Is Islam true?.

[total relism]

“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…

“Do you truly believe the same author [paul] contradicted himself just a few verse away?.” Well, he obviously did, as show in the quote.

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.

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=

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%.

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)