Is Islam true?.

“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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

@ 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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 ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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/showt...ity&highlight=


this thread is islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

: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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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/showt...ity&highlight=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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/...+1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...04&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%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

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."

Oh come on... The real crusades at least had an ending to them...

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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/showt...ity&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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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/showt...ity&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...

Quote:

---

First off,what the hel% are you doing in my head, get out.

---

Hoo boy.

It's like Christmas dinner with my aunt Maggie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

? 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.

Quote:

---

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/...+1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...04&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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

but there are lots of John's in the New Testament

---

Tihihihihi....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

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.