muslims interpret their religion and thus how they should live. That decision is not at all ours to make.
We cannot speak of "Islam" as just being the Qur‘an and the Sunna. In order to correctly define Islam, we should look at the behaviour of people calling themselves Muslims. There is a sizeable group of Muslims that would define saint worship as polytheism (ar. shirk), but it plays a large role in the spiritual life of certain Sufi groups.
EDIT: By the way, I'm just ignoring TR from now on. His analysis is so exclusive and subjective that there is no real effective way to counter them.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-20-2012, 16:43
I think the teacher Sigurd referred to meant you need to teach about the good things Christianity brought us, not talk about the origin of the Bible. That teacher probably meant that it's not about figuring out who wrote it or to study it as an historical source, but to look more at the content, the general message and the good things it brought us.
I don't think he was talking about the testicles of those who wrote the Bible ...
Just so nobody misses it, Sigurd was talking about Jesus.
I might weigh in on this to correct TR's assumptions about the transmission of ancient texts, but he needs to say something interesting first.
total relism
11-20-2012, 17:53
And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
You don't get my fruit vs. roots reference? HAVE you read you Bible at all?
Consider this:
Ye shall know them by their fruits
A well known scripture. Compare that to any other reference to fruit and fruit bearers and it is clear that Jesus wants his followers to look for the fruits, and not consider the obscurity where it was brought forth from. Hence.. fruits not roots.
It is a fallacy to judge a prophecy or a religious mission on the obscurity of the person/persons bringing it forth. And that is why when considering the life and acts of near all the church fathers, you'd find something to point to and COULD declare their message void, IF we went down that path.
If you want me to engage in a "the Bible can't be true because..." I would be not following the fruits vs. roots principle I just put forth.
BUT since I am not adhering to Christian teaching... I am not obliged to follow its "rules".
I would have asked which version of the Bible you considered most correct or true to the ... um original, and start from there.
what jesus is saying is, any true believer will produce good fruit, that you can tell who truly believes by there fruit not there words. Than this would be another case as to why islam is false, because of Muhammad fruit. Tell me about theses acts of the church fathers, please tell me about james peter paul and jesus, what did they do that was bad fruit? paul after conversion. The bible version I find most correct is, the original only. The original herbrew and greek.
Actually I have read all of Koran.It can seems true , but some things which I have read are not true.For example the events about dying of S.t Jesus. Also it force Muslims to attack non-Muslims whenever they can.( In other words: Jihad) And many other things. Am I right?
Yes I made a post on this on this thread, post 20 and 23.
Firstly, it assumes that all Muslims interpret the Qur'an as you do. I don't think they do. The vast majority of the Muslims I know personally are more than willing to interpret these verses as being orders from God to Muhammad in a historical situation, a situation that has passed and is no longer relevant.
The problem with these discussions is that we equate our personal analysis of what the Qur'an says as how Muslims interpret their religion and thus how they should live. That decision is not at all ours to make.
We cannot speak of "Islam" as just being the Qur‘an and the Sunna. In order to correctly define Islam, we should look at the behaviour of people calling themselves Muslims.
.
You are correct here,many Muslims [and christian] chose to inteprit passages as they may, but in the case with koran and Muhammad,we can see how Muhammad himself lived and understood these verses. As well as the earliest followers of islam. In fact even Muhammad said, later generations of Muslims would reject the proper understanding of the jihad/violent verses. That would be referenced in this debate I believe.
Nadir Ahmed vs. David Wood: "Does Islam Promote Violence Towards Non-Muslims?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/09/nadir-ahmed-vs-david-wood-does-islam.html
As sated that is for another thread, happens to be my fav topic.
So what got use here, was your claim the bible made false profacies, I asked for your best 2. You have given me none. So you than go on a completely baseless devoid of all evidence, and contradictory to all manuscripts claim that the bible was edited by the council of Nicaea. This amazes me people truly believe this stuff there told. I challenge you now to support any of the above claims with evidence.. You have alot of problems with the claims you make, first is we have manuscripts from all over Europe/N Africa/middle east in diffident countries diffident times. How could a council of nicea find all these mansuripts in the desert and other places [many not found until 2000 ad etc] and rewrite all these manuscripts without leaving a trace.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but who referred to the Council of Nicaea? :) And quite right, we have different gospels that existed to support different branches of early Christianity, and most were quite obviously not used (As is the gospel of Thomas, for example). Also, the fact that you're arguing that the manuscripts are found in the desert only reveals how much knowledge of history you have. In the days of early Christianity, those manuscripts which disapeared through the uniformization of the Church and through the Muslim invasions were logically much more common than a single partial manuscript found in the deserts. The fact that some branches of Early Christianity were using a different amount and types of gospels, only reveals the fact that the "bible" is a construct of normal priests to harmonize the Church. Simple and logical.
Here you have quite a good many examples of inconsistencies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible)
we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=HYPERLINK "http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=42&products_id=288"42HYPERLINK
Your links lead nowhere. There's also plenty of evidence of rabid conflict and discussion in Early Christianity over what actually was "the bible" and what wasn't. The councils were created to address those.
Besides we can reconstruct the entire bible but 11 verse from early church fathers quoting the bible from before the council. So another challenge to you I present, give me one example of were a doctrine from the original bible has been changed by man at the council of Nicaea or otherwise, give me one "gospel" that should be in the bible that is not, or any other book.. You cannot support your claims with any evidence.
You appear to consider the bible as a monolithic bloc, ever since the creation or death of Jesus. In early days, noone quoted the bible because it did not exist. Also, gospels that should be in the bible? You want me to actually make that decision? xD Just read about other gospels that were not included in the bible.
I disagree i every-way, only if we are to assume as you do, start with your bias/presupistions that belief in god is "irrational" than can we make your above claim. Also are you claiming that if something is not seen it is irrational to believe in it?
Haha. I am done with this debate. I had great moments of lulz reading your replies and cajole attempts, so I'm going to make my final remarks.
You honestly think that I'm going to argue with you, a person who claims a religion as more true than other, over what is irrational and what is not? As I said it is utterly comical. I would be as successful as your own attempts to demonstrate that one religion is more true than others. No amount of evidence will even slightly sway you to consider a different opinion. Hence why I said that religion is something very personal and irrational. Your silly attempts to cajole me into an argument of invisible things that exist is a really sad way of trying to debate. Gravity and a whole other things that are invisible exist, and are provable and can be experimented upon.
Yawheh, Allah, Zeus and Odin cannot. As they are not provable or their existance can be evidenced in any possible way, it is logical to assume that they do not exist. Faith (As a subset of motivation) in something does exist. And faith in something, whether existent or not, does drive people to do things that otherwise they would not be able to achieve. That in no way even slightly proves the existance of a God. Since God is unprovable, believing in one or many is irrational.
If you want a provable higher force that exists, is provable and experimented upon, you can stick with Nature, or the Cosmos. It is something so great and complex that we will never be able to fully comprehend it, yet it is scientifically provable and aknowledgable every day of our lives. Humans have aknowledged its imense complexity since the dawn of man. Many worshipped it. Religious people may say that it is a part of whatever God(s) they believe in, but that allegation ceases to be provable.
With the complexification of societies, rulers needed to control populations and legitimize their rule through latent means and that is how the rational Gods were created. And that is why in each separate early civilization there were different Gods or different cults, to which the populations worshipped and that is why your Christian God or the Islamic God or the Jewish God did not appear to all men throughout the world as would be obvious that he should do, if it was an actual existent entity that had created men, and that is why there is no Christianity and no Bible since the existence of the Homo Sapiens. Normal religions only exist through the forced teachings of its preaches to people.
I'm apparently a Metaphysical Naturalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism). I arrived at the conclusion that Nature is the only provable complex higher force that we know of, through my own meditation and experience. I wasn't even aware there was an actual philosophy that agreed with me until several years after I arrived at my conclusion. This was a self-conducted process.
On the opposite side, if you live with absolutely no connection with Christianity, it is utterly impossible that through meditation and self-thinking, you will arrive at the very same dogmas and conclusions and God as the Christian religion does. Or the Hindu relgion. Or the Hellenic religion. And so on and so forth. They are all artificial creation by a group of powerful people as a means of controling and fidelizing segments of the population towards their own agenda, be it good or bad.
The ultimate argument I have is, if you lived before spread of Christianity, you would not be Christian.
I'm out. Cheers.
total relism
11-20-2012, 21:35
.
[QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but who referred to the Council of Nicaea? :) And quite right, we have different gospels that existed to support different branches of early Christianity, and most were quite obviously not used (As is the gospel of Thomas, for example). Also, the fact that you're arguing that the manuscripts are found in the desert only reveals how much knowledge of history you have. In the days of early Christianity, those manuscripts which disapeared through the uniformization of the Church and through the Muslim invasions were logically much more common than a single partial manuscript found in the deserts. The fact that some branches of Early Christianity were using a different amount and types of gospels, only reveals the fact that the "bible" is a construct of normal priests to harmonize the Church. Simple and logical.
Here you have quite a good many examples of inconsistencies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible)
Your links lead nowhere. There's also plenty of evidence of rabid conflict and discussion in Early Christianity over what actually was "the bible" and what wasn't. The councils were created to address those.
You appear to consider the bible as a monolithic bloc, ever since the creation or death of Jesus. In early days, noone quoted the bible because it did not exist. Also, gospels that should be in the bible? You want me to actually make that decision? xD Just read about other gospels that were not included in the bible.
Haha. I am done with this debate. I had great moments of lulz reading your replies and cajole attempts, so I'm going to make my final remarks.
You honestly think that I'm going to argue with you, a person who claims a religion as more true than other, over what is irrational and what is not? As I said it is utterly comical. I would be as successful as your own attempts to demonstrate that one religion is more true than others. No amount of evidence will even slightly sway you to consider a different opinion. Hence why I said that religion is something very personal and irrational. Your silly attempts to cajole me into an argument of invisible things that exist is a really sad way of trying to debate. Gravity and a whole other things that are invisible exist, and are provable and can be experimented upon.
Yawheh, Allah, Zeus and Odin cannot. As they are not provable or their existance can be evidenced in any possible way, it is logical to assume that they do not exist. Faith (As a subset of motivation) in something does exist. And faith in something, whether existent or not, does drive people to do things that otherwise they would not be able to achieve. That in no way even slightly proves the existance of a God. Since God is unprovable, believing in one or many is irrational.
If you want a provable higher force that exists, is provable and experimented upon, you can stick with Nature, or the Cosmos. It is something so great and complex that we will never be able to fully comprehend it, yet it is scientifically provable and aknowledgable every day of our lives. Humans have aknowledged its imense complexity since the dawn of man. Many worshipped it. Religious people may say that it is a part of whatever God(s) they believe in, but that allegation ceases to be provable.
With the complexification of societies, rulers needed to control populations and legitimize their rule through latent means and that is how the rational Gods were created. And that is why in each separate early civilization there were different Gods or different cults, to which the populations worshipped and that is why your Christian God or the Islamic God or the Jewish God did not appear to all men throughout the world as would be obvious that he should do, if it was an actual existent entity that had created men, and that is why there is no Christianity and no Bible since the existence of the Homo Sapiens. Normal religions only exist through the forced teachings of its preaches to people.
I'm apparently a Metaphysical Naturalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism). I arrived at the conclusion that Nature is the only provable complex higher force that we know of, through my own meditation and experience. I wasn't even aware there was an actual philosophy that agreed with me until several years after I arrived at my conclusion. This was a self-conducted process.
On the opposite side, if you live with absolutely no connection with Christianity, it is utterly impossible that through meditation and self-thinking, you will arrive at the very same dogmas and conclusions and God as the Christian religion does. Or the Hindu relgion. Or the Hellenic religion. And so on and so forth. They are all artificial creation by a group of powerful people as a means of controling and fidelizing segments of the population towards their own agenda, be it good or bad.
The ultimate argument I have is, if you lived before spread of Christianity, you would not be Christian.
I'm out. Cheers.
well you did on post 182 "Council of Nicaea".
Gospel of thomas
maybe the reason early christian did not consider it canonical is because it is dated from The manuscript of the Coptic text (CG II), found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, is dated at around 340 and date to between 130 and 250. It was a second century forgery, a Gnostic writings. Here is the kind of material it contains
114. Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’
As leading NT textual scholar Bruce Metzger says, ‘Now, this is not the Jesus we know from the four canonical gospels!’ He goes on to rebut the Brownesque conspiratorial charge that church councils unfairly excluded the Gospel of Thomas:
‘That’s just not historically accurate. What the synods and councils did in the fifth century and following was to ratify what already had been accepted by high and low Christians alike. It is not right to say that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded by fiat on the part of a council; the right way to put it was that the Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy. …
‘Now don’t get me wrong. I think that the Gospel of Thomas is an interesting document, but it’s mixed up with pantheistic and antifeminist statements that certainly deserve to be given the left foot of fellowship, if you know what I mean.
The oldest manuscript fragments of the text (found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt) are dated from 130 to 250AD, and the vast majority of scholars agree that the Gospel of Thomas was written no earlier than the mid 2nd century.
Bart Ehrman argues that the Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century Gnostic text based on the fact that it lacks any reference to the coming Kingdom of God and return of Jesus. The earliest leaders of the Church also recognized that the Gospel of Thomas was a late, inauthentic and heretical work. Hipploytus identified it as a fake and a heresy in "Refutation of All Heresies" (222-235AD), Origen referred to it in a similar way in a homily (written around 233AD), Eusebius resoundingly rejected it as an absurd, impious and heretical "fiction" in the third book of his "Church History" (written prior to 326AD), Cyril advised his followers to avoid the text as heretical in his "Catechesis" (347-348AD), and Pope Gelasius included the Gospel of Thomas in his list of heretical books in the 5th century.
Its place of origin may have been Syria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
The so-called Gospel of Thomas is a fake. It was written between one and two centuries after the apostle Thomas’s death.
As far as manuscripts, if you want to see them for yourself, than go look them up and were/when they were found watch here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI
this will be embarrassing and proves no church gathering could change doctrine of the nt. Plus you ignore early church fathers quotes of bible. Than as I said before, I never said there are no claims of biblical contradictions, just ask brenus. I said none can stand. I asked you to pick your top 2, so please do so.
Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI
also as stated I disagree fully, you wont be able to support with evidence.
LOL no one quoted the bible, hmm have you read the NT? it quotes bible over and over, and yes early christian quoted OT and NT all the time. This is were people take things like the da vnichi code to seriously. Please bring up any "gospel" you would like. I will tell you why its not in bible.
It is hard to argue with someone that believes contradictory things are equally true, this is not logical, yet notice atheism/god cannot both be true. As I stated more than one belief cannot be true that contradict each other. Islam can be shown to be false, not belief in a creator god, but islam/koran. If you think your going to sway me with the gospel of thomas, than yes i remain unswayed. You proved my point, unseen things can exist, things we have not seen, we all believe in these things atheist/evolutionist/christian/Muslim.
God can be clearly seen in creation, he is known by all, you suppress the truth of that, as I showed last post. All are born and understand there is a creator god, you reject that later in life. Also to claim atheism, that life came from non life is not observed, and is contradictory to all know science, yet you believe in the unseen. If something is outside of testing proving, that does not make it not so, if it is rejected by testing [life from non life] than we should reject it.
Again, if we start with your bias/presupistions than ok. I dont start with your unproveable bias/presupsitons. This is what governments/taxes are for. Also god has shown himself to all throughout all time, as I showed last post.
sounds more like nature/pagan/environmental worship to me. We all have a higher power dont we.
If you lived before Metaphysical Naturalist. you would not be. But this all depends on humans, not god. I dont disagree with you, if it were not for god and only humans, I would just believe whatever my chemicals in my brain made me believe. Bible says all have gone astray, it is only that god calls us to him that we than accept him. But the bible also says there will be those in haven that have never heard the bible or jesus, they are judged on the knowledge given to them through creation/conscience. So would i have the biblical knowledge i do no. But that has nothing to do with getting saved.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-20-2012, 22:35
TR - is your basic contention that the contradictions of the Koran are a problem because it purports to be the dictation of The Prophet, whereas the Christian Bible purports to be a collection of heterogeneous texts?
Yes or No answer, please.
“and use the bible and verse to try and prove it, that is ok with you.” Well, YOU are claiming that the Bible is 100 % true. So, yes, to prove you are wrong, I have to refer to YOUR claims.
“You also clearly have not read the bible to make the claims you have” Never claim I read the Bible, I try, but too boring… And I even told you I took my samples in Internet previously… No stop the faint indignation and answer in using your brain…
“you with no understanding of bible” don’t have to understand the Bible, as there is nothing to understand. YOU are telling that it is 100 % true, so we have just to read it. So when sentences are contradictories, well, that is enough to prove that the Bible is not 100 % true, so, according to YOU, not the words of God.
“How did we get here anyways?” That is the pleasure of this site. You start with a subject and you finish with another. Welcome in the world of Totalwar.org.
“nor do you reject bible because of these claimed contradictions” That is true. Mainly. I don’t reject the Bible, I am an atheist. Nor I reject Aladdin, White Snow Thor, Visnu and othres stories for kids and adults; even I prefer these Aladdin and Snow White to the Bible. Not saying there is not interesting stories in the bible. I like when David sent his best soldier to a certain death to get his wife, and the slaughter of the population, except the virgins for the soldiers own use…
“the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come”: I was there (Gorazde, Doboj, Brcko, Derventa, Sarajevo, Bijelina, Vukovar and other places) . I saw, Muslim, Pravo Slavs and Catholic killing each other, between neighbours, on the name of a God. They speak the same language, drink the same coffee, were friends, born in the same villages, eat the same food, and killed the others because Gods of Love… I work with all of them…
Ah, he's from that part of the world.
No wonder he hates Muslims fervently.
what jesus is saying is, any true believer will produce good fruit, that you can tell who truly believes by there fruit not there words. Than this would be another case as to why islam is false, because of Muhammad fruit. Tell me about theses acts of the church fathers, please tell me about james peter paul and jesus, what did they do that was bad fruit? paul after conversion. The bible version I find most correct is, the original only. The original herbrew and greek.
nvm about the fruit... I don't think you understood the core message there.
If only Christianity was founded on the teachings of the persons you listed...
The disciples were mere fishermen. Any of their contemporaries would view them as such. What possibly could a fisherman tell you, a scholar of 20 years of the Tora?
Jesus, the Nazarene.
Was he brought up like one? eating special food, unshaven and uncut hair or was he the carpenter son, callused and weird. This guy must be autistic the way he don't respond to scorn.
No... today's Christianity is built on other church fathers: Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Origen, Irenaeus to name a few.
And on the question of which Bible version... you fell in the trap as predicted. :sneaky:
"No wonder he hates Muslims fervently." Nope. He hates Muslims because he is who he is. Most of the families in former Yugoslavia has dual components (part Muslim, part Christian Orthodox, or Catholic/Orthodox, etc.). It didn’t stop them to fight, but, after the war, even now, the Yugoslavian Brotherhood is deeply regretted. Bosnians (formerly known as Muslims) want to go to Belgrade, Serbs want to go to Dalmatia, and Croatians want to deal with Novi Sad. They even re-run the relay for Youth…
The other aspect of his origin, when he portrays himself as Christian is which one as Catholic (mainly Croats) and Pravo Slavs (mainly Serbs) are Christian but do not read the Bible in the same way.:laugh4:
The Wars in Yugoslavia were done for economic, political and territorial reasons and based on fear from an unhealed past. The only way to separate the local populations is the Religious backgrounds as they were all Yugoslav before. But that is another subject.
total relism
11-21-2012, 20:01
TR - is your basic contention that the contradictions of the Koran are a problem because it purports to be the dictation of The Prophet, whereas the Christian Bible purports to be a collection of heterogeneous texts?
Yes or No answer, please.
No please read this thread and OP for answer, also my posts.
“and use the bible and verse to try and prove it, that is ok with you.” Well, YOU are claiming that the Bible is 100 % true. So, yes, to prove you are wrong, I have to refer to YOUR claims.
“You also clearly have not read the bible to make the claims you have” Never claim I read the Bible, I try, but too boring… And I even told you I took my samples in Internet previously… No stop the faint indignation and answer in using your brain…
“you with no understanding of bible” don’t have to understand the Bible, as there is nothing to understand. YOU are telling that it is 100 % true, so we have just to read it. So when sentences are contradictories, well, that is enough to prove that the Bible is not 100 % true, so, according to YOU, not the words of God.
“How did we get here anyways?” That is the pleasure of this site. You start with a subject and you finish with another. Welcome in the world of Totalwar.org.
“nor do you reject bible because of these claimed contradictions” That is true. Mainly. I don’t reject the Bible, I am an atheist. Nor I reject Aladdin, White Snow Thor, Visnu and othres stories for kids and adults; even I prefer these Aladdin and Snow White to the Bible. Not saying there is not interesting stories in the bible. I like when David sent his best soldier to a certain death to get his wife, and the slaughter of the population, except the virgins for the soldiers own use…
“the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come”: I was there (Gorazde, Doboj, Brcko, Derventa, Sarajevo, Bijelina, Vukovar and other places) . I saw, Muslim, Pravo Slavs and Catholic killing each other, between neighbours, on the name of a God. They speak the same language, drink the same coffee, were friends, born in the same villages, eat the same food, and killed the others because Gods of Love… I work with all of them…
My whole point, I proved your contradictions wrong using the bible
it is odd that you claim things of the bible, that it contradicts itself etc yet have not read the bible. That was my point.
agree 100%, yet as I showed not once does it contradict itself. I showed your supposed best,are incorrect.
Pleasure, I call it pain lol. I dont understand why if people want to talk on a subject islam, they cant just look up thread and find it, instead it is not very much about islam at all.
You reject the bible, your atheist, you reject what it claims to be, toe word of god. Bible has backing in history, it can be tested, alladin cannot, neither can life from non life, origin of big bang,missing links, increase complexity, design from no designer,information from matter etc etc these fairy tale stories i cannot believe in, that as atheist you must.
I never said anything about Yugoslavia, not sure where that came from, also please dont get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution.
Ah, he's from that part of the world.
No wonder he hates Muslims fervently.
Dont hate at all, i love there culture, I do not like a false religion leading people astray. I am from USA. But your post seems exstermely bigoted against a certain people/group, very intolerant.
nvm about the fruit... I don't think you understood the core message there.
If only Christianity was founded on the teachings of the persons you listed...
The disciples were mere fishermen. Any of their contemporaries would view them as such. What possibly could a fisherman tell you, a scholar of 20 years of the Tora?
Jesus, the Nazarene.
Was he brought up like one? eating special food, unshaven and uncut hair or was he the carpenter son, callused and weird. This guy must be autistic the way he don't respond to scorn.
No... today's Christianity is built on other church fathers: Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Origen, Irenaeus to name a few.
And on the question of which Bible version... you fell in the trap as predicted. :sneaky:
You claimed christian founders were evil did bad etc. I asked for evidence what they did, you provided none. The bible was written by james,paul,peter john etc the disciples, that is were these later theologians got there theology from. As they themselves base there teachings on the bible and original disciples. They the disciples were taught by Jesus. Yes I dont see any bible translation as perfect, who would? why does that matter at all?.
"No wonder he hates Muslims fervently." Nope. He hates Muslims because he is who he is. .
what makes you claim I hate Muslims for? If I really hated them, than why wouldn't I as christian , just let them be lead astray by a false prophet? Does not me learning about islam and trying to discuss with them why it is wrong show that i love not hate them?
"get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution." Oh? When? In the name of evolution... You are funny, you are a comic... This the most STUPID thing I ever read. Well except some short passages of Holly Books...
Dont hate at all, i love there culture, I do not like a false religion leading people astray. I am from USA. But your post seems exstermely bigoted against a certain people/group, very intolerant.
True. I'm bigoted towards people with opinions that I deem idiotic. I'm not perfect, and I'm well-aware of that.
I'm bigoted towards self-styled "Persian" Iranian racist nationalists, who instead of taking responsibility for their own actions seek comfort and self-value in kingdoms gone for centuries and whose hatred stretches to the many different peoples called "Afghans", "Indians", "Arabs", and "Jews".
I'm also bigoted towards the holier-than-thou attitudes of religious converts, especially converts to Islam, who think that their interpretation of their religion is the first one given even, when they can't even string two phrases of Arabic together.
I'm bigoted against New-Age spiritual types as well, y'know, people calling themselves Buddhists (which I used to do, but is a name I've not given myself in well over a year) as some kind of justification of outrageous behaviour often involving liberal use of drugs and sex.
I may not fully understand the meaning of the term "bigoted", but if it means that I don't treat everyone's opinion equally, that does make me a bigot. It's not bad per se when someones opinion is wrong, but it doesn't mean they should be treated gently. Not at all.
"neither can life from non life, origin of big bang,missing links, increase complexity, design from no designer,information from matter etc etc these fairy tale stories i cannot believe in, that as atheist you must." Life from no life was done in laboratory, so check your information.
Again, you miss the point. Big Bang and others are theories. Bible was never back by history.
Let's pretend that the Israelis were a bunch of slaves escaping. Let's pretend for the sake of it that the Living God of Egypt decide to pursuit escaped slaves (nothing else to do, you know, just the greatest Civilisation of the times to lead...). Let's pretend that the Red Sea Opened, and paf, Pharaoh is dead. Where is the Pyramid? Where are the monuments (Egyptian) commemorating the death of a Living God? Even they would have said he died in Battle, but nothing, not even a name...
And by the way, who Created God, if you don't believe in a Creature without a Creator?
And again, as Atheist I must nothing. That is the beauty of it. I just have to say: I don't know. I can see you problem as you reduce all to a belief. That narrows your field of investigation and mind.
"I proved your contradictions wrong using the bible" I have no contradiction as I have no belief. There are no text to follow, no Doctors of Faith to listen, no obscure texts to explain. Even if somebody would come with another explanation than evolution, it wouldn't prove a God. Even life after death wouldn't. That is what don't go in you mind.
"That was my point." You point would be valid if you would tell that the selected parts of the Bible I copy and pasted are not from the Bible. You didn't, so they are. They are in contradiction to each other, so the Bible is not 100 % true. Again, I don't need to read the bible, Few very precise one are enough. Like in math, a simple error makes all the answer wrong. Your claim is proven busted.:yes:
total relism
11-21-2012, 21:08
"get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution." Oh? When? In the name of evolution... You are funny, you are a comic... This the most STUPID thing I ever read. Well except some short passages of Holly Books...
Never herd of hitler,stalin,pol pot? if need be and can quote for you why evolution lead them to there worldview to kill ,unfit,less evolved,unhuman unwanted individuals. In fact both darwin.hitler said if you chose not to kill unwanted less evolved etc peoples, you are going against evolution. But since this will lead to long topic, just read here were it was already disused.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&highlight=
True. I'm bigoted towards people with opinions that I deem idiotic. I'm not perfect, and I'm well-aware of that.
I'm bigoted towards self-styled "Persian" Iranian racist nationalists, who instead of taking responsibility for their own actions seek comfort and self-value in kingdoms gone for centuries and whose hatred stretches to the many different peoples called "Afghans", "Indians", "Arabs", and "Jews".
I'm also bigoted towards the holier-than-thou attitudes of religious converts, especially converts to Islam, who think that their interpretation of their religion is the first one given even, when they can't even string two phrases of Arabic together.
I'm bigoted against New-Age spiritual types as well, y'know, people calling themselves Buddhists (which I used to do, but is a name I've not given myself in well over a year) as some kind of justification of outrageous behaviour often involving liberal use of drugs and sex.
I may not fully understand the meaning of the term "bigoted", but if it means that I don't treat everyone's opinion equally, that does make me a bigot. It's not bad per se when someones opinion is wrong, but it doesn't mean they should be treated gently. Not at all.
I think I like you sir, its good to know our own bias.
"neither can life from non life, origin of big bang,missing links, increase complexity, design from no designer,information from matter etc etc these fairy tale stories i cannot believe in, that as atheist you must." Life from no life was done in laboratory, so check your information.
Again, you miss the point. Big Bang and others are theories. Bible was never back by history.
Let's pretend that the Israelis were a bunch of slaves escaping. Let's pretend for the sake of it that the Living God of Egypt decide to pursuit escaped slaves (nothing else to do, you know, just the greatest Civilisation of the times to lead...). Let's pretend that the Red Sea Opened, and paf, Pharaoh is dead. Where is the Pyramid? Where are the monuments (Egyptian) commemorating the death of a Living God? Even they would have said he died in Battle, but nothing, not even a name...
And by the way, who Created God, if you don't believe in a Creature without a Creator?
And again, as Atheist I must nothing. That is the beauty of it. I just have to say: I don't know. I can see you problem as you reduce all to a belief. That narrows your field of investigation and mind.
"I proved your contradictions wrong using the bible" I have no contradiction as I have no belief. There are no text to follow, no Doctors of Faith to listen, no obscure texts to explain. Even if somebody would come with another explanation than evolution, it wouldn't prove a God. Even life after death wouldn't. That is what don't go in you mind.
"That was my point." You point would be valid if you would tell that the selected parts of the Bible I copy and pasted are not from the Bible. You didn't, so they are. They are in contradiction to each other, so the Bible is not 100 % true. Again, I don't need to read the bible, Few very precise one are enough. Like in math, a simple error makes all the answer wrong. Your claim is proven busted.:yes:
Would you debate me on creation vs evolution 1v1? are you on twcenter? or on the topic has life been created in the lab?
I understand evolution/big bang is theory, but if your atheist you must believe certain things such as life from non life etc.
Bible is indeed backed up by history/archaeology.
Q: Have you found in your researches in archeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense?
A: There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I will remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
http://creation.com/archaeologist-confirms-creation-and-the-bible
I know of no finding in archeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004
Dr. Clifford Wilson His Ph.D. is from the University of South Carolina, and included ‘A’s for field work in archaeology undertaken In association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem.
The hebrew did leave monument were the red sea was parted, looking for reference. The Egyptians did record when pharoahs died/plus they dont record negative history when they lose battles etc to any country not just isreal.
No one created god,that would be impossible, or that what created him would be god. how did nothing create everything and matter?
than your not atheist but agnostic.
I said i proved your claimed bible contradictions wrong.
Than you did not read my responses, so i shall re-post for you. Not one thing you posted is a contradiction, I mean most are just terrible.
first claim
Answered on post 144, but just to add to it.
The opposite of love is not anger,but hate. God is angry at things that destroy his creation and his love for us.
If God Weren't Angry...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/if...t-angry-80980/
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).
But go read post 144 first
second
this is the easiest one I have encountered from you,no the Joshua one. actually read Galatians [its a good book] v 2 is to help out each other financially/spiritually etc fufiling the law of Christ to love your neighbor as yourself.V 5 is saying everyone will be accountable to god for there own actions. Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.
Third
seriously? you gota try reading the bible some time. Look at those passages, Muslims come up with much better one than atheist websites [were is shabir alley when you need him] matt verse, is saying there is no neutral position, either your with him or against him. Both mark/luke verse are saying they are with jesus. Me thinks you did not even read these before posting. You could have found much better ones.
So in your best 8 or so attempts here and post 143, have yet to show a contradiction. Or "non sense" as you claim. Yes rapes/murder etc are recorded in bible, because they happen. Man is sinner,bad things happen, bible tells truth not a bedtime story. So what is true, both, the god who loves and is love. Please read
proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7
also post 144
First one. Not a contradiction between OT and NT, or ot.
proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7
This passages lets you now, that god is all loving ps 145.9 yet because he loves he judges jer 13.14. A all loving god must also hate sin, he must also punish sin, because he does love. This does not mean he does not love the sinner.
7#If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8#and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9#And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10#and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 18 7-10
"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11)
also this same claim could be pointed out of koran, yet I never saw this as a contradiction.
allah loves 2.222
allah does not love the unbelievers 3.30-35 god does not love the evil doers 3.56-57
Muslims were created to help Muhammad in war 9.40
unbelievers are enemies 4.101 etc etc
2 That is very good one I had never herd before, thank you. but no contradiction
first you must read proverbs 30.4. Than john 33.5-18. You will see the context in witch it is used clearly. No one can understand haven but those that come from haven, down to earth to exspalin haven. That happened once only jesus. Than read proverbs 30.4
3 That is just terrible and I am now depressed, its 100% true that you have never read bible to make a claim like this as a contradiction. No wonder you believe the koran/bible both worship same god, you never read bible.
Judges God could beat any army if he chose to do so, judges 4.13-15 [and rest of bible] had isreal obeyed god they would have won any battles as he would have fought for them to victory 2.1-3 18-22. This is a repeating cycle in the promise land, clearly seen by anyone who has read the bible.
4 sin
Ot sacrifices were a covering for sin, they could "sanctify" and "pruify" heb 9.13,23 But could never remove sin and guilt. Otherwise as paul points out in hebrews,they would not need to be repeated over and over. That is why in john 1.29 john the baptist says
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
john 1.29
Jesus took away the sins of the world, he did not cover the sins, to be scarficed over and over. Read hebrews for more on this, great book.
5 you must read Colossians 1
Colossians 1:18 states, “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Corinthians 15:20-22
Jesus Christ was not the first person ever raised from the dead, but the first to rise and not die again. in bodily form as well. He is our first-fruits [Jewish festival] fulfillment of ot.
Romans 6:9 says, “knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.”
Revelation 1:18 records Jesus' words to the Apostle John. “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.”
also firstborn can also refer to rank read psalm 89.27 ex 4,22, clearly not first in a series.
we are getting far off topic, please debate me 1v1 or discus on topic. I will be doing thread on our topic soon.
a completely inoffensive name
11-21-2012, 21:15
TR isn't from the US. Our education system is bad, but not that horrific when it comes to teaching grammar and basic english.
total relism
11-21-2012, 21:22
TR isn't from the US. Our education system is bad, but not that horrific when it comes to teaching grammar and basic english.
Hey, i find that "completely inoffensive".
total relism
11-21-2012, 21:27
How about this one to get back on topic.
Muhammad hates poets Ibn Ishaq, p. 106—[Muhammad said:] Now none of God’s creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed—Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest.
must have been some bad poets in arabia back than.
Also
false idea of trinity 4.171 5.119-20
James White vs. Bassam Zawadi: Does the Qur'an Misrepresent the Trinity?
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/03/james-white-vs-bassam-zawadi-does-quran.html
Can you read Arabic poetry?
HoreTore
11-21-2012, 21:35
Never herd of hitler,stalin,pol pot?
lol.
If you stay on this board, you'll find out that there are several members here with far more intimate knowledge of communism than you have. Like me, for example, with my background in the Norwegian Stalinist party(NKP). And of course the person you quoted, Brenus.
To state that Pol Pot "killed in the name of evolution" only serves to show your ignorance of the subject, sorry.
If you're genuinely interested in learning more about socialist ideals, then this is a good place to do it. But you'll need to fix your attitude from "debating to win" to "debating to learn".
You claimed christian founders were evil did bad etc. I asked for evidence what they did, you provided none. The bible was written by james,paul,peter john etc the disciples, that is were these later theologians got there theology from. As they themselves base there teachings on the bible and original disciples. They the disciples were taught by Jesus. Yes I dont see any bible translation as perfect, who would? why does that matter at all?.
:beam:
I did NOT claim such. The only thing I hinted at was their obscure backgrounds, their roots so to speak. Not once did I mention that they had bad fruits. That was all you :sneaky:
And oh yes... you have weird ideas about the origin of the Bible.
Why you need a perfect Bible? well gosh... (that is if you are not Catholic) It is the primary source of your priesthoods, authority and theology... all though much of your theology is the musings of the church fathers. Stuff that you can't really back up using the Bible, but uphold as if your life depended on it.
“I said i proved your claimed bible contradictions wrong.” You said, but you did prove nothing.
“The opposite of love is not anger, but hate” Casuistic. Jesuit’s answer to explain God’s slaughters and Genocides. "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14). If that is when your God is only angry, I don’t want to know when he really dislikes somebody…:sweatdrop:
“Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.” Well, he obviously did, as show in the quote.~D
Stalin never killed to spread “Evolution”. He even never killed to spread atheism (as the first victims of Stalin were the first Communists). He killed for political gains.
As Pol Pot is concern, he killed because He didn’t believe in Evolution, if you want to go this way. He thought that Towns corrupted the population and they had to be Purified but going back to the fields. Funny enough, the re-education by work is the base of all Jails and Workhouses by Conservative Religious Government.
You carry on to repeat the same things, and to make assumption, When you have in front of you the text proving you wrong, you try, as the Good Priests in the XVI, to twist the words. Then you try to orientate the topic. Fair enough, I do it as well.:stare:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2012, 00:33
No please read this thread and OP for answer, also my posts.
Then you don't have a leg to stand on, because I know from close study of the Gospels that their accounts of Christ's life contradict themselves.
For example - the account of the calling of the first disciples; in Matthew Peter is a fisherman, butin John he is already a disciple of John the Baptist.
Clearly, one of the Gospel writers is in error - more likely it is the one who wrote down John, because he witnessed none of the events firsthand (except possibly the Passion).
Now, I shall respect your intelligence and expect you to go away and read Matthew and John side by side, at which point you will see that I am right. If you tell me I am wrong, which I know I am not, I shall post the relevant chapters in full, with commentary.
Claiming the Bible is perfect, or never in error, or never contradicts itself, is not only factually wrong, it is an offence unto God because such a text would be a complete waste of time and if the Bible were exactly as God had designed it God would have to be an idiot. Further, we know that surviving manuscripts of the Bible are corrupt and despite our best efforts there are even a few verses which have become totally unrecoverable due to errors made by the scribes who produced the copies over the last two to three millennia.
Even assuming a perfect original text, all current copies of the Bible are are essentially corrupt, in one aspect or another, and that includes all copies and editions in the original languages.
Sir Moody
11-22-2012, 14:11
lol.
If you stay on this board, you'll find out that there are several members here with far more intimate knowledge of communism than you have. Like me, for example, with my background in the Norwegian Stalinist party(NKP). And of course the person you quoted, Brenus.
To state that Pol Pot "killed in the name of evolution" only serves to show your ignorance of the subject, sorry.
If you're genuinely interested in learning more about socialist ideals, then this is a good place to do it. But you'll need to fix your attitude from "debating to win" to "debating to learn".
Horetore you have to think like TR - he is completely unable to separate Atheism and Evolution - he really doesn't understand they are different things
As far as he thinks the following logic is 100% correct
Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists
Atheists "believe" in Evolution
therefore Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of Evolution (and Atheism)
trying to shake him of this wont work - he still wont except Hitler wasn't an atheist and we really ran that one into the ground...
@ Sir Moody: Even worst, he is assuming Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. As far as we know, we don't know. They were probably, but even Stalin was a student in Religion (his mother wanted him to be an Priest) before the be Communist. And nobody was able to know what Pol Pot was...
That is the new offensive of the new Christian. All bad people in Contemporary History have to be atheists. They still forget that it won't make a difference as they didn't kill in the name of Atheism, but that will make them feel better... If only they could find one good slaughter in the name of Atheism...:sweatdrop:
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 15:03
@ Sir Moody: Even worst, he is assuming Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. As far as we know, we don't know. They were probably, but even Stalin was a student in Religion (his mother wanted him to be an Priest) before the be Communist. And nobody was able to know what Pol Pot was...
That is the new offensive of the new Christian. All bad people in Contemporary History have to be atheists. They still forget that it won't make a difference as they didn't kill in the name of Atheism, but that will make them feel better... If only they could find one good slaughter in the name of Atheism...:sweatdrop:
Neither Pol Pot nor Stalin had any religious belief. I'd say the same goes for Hitler, though he did dabble in some spiritual stuff.
Theology was a standard education in Russia back then. It's like studying marketing today.
But to say that any of the three did anything "in the name of atheism" is, of course, insane.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2012, 15:11
Neither Pol Pot nor Stalin had any religious belief. I'd say the same goes for Hitler, though he did dabble in some spiritual stuff.
Theology was a standard education in Russia back then. It's like studying marketing today.
But to say that any of the three did anything "in the name of atheism" is, of course, insane.
Actually, Stalin kept one Russian Church open just for his private devotions.
The following phrase makes as much sense:
1) I like to have sex with girls
2) I love my mother
3) Therefore I want to have sex with my mother. Right?
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 15:16
Actually, Stalin kept one Russian Church open just for his private devotions.
This kind of argument is like accusing him of being a royalist because he reintroduced Kutuzov.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2012, 16:08
This kind of argument is like accusing him of being a royalist because he reintroduced Kutuzov.
I'm not saying he was a Christian, I'm just pointing out that he obviously did have some sort of religious belief, or at least anxiety. The fact is, you can't dismiss that the man very nearly became a priest.
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 16:10
The fact is, you can't dismiss that the man very nearly became a priest.
I most certainly can, it's irrelevant.
He was completly paranoid though.
Stalin allowed a small revival of the orthodox church during the war, for the same reasons he reintroduced figures like Kutuzov. To call him either religious or royaliet on that basis is nonsense.
It's like the "Hitler was a gay"-line of argument.
Sir Moody
11-22-2012, 17:37
hmmm I have always been told Stalin was Atheist - looking into it however I cant find any directly attributable quotes that go either way - its possible this is just revisionist history
The USSR did promote Atheism rather strongly (outside of WW2) but this could easily be Stalin trying to shunt power from the orthodox church to himself...
and Hax that is the "logic" exactly ...
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 17:59
hmmm I have always been told Stalin was Atheist - looking into it however I cant find any directly attributable quotes that go either way - its possible this is just revisionist history
The USSR did promote Atheism rather strongly (outside of WW2) but this could easily be Stalin trying to shunt power from the orthodox church to himself...
and Hax that is the "logic" exactly ...
You don't assess a person based on a few quotes.
Read up on communism of the era, and you'll find that Stalin was atheist.
Heck, if he wasn't, he would've been whacked by Lenin in 1920.
total relism
11-22-2012, 18:05
Can you read Arabic poetry?
no is deserving of death bad? like make me jump off a building to rid myself of it bad?. LOl.
lol.
If you stay on this board, you'll find out that there are several members here with far more intimate knowledge of communism than you have. Like me, for example, with my background in the Norwegian Stalinist party(NKP). And of course the person you quoted, Brenus.
To state that Pol Pot "killed in the name of evolution" only serves to show your ignorance of the subject, sorry.
If you're genuinely interested in learning more about socialist ideals, then this is a good place to do it. But you'll need to fix your attitude from "debating to win" to "debating to learn".
Never said they killed in the name of evolution, I said there belief in evolution/atheism is what led them to, what justified them doing what they did. Good thread for it here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&highlight=
this thread is islam.
:beam:
I did NOT claim such. The only thing I hinted at was their obscure backgrounds, their roots so to speak. Not once did I mention that they had bad fruits. That was all you :sneaky:
And oh yes... you have weird ideas about the origin of the Bible.
Why you need a perfect Bible? well gosh... (that is if you are not Catholic) It is the primary source of your priesthoods, authority and theology... all though much of your theology is the musings of the church fathers. Stuff that you can't really back up using the Bible, but uphold as if your life depended on it.
what weird ideas about origin of bible? is it not weird to claim as you have done that the gospel of Thomas a forgery written over 100-200 years after thomases death is not reliable?. To instead only accept books by apostles of jesus written in there life time?. Weird idea.
The bible is 100% were we get truth as a christian, The original bible written is 100% accurate. I challenge you once again, show me one thing I have said/claimed that cant be backed up by the bible. Also tell me what theology of mine comes from some early church father not the bible.
no is deserving of death bad? like make me jump off a building to rid myself of it bad?. LOl.
Yes, it's absolutely horrible.
Seriously though, no, but in order to understand exactly why these verses about poets are in the Qur'an is to assess the position of poetry in the pre-Islamic period. Poetry and magic were often conflated, and there was this idea that certain verses were inspired by the jinn.
In this particular region, these poets would often engage in improvised rhymed debates and they called out Muhammad to defend himself using the same kind of poetry. Muhammad replied by saying that the Qur'an was not poetry and that those poets that had challenged him would actually go to hell.
That doesn't necessarily tell us much about how Muhammad perceived poetry in general, which is a practice that continued throughout Muhammad's time (cf. al-Busiri's Mantle Ode) but how he responded to this very specific form of poetry.
total relism
11-22-2012, 18:47
“I said i proved your claimed bible contradictions wrong.” You said, but you did prove nothing.
“The opposite of love is not anger, but hate” Casuistic. Jesuit’s answer to explain God’s slaughters and Genocides. "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14). If that is when your God is only angry, I don’t want to know when he really dislikes somebody…:sweatdrop:
“Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.” Well, he obviously did, as show in the quote.~D
Stalin never killed to spread “Evolution”. He even never killed to spread atheism (as the first victims of Stalin were the first Communists). He killed for political gains.
As Pol Pot is concern, he killed because He didn’t believe in Evolution, if you want to go this way. He thought that Towns corrupted the population and they had to be Purified but going back to the fields. Funny enough, the re-education by work is the base of all Jails and Workhouses by Conservative Religious Government.
You carry on to repeat the same things, and to make assumption, When you have in front of you the text proving you wrong, you try, as the Good Priests in the XVI, to twist the words. Then you try to orientate the topic. Fair enough, I do it as well.:stare:
I only did not respond if you ignore post 204.
Gods anger is because he loves as i pointed out in post 204. Not a contradiction, this would be like me saying well those america/english must really hate kill people because they stopped hitler from what he was doing. Or seeing a child being murdered and standing around saying, well I cant stop the guy i love him.
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).
The opposite of love is not anger,but hate. God is angry at things that destroy his creation and his love for us.
If God Weren't Angry...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/if...t-angry-80980/
proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7
A perfect holy,loving god, must also be a just god, that hates/punishes sin.
paul
Only if you ignore post 204,such as you have.
The last rambling I dont really get, but claiming of twisting words, you clealy have done so to claim the contradictions you have. I never said they killed to spread atheism, they killed because of there worldview.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&highlight=
Then you don't have a leg to stand on, because I know from close study of the Gospels that their accounts of Christ's life contradict themselves.
For example - the account of the calling of the first disciples; in Matthew Peter is a fisherman, butin John he is already a disciple of John the Baptist.
Clearly, one of the Gospel writers is in error - more likely it is the one who wrote down John, because he witnessed none of the events firsthand (except possibly the Passion).
Now, I shall respect your intelligence and expect you to go away and read Matthew and John side by side, at which point you will see that I am right. If you tell me I am wrong, which I know I am not, I shall post the relevant chapters in full, with commentary.
Claiming the Bible is perfect, or never in error, or never contradicts itself, is not only factually wrong, it is an offence unto God because such a text would be a complete waste of time and if the Bible were exactly as God had designed it God would have to be an idiot. Further, we know that surviving manuscripts of the Bible are corrupt and despite our best efforts there are even a few verses which have become totally unrecoverable due to errors made by the scribes who produced the copies over the last two to three millennia.
Even assuming a perfect original text, all current copies of the Bible are are essentially corrupt, in one aspect or another, and that includes all copies and editions in the original languages.
? I said I reject Islam for the reasons given, not because of the many claimed contradictions in koran.
I will respond to this one, and one more of your choosing, this is thread on Islam not claimed bible contradictions. so pick your best one next.
Peter
I am assuming you are referring to matt 4 18-20, were it says peter was catching fish with nets.
and john 1 37-42
full renascences here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%204&version=NIV
Tell me were you see a contradiction? notice in john v 40 Andrew goes and finds peter, tells him of jesus. Andrew,not peter is the disciple of john the baptist.But even if he was for the sake of the argument a disciple of johns and a fisherman, how is that a contradiction? disciples cant work? cant catch fish? what are you claiming here. The account in john 1 happen before matt 4.Peter and other disciples new of jesus before joining him. otherwise why would they all sudden join him?.
John was the beloved disciple, followed jesus from the beginning.
You wont be able to back up claims with evidence. The bible is 100% correct with no error, this is good debate for another time and another thread. Orginal bible manuscripts were inspired. Please back up other claim that we cant or dont have orginal bible, please give evidence.
agree somewhat,with all but original language, but no doctrine teaching etc is changed. Instead of 100% of picture we have 99.9%.
Horetore you have to think like TR - he is completely unable to separate Atheism and Evolution - he really doesn't understand they are different things
trying to shake him of this wont work - he still wont except Hitler wasn't an atheist and we really ran that one into the ground...
First off,what the hel% are you doing in my head, get out. No wonder,that explained alot. Second, I said because they believed in evolution, they did what they did. His claim they showed hitler was not atheist evolutionist, was to post that german soldiers had a religious saying on there belt buckle. Meanwhile ignoring all other evidence of what hitler said.
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)
From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
Hitler was all about evolution, atheism,natural selection, nature's law.
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003
“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003
Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
total relism
11-22-2012, 18:54
Yes, it's absolutely horrible.
Seriously though, no, but in order to understand exactly why these verses about poets are in the Qur'an is to assess the position of poetry in the pre-Islamic period. Poetry and magic were often conflated, and there was this idea that certain verses were inspired by the jinn.
In this particular region, these poets would often engage in improvised rhymed debates and they called out Muhammad to defend himself using the same kind of poetry. Muhammad replied by saying that the Qur'an was not poetry and that those poets that had challenged him would actually go to hell.
That doesn't necessarily tell us much about how Muhammad perceived poetry in general, which is a practice that continued throughout Muhammad's time (cf. al-Busiri's Mantle Ode) but how he responded to this very specific form of poetry.
Very interesting thank you, I love this on topic stuff, will you join me? i would love to here some of your opinions/info on Muslim culture even. Koran islam etc.
total relism
11-22-2012, 18:59
To help get back on topic, Hax please help me here. Post something on topic as well. Its just a dream, but it would be nice.
we were just talking about poets/demon possession so...
Muhammad first impression was that he was demon possessed and became depressed and suicidal
satanic versus were Muhammad said he received revaluations from satan
Muhammad received a spell from black magic that caused him to give false revaluations from god for a year.
Sahih al-Bukhari 3175—Aisha narrated: "Once the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact, he had not done."
Sahih al-Bukhari 5765—Aisha narrated: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) so that he used to think that he had had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. Then one day he said, "O Aisha, do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other: ‘What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?’ The other replied, ‘Labid bin Al-Asam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.’ The first one asked, ‘What material did he use?’ The other replied, ‘A comb and the hair stuck to it.’"
Ibn Ishaq, p. 165-166—Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as far as he could. . . . When the apostle saw that his people turned their backs on him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle that made his task so difficult could be removed. . . . Then God sent down "By the star when it sets your comrade errs not and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire," and when he reached His words "Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other", Satan, when he was meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it to his people, put upon his tongue "these are the exalted Gharaniq [Numidian cranes] whose intercession is approved." When the Quraysh heard that, they were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him; while the believers were holding that what their prophet brought them from their Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or a slip, and when he reached the prostration and the end of the Sura in which he prostrated himself the Muslims prostrated themselves when their prophet prostrated confirming what he brought and obeying his command, and the polytheists of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque prostrated when they heard the mention of their gods, so that everyone in the mosque believer and unbeliever prostrated . . . Then the people dispersed and the Quraysh went out, delighted at what had been said about their gods, saying, "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion. He alleged in what he read that they are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved." The news reached the prophet’s companions who were in Abyssinia, it being reported that Quraysh had accepted Islam, so some men started to return while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said, "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), for He was merciful to him, comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had suggested and God established His verses, i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. Then God sent down: "We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast suggestions in his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise."
Kadagar_AV
11-22-2012, 19:07
Oh come on... The real crusades at least had an ending to them...
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 19:30
It's been announced that something awesome has been found on Mars.
I'd say the chance of it being intelligent life is higher than the odds of finding it in the head of a certain copypaste-poster in this thread.
“Meanwhile ignoring all other evidence of what hitler said.”: I post a speech of Hitler (public one, not a “secret” conversation with somebody who had a lot to be forgiven after the war) where Hitler define himself as a Christian…
Evolution is not the fight of the fittest, the strongest. Go back to your studies. The mammoth were surely stronger than the Sapiens. We are still there, they are not…
As atheism, I repeat that Hitler defined himself as a Christian, was never excommunicated… So Christian he is…
“nature does not wish”: This is the proof that Hitler was definitively not an atheist. Nature has no wish, no will, and no purpose. Nature as no will….
“I never said they killed to spread atheism”; Yes, you did: “please dont get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution.”
At least the Crusades were clearly made for Religious Purpose (well, not only) and same the Genocide and Ethnocide of the Indians in South America. But you will most probably deny it was a Genocide… The Christians killed them to save their Souls as would say Torquemada….
“this would be like me saying well those america/english must really hate kill people because they stopped hitler from what he was doing.” Well, of course, you just “forget” that it is your God who initiated the slaughter in giving the orders. And if you really want to carry on this path, the Good Israelis did follow orders…
total relism
11-22-2012, 22:30
“Meanwhile ignoring all other evidence of what hitler said.”: I post a speech of Hitler (public one, not a “secret” conversation with somebody who had a lot to be forgiven after the war) where Hitler define himself as a Christian…
Evolution is not the fight of the fittest, the strongest. Go back to your studies. The mammoth were surely stronger than the Sapiens. We are still there, they are not…
As atheism, I repeat that Hitler defined himself as a Christian, was never excommunicated… So Christian he is…
“nature does not wish”: This is the proof that Hitler was definitively not an atheist. Nature has no wish, no will, and no purpose. Nature as no will….
“I never said they killed to spread atheism”; Yes, you did: “please dont get us started on all the killings atheist have done in the name of evolution.”
At least the Crusades were clearly made for Religious Purpose (well, not only) and same the Genocide and Ethnocide of the Indians in South America. But you will most probably deny it was a Genocide… The Christians killed them to save their Souls as would say Torquemada….
“this would be like me saying well those america/english must really hate kill people because they stopped hitler from what he was doing.” Well, of course, you just “forget” that it is your God who initiated the slaughter in giving the orders. And if you really want to carry on this path, the Good Israelis did follow orders…
This all well and good, i suggest you start a thread i will come join you sir, or post on my thread already on Hitler. Also I quoted his book as well. The rest as much as i would like to respond. It is so very off topic and a thread already exist for it here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&highlight=
the last part applies to the conquest of cannan, a debate im in now of supposed genocide in bible. It is a thread i will be doing here as well down the road.
Kadagar_AV
11-22-2012, 22:38
This all well and good, i suggest you start a thread i will come join you sir, or post on my thread already on Hitler. Also I quoted his book as well. The rest as much as i would like to respond. It is so very off topic and a thread already exist for it here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&highlight=
the last part applies to the conquest of cannan, a debate im in now of supposed genocide in bible. It is a thread i will be doing here as well down the road.
Threats will get you nowhere...
First off,what the hel% are you doing in my head, get out.
Hoo boy.
It's like Christmas dinner with my aunt Maggie.
total relism
11-22-2012, 22:56
Threats will get you nowhere...
sorry you felt scared, i did not mean to. I was just saying i will be doing thread on this very topic were I would love to have you post.
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 22:58
sorry you felt scared, i did not mean to. I was just saying i will be doing thread on this very topic were I would love to have you post.
Irony fail.
I sense a diagnosis.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2012, 23:34
? I said I reject Islam for the reasons given, not because of the many claimed contradictions in koran.
You have given no coherent reasons, so far as I can see.
Here's why I reject Islam: It denies the Divinity of Christ - I don't need any other reasons.
I will respond to this one, and one more of your choosing, this is thread on Islam not claimed bible contradictions. so pick your best one next.
Peter
I am assuming you are referring to matt 4 18-20, were it says peter was catching fish with nets.
and john 1 37-42
full renascences here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%204&version=NIV
Tell me were you see a contradiction? notice in john v 40 Andrew goes and finds peter, tells him of jesus. Andrew,not peter is the disciple of john the baptist.But even if he was for the sake of the argument a disciple of johns and a fisherman, how is that a contradiction? disciples cant work? cant catch fish? what are you claiming here. The account in john 1 happen before matt 4.Peter and other disciples new of jesus before joining him. otherwise why would they all sudden join him?.
In John, Andrew (and then Peter) go to Jesus, in Matthew Jesus calls them to him. This is clear in even in the NIV, there is nothing in Matthew that indicates a prior meeting - and the whole point of the episode is that when Jesus call men come, because he speaks with the voice of God. This is a motif which is repeated throughout the Gospel of Matthew as well as the others, Jesus says "see" and the blind see, he says "walk" and the lame walk.
John was the beloved disciple, followed jesus from the beginning.
There's no evidence for this, all we know is that one Gospel records a "Beloved Disciple" and that Gospel is called "According to John", but there are lots of John's in the New Testament, and the Beloved Disciple is never named in the text, though he is apparently not one of the Twelve.
You wont be able to back up claims with evidence. The bible is 100% correct with no error, this is good debate for another time and another thread. Orginal bible manuscripts were inspired. Please back up other claim that we cant or dont have orginal bible, please give evidence.
You want evidence?
Look up oldest surviving copy of the Gospels, or Paul's letters.
The best evidence though, is theological - an inerrant Bible would be a waste of God's time, because errors would occur as soon as it was copied or read by any human being. In fact, errors would occur as soon as the first Scribe's wand touched the first leave because the scribe would be incapable of interpreting God's perfect word with his flawed intellect.
agree somewhat,with all but original language, but no doctrine teaching etc is changed. Instead of 100% of picture we have 99.9%.
Wrong - many translations show corruption in meaning, Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate has this in spades, as do many modern translations - the NRSV tends to neuter gendered language, while the NIV favours modern doctrinal interpretations of issues such as abortion (in the original Hebrew there is no mention of abortion - the KJV was notably relaxed about slavery and all these versions muddy issues of a sexual nature, specially those few passages on sexual misconduct - which are very vague in Greek or Hebrew, but words such as "homosexual" suddenly crop up in translation.
Want to know what the Bible says - learn Hebrew.
Can't be bothered? Then get over yourself and stop saying you have the interpretation.
HoreTore
11-22-2012, 23:41
but there are lots of John's in the New Testament
Tihihihihi....
what weird ideas about origin of bible? is it not weird to claim as you have done that the gospel of Thomas a forgery written over 100-200 years after thomases death is not reliable?. To instead only accept books by apostles of jesus written in there life time?. Weird idea.
The bible is 100% were we get truth as a christian, The original bible written is 100% accurate.I challenge you once again, show me one thing I have said/claimed that cant be backed up by the bible. Also tell me what theology ofmine comes from some early church father not the bible.
Ehm... I think you have engaged too many debaters. The highlighted part must be someone else. I haven't mentioned any gospels in this debate yet.
You say books written by the Apostles. How sure are you that Peter wrote the letters in the NT? How about the gospel of John?
And you keep referring to an original bible, original manuscripts... The original Hebrew and the original Greek. Now.. Do you have access to the original, or know where they might be?
It would be crucial to check them for any discrepancies when a new translation is brought forth.
An example of theology not from the bible... let's see... how about trinitarianism?
I will (try to) restrain to intervene in this "debate" any more: It is shooting to the ambulance carrying sitting ducks.:shame:
total relism
11-24-2012, 20:15
You have given no coherent reasons, so far as I can see.
Here's why I reject Islam: It denies the Divinity of Christ - I don't need any other reasons.
In John, Andrew (and then Peter) go to Jesus, in Matthew Jesus calls them to him. This is clear in even in the NIV, there is nothing in Matthew that indicates a prior meeting - and the whole point of the episode is that when Jesus call men come, because he speaks with the voice of God. This is a motif which is repeated throughout the Gospel of Matthew as well as the others, Jesus says "see" and the blind see, he says "walk" and the lame walk.
There's no evidence for this, all we know is that one Gospel records a "Beloved Disciple" and that Gospel is called "According to John", but there are lots of John's in the New Testament, and the Beloved Disciple is never named in the text, though he is apparently not one of the Twelve.
[/B]
You want evidence?
Look up oldest surviving copy of the Gospels, or Paul's letters.
The best evidence though, is theological - an inerrant Bible would be a waste of God's time, because errors would occur as soon as it was copied or read by any human being. In fact, errors would occur as soon as the first Scribe's wand touched the first leave because the scribe would be incapable of interpreting God's perfect word with his flawed intellect.
Wrong - many translations show corruption in meaning, Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate has this in spades, as do many modern translations - the NRSV tends to neuter gendered language, while the NIV favours modern doctrinal interpretations of issues such as abortion (in the original Hebrew there is no mention of abortion - the KJV was notably relaxed about slavery and all these versions muddy issues of a sexual nature, specially those few passages on sexual misconduct - which are very vague in Greek or Hebrew, but words such as "homosexual" suddenly crop up in translation.
Want to know what the Bible says - learn Hebrew.
Can't be bothered? Then get over yourself and stop saying you have the interpretation.
My reasons for rejecting Islam come from the info in those debates, as well as the post numbers I listed on OP. Here is why your objection fails to muslims, the bible has been corrupted/mistranslated. So we cant trust it claiming jesus is god. That is why one of my argument, that you could not call a "coherent reason". Is to show the muslim, that the koran and Muhammad said the bible was 100% correct in 600 AD. Than pointing out, that the bible was in full 200 years before that, and is the same as the bible we have today. So even if it was mistranslated, Muhammad and koran say its perfect. See why that is a more "coherent reason" to argue against them than yours?. Plus I garentee 100% you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any.
As I clearly showed, these are two diffident episodes, john 1 happens before matt 4. There are even diffident people involved with these two accounts [Andrew]. In all of john 1 peter is never called. Also why would the disciples up and follow jesus when he called them? this would not happen unless they already knew him. That is why in matt 4 when peter is called [when he is fishing] he right away follows jesus. He already new him and learned from him etc.
I am starting to wonder how much of bible you understand? or are just repeating from what you may have herd. John was one of the twelve original disciples, and one of the three major apostles, peter,john and james. I cant give you all references but look at, mark 9 1-13, 13 1-3, 14.33 3.17. These and many more show john was a original disciple,there from the beginning. Also look at john 21.24.
As I said, you cannot provide one piece of evidence, the bible has been corrupted, the original.
I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, I have original hebrew/greek bible. No expert but I know some. I ask questions and am learning all the time.
If you are like me and believe god is the real author of the bible, than john certainly did write the gosple john14.26 15.25 16.13
Ehm... I think you have engaged too many debaters. The highlighted part must be someone else. I haven't mentioned any gospels in this debate yet.
You say books written by the Apostles. How sure are you that Peter wrote the letters in the NT? How about the gospel of John?
And you keep referring to an original bible, original manuscripts... The original Hebrew and the original Greek. Now.. Do you have access to the original, or know where they might be?
It would be crucial to check them for any discrepancies when a new translation is brought forth.
An example of theology not from the bible... let's see... how about trinitarianism?
Could be very true, given I have this same thread going on three forums. All evidence indicates and is constant with the authors writing the books being the apostles, are you going to question second peter? that is usually the NT book that is questioned. Original bible can be found,if you want reference I will provide if your interested. It seems this forum needs a bible translation thread. I agree on the new translations checking. trinitarianism, is just a word men have made to describe what the bible teaches. Not a change/new doctrine.
All evidence indicates and is constant with the authors writing the books being the apostles, are you going to question second peter? that is usually the NT book that is questioned.
Evidence? I doubt there are any evidence out there that would support claimed author actually wrote the books that bear their names.
Take the gospel of John, since it is on the table anyway. Irenaeus was accused of forging it.
Could be there is a scrap of truth that it is based on something Yochanan actually wrote, but the text as found in today's bible is a processed one, that has gone trough multiple hands before it was presented as holy writ. Consider Revelation... Why does "John" warn that nothing should be added or taken away from this book? Why would he consider it important enough to use valuable space in his text. Or why would the team behind the book put it in? Why ... Because it was already prevalent in the groups that handled such texts.
Original bible can be found,if you want reference I will provide if your interested. It seems this forum needs a bible translation thread. I agree on the new translations checking. trinitarianism, is just a word men have made to describe what the bible teaches. Not a change/new doctrine.
I know this might come as a shock to you.. but there are no originals to be found. You say original greek.. sorry it is a copy of a copy of a... etc. Same with the Hebrew. You can't trust that the oldest manuscript found is anything more than someone's failed attempt at copying an older text which is also a copy of a copy. Christians today are upholding an infallible bible that doesn't really exist.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2012, 00:44
My reasons for rejecting Islam come from the info in those debates, as well as the post numbers I listed on OP. Here is why your objection fails to muslims, the bible has been corrupted/mistranslated. So we cant trust it claiming jesus is god. That is why one of my argument, that you could not call a "coherent reason". Is to show the muslim, that the koran and Muhammad said the bible was 100% correct in 600 AD. Than pointing out, that the bible was in full 200 years before that, and is the same as the bible we have today. So even if it was mistranslated, Muhammad and koran say its perfect. See why that is a more "coherent reason" to argue against them than yours?. Plus I garentee 100% you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any.
I've browsed your "arguments - but I don't see the force of them.
Muhammed did not say the was "100% correct", in fact as I'm sure Hax will tell you, he said quite the opposite. In any case, the Bible does not state that Jesus was the Incarnation, which is the core contention between Christians and Muslims.
As I clearly showed, these are two diffident episodes, john 1 happens before matt 4. There are even diffident people involved with these two accounts [Andrew]. In all of john 1 peter is never called.
Andrew is in both - in Matthew Andrew is with his brother Simon Peter - even your NIV shows that.
Also why would the disciples up and follow jesus when he called them? this would not happen unless they already knew him. That is why in matt 4 when peter is called [when he is fishing] he right away follows jesus. He already new him and learned from him etc.
For the same reason the lame got up and walked, he was the Incarnation. His death rattle rent the curtain of the temple, caused and earthquake and blotted out the sun.
I am starting to wonder how much of bible you understand? or are just repeating from what you may have herd. John was one of the twelve original disciples, and one of the three major apostles, peter,john and james. I cant give you all references but look at, mark 9 1-13, 13 1-3, 14.33 3.17. These and many more show john was a original disciple,there from the beginning. Also look at john 21.24.
Nowhere does it show that the "Beloved Disciple" is actually John, he is NEVER named in John, and he has that role only in John.
Count them - the Eleven Apostles go away with Jesus to be instructed in John, but the Beloved Disciple walks off into the sunset and is never heard from again - he may have never died. In any case there are lots of Johns in the New Testament
As I said, you cannot provide one piece of evidence, the bible has been corrupted, the original.
There are no original manuscripts - all copies are corrupt.
The world is Fallen, get over it.
I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, I have original hebrew/greek bible. No expert but I know some. I ask questions and am learning all the time.
No, you have the Bible in original languages, edited together from newer manuscripts. Read the Forward to your Bible, the editors should explain it there.
You want evidence? Look up the oldest Hebrew manuscript, it's medieval.
If you are like me and believe god is the real author of the bible, than john certainly did write the gosple john14.26 15.25 16.13
I despise atomisation of Sciptura, but very well.
14.26 references the Holy Spirit, the "advocate" will teach the Apostles everything and remind them of what Christ has said - it doesn't say theywill write these things down. Nor do the following verses
15.25 - this is the tale end of Jesus' bit about the Temple Priests, (18-26) they hate him (and God) because of his good works, he has incited them to wrath and damned their souls to fulfil the prophecy, because they are hateful. Perhaps you meant to reference 26? Here the disciples are called to testify because they have been with Jesus from the beginning, still there is nothing about writing.
16.13 - the Holy Spirit again - he will guide and testify to the Apostles. This still didn't stop Peter from initially disbelieving the Command of God in Act's 10, though, did it.
None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves.
John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact, Jesus never writes anything and people bring messages to him by word of mouth. The only significant writing done is by Pilate, when he hangs a sign above Christ's head as he is Crucified.
The New Testament is about the movement of the Holy Spirit, not a written word. Indeed, the "Word" of God is not the Bible - it is YHWH - "I AM" - which is the sum totality of everything we need to know about God, and can know.
Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic or something?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2012, 01:49
Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic or something?
But also probably Hebrew and Greek - after all, Pilate didn't bother to learn Aramaic.
Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.
a completely inoffensive name
11-25-2012, 11:39
Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.
It is a known fact that Jesus could get into the best uni's with that kind of background and being multilingual.
HoreTore
11-25-2012, 12:45
Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.
People living in areas with multiple tribes usually do, we see it in todays world too.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2012, 18:25
Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.
Yet, shockingly, this fact is not recognised by many modern theologians - who insist that the lingua franca at the time was Aramaic, when it is painfully obvious that Jesus must have known Greek (if not Latin) to converse with so many Roman officials.
total relism
11-26-2012, 14:53
Evidence? I doubt there are any evidence out there that would support claimed author actually wrote the books that bear their names.
Take the gospel of John, since it is on the table anyway. Irenaeus was accused of forging it.
Could be there is a scrap of truth that it is based on something Yochanan actually wrote, but the text as found in today's bible is a processed one, that has gone trough multiple hands before it was presented as holy writ. Consider Revelation... Why does "John" warn that nothing should be added or taken away from this book? Why would he consider it important enough to use valuable space in his text. Or why would the team behind the book put it in? Why ... Because it was already prevalent in the groups that handled such texts.
I know this might come as a shock to you.. but there are no originals to be found. You say original greek.. sorry it is a copy of a copy of a... etc. Same with the Hebrew. You can't trust that the oldest manuscript found is anything more than someone's failed attempt at copying an older text which is also a copy of a copy. Christians today are upholding an infallible bible that doesn't really exist.
I shall ask for any evidence for your claims, I have asked over and over and over for evidence the bible john/revaluations has been mistranslated or messed with. You have provided none, As I claimed all evidence is that the authors wrote the books they said they did. I suggest watching these videos
Reliability of Scripture – Accuracy of the Old Testament
http://www.josh.org/resources/watch-and-listen/video-player/?player=vimeo&videoid=37529454&format=standard
http://www.josh.org/resources/watch-and-listen/video-player/?player=youtube&videoid=iaW2OpQRoP0&format=standard&t=%CE%9D%CE%BFn-Christian%20Authors%20Confirm%20NT%27s%20Reliability
The Reliability of the New Testament Text (Dr. James White)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI
F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”
He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning the New Testament:
“The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-89).
End of revaluations, that is because it is the end of the bible. Last book, last written no more added none taken away. jesus last the end, as jesus said in gospels.
I've browsed your "arguments - but I don't see the force of them.
Muhammed did not say the was "100% correct", in fact as I'm sure Hax will tell you, he said quite the opposite. In any case, the Bible does not state that Jesus was the Incarnation, which is the core contention between Christians and Muslims.
Andrew is in both - in Matthew Andrew is with his brother Simon Peter - even your NIV shows that.
For the same reason the lame got up and walked, he was the Incarnation. His death rattle rent the curtain of the temple, caused and earthquake and blotted out the sun.
Nowhere does it show that the "Beloved Disciple" is actually John, he is NEVER named in John, and he has that role only in John.
Count them - the Eleven Apostles go away with Jesus to be instructed in John, but the Beloved Disciple walks off into the sunset and is never heard from again - he may have never died. In any case there are [I]lots of Johns in the New Testament
There are no original manuscripts - all copies are corrupt.
The world is Fallen, get over it.
No, you have the Bible in original languages, edited together from newer manuscripts. Read the Forward to your Bible, the editors should explain it there.
You want evidence? Look up the oldest Hebrew manuscript, it's medieval.
I despise atomisation of Sciptura, but very well.
14.26 references the Holy Spirit, the "advocate" will teach the Apostles everything and remind them of what Christ has said - it doesn't say theywill write these things down. Nor do the following verses
15.25 - this is the tale end of Jesus' bit about the Temple Priests, (18-26) they hate him (and God) because of his good works, he has incited them to wrath and damned their souls to fulfil the prophecy, because they are hateful. Perhaps you meant to reference 26? Here the disciples are called to testify because they have been with Jesus from the beginning, still there is nothing about writing.
16.13 - the Holy Spirit again - he will guide and testify to the Apostles. This still didn't stop Peter from initially disbelieving the Command of God in Act's 10, though, did it.
None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves.
John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact, Jesus never writes anything and people bring messages to him by word of mouth. The only significant writing done is by Pilate, when he hangs a sign above Christ's head as he is Crucified.
The New Testament is about the movement of the Holy Spirit, not a written word. Indeed, the "Word" of God is not the Bible - it is YHWH - "I AM" - which is the sum totality of everything we need to know about God, and can know.
as I sated before, "Plus I garentee 100%, you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any."
so my statement proves true. Muhammad and koran both claim to be 100%, and yes Muhammad said bible is 100% true at his time 600ad the bible we have today. But you would know that and the koranic passages they say so, because you have read all my arguments correct? lol. You are showing yourself up here. Hax has not challenged this because he knows it to be true. You here claim bible does not say jesus was the Incarnation, this is clearly false. I would be glad to show so. Are you jahovas witness? please tell me clearly what you believe so I can respond. Yet a few responses later.you say he is below.
NIV is not mine, I never made it up. i use many, what do you use may I ask?. Matt 4 and John 1 as stated are diffident times/places, this is clearly true. Or why peter,get up and follow jesus, someone he knows nothing about? The first john 1 is when andrew goes finds peter and tells him of jesus. Than later in matt 4 they become dipicles of jesus for good. It is clear from reading them in context.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4&version=NIV
I would say not a chance, unless the disciples had no choice to follow him, they did. There is no free will as well. I say the sick gut up and walked because they were healed, the disciples followed jesus because of johns testimony john 1 and what they saw/herd from him. Otherwise jesus could tell anyone follow me and they all would, all would follow/believe in him.
What I said was john was original disciple there from beginning. You claimed otherwise. Please reference what you are referring to about john and the 11 disciples.
read first response. But your response proves you cant prove what you claim, that the bible has been corrupted.
I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, the bible has not been acuratley translated.
14.26
but they will have perfect knowledge of all things, so when they rite them down, it is without error.
15.25
read john 20 30-31 john did testify about jesus and things he saw from the beginning. That is his gospel. But notice again, john was there from beginning.
16.13
as I said, holy spirit leads apostles to writer gospels.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16
you than claim somehow with ablsoulety no evidence
"None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves."
the fact is it applies to all NT writings and all apostles writings.
so your claim the bible is untrustworthy is not backed by any evidence in or outside the bible. Nor your claims john was not written by john or that he was not one of original disciples.
you than claim amazingly.
John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact,
as I have said over and over to you, please back up with evidence. This thread is not about your baseless opinions on who wrote the gospels, but a thread on Islam. I will be starting a thread on biblical translation later [largely because of you.].
total relism
11-26-2012, 15:01
It would be a bigger miracle than the koran [muslim claim] but lets see if we can get on topic.
Talking Ants and Shrinking Humans:An Analysis of Muhammad’s Scientific Blunders
http://www.acts17.net/articles/talkingants.htm
James White: Muhammad's Errors about Jesus
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/12/james-white-muhammads-errors-about.html
Who brought revaluations to Muhammad Gabriel or the holy spirit? 2.91 16.104 26.193 53.5 is gabrial the holy spirit? Misunderstanding of luke 1.26
10 reasons Muhammad is not from god http://www.investigateislam.com/english/index.phpHYPERLINK "http://www.investigateislam.com/english/index.phpHYPERLINK"?
Allah is all knowing yet in 18.22 he is unsure how many people are saved.
some things forbidden in Koran, like many sexual partners and liberal use of wine, are allowed in haven.
allah tells us not to sin.but created us imperfect
If allah is impersonal and does not reveal himself, than how do we know that allah reveled to Muhammad?
why would gods perfect word from haven need to be corrected? 2.110
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.