Is Islam true?.

[Brenus]

“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]

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.

[Fragony]

Atheism is no faith, we don't believe god doesn't exist we just can't be bothered

[Hax]

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.

[Brenus]

“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?

[total relism]

“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...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


But please stay on topic, you clearly have not read bible, your claims are false and this is thread on Islam.

[Jolt]

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.

[total relism]

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...Path=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?

[Andres]

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]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Sigurd]

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]

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?

[Hax]

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.

[Jolt]

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.

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...Path=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. 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]

[QUOTE=Jolt;2053497529].

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.



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. 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]

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.