PDA

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.



saeedalyousuf
08-08-2010, 02:00 PM
Questions posted on Aug 18, 2009 on Richard Dawkins.net, still not answered by Richard Dawkins:

>> S1:
What is the real objective of the human life?

S2:
Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?

S3:
Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?

S4:
Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

S5:
Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?

S6:
The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism? <<

The questions were posted under the topic:

“The Six Questions For Richard Dawkins”


Saeed H H Alyousuf.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Hugo
09-14-2010, 02:25 PM
Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf
Questions posted on Aug 18, 2009 on Richard Dawkins.net, still not answered by Richard Dawkins:
S1: What is the real objective of the human life?
S2: Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?
S3: Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?
S4: Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?
S5: Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?
S6: The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism? <<
Can we assume that YOU know the answers, if so let us hear them please?
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
09-14-2010, 02:51 PM
To atheists those questions are irrelevant. So, I vote none of the above.

I predict the standard atheist answers are as follows:

S1: None. The purpose of life is dependent upon each individuals' goals and aspirations, there is no ultimate cosmic goal to them.

S2: No one. The future is uncertain.

S3: Yes, they do.

S4: (I can't predict this one. Wait until an atheist replies.)

S5: To most atheists the universe is impersonal. (Including Buddhists like Trumble)

S6: They don't need to. Atheism is not a system of belief/ideology, it is merely a belief/idea. To them, the rise of the Judaic kingdom, Christian and Muslim empires are merely dynamics of history just like the Mongol empire, Srivijaya, Majapahit, The Third Reich, the French Revolution, and The USSR.
Reply

جوري
09-14-2010, 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Can we assume that YOU know the answers, if so let us hear them please?
were you able to get through elementary school without atomoxetine or did you assign your teachers homework because you couldn't find a meaningful response to their questions?

all the best
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Pygoscelis
09-15-2010, 04:47 AM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
To atheists those questions are irrelevant. So, I vote none of the above.

I predict the standard atheist answers are as follows:

S1: None. The purpose of life is dependent upon each individuals' goals and aspirations, there is no ultimate cosmic goal to them.

S2: No one. The future is uncertain.

S3: Yes, they do.

S4: (I can't predict this one. Wait until an atheist replies.)

S5: To most atheists the universe is impersonal. (Including Buddhists like Trumble)

S6: They don't need to. Atheism is not a system of belief/ideology, it is merely a belief/idea. To them, the rise of the Judaic kingdom, Christian and Muslim empires are merely dynamics of history just like the Mongol empire, Srivijaya, Majapahit, The Third Reich, the French Revolution, and The USSR.
Very well done. That is precisely how I'd answer those questions. They are rather meaningless questions to me.

As for S4 - Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

As opposed to killing oneself and not committing oneself to that future? This question makes the least sense of all.
Reply

Hugo
09-15-2010, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf
>> S1:What is the real objective of the human life?
To enjoy life and add to it something of value. To explore nature and the human condition, to ask any question and pursue knowledge. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins said in a TV interview with Paxman that "we are all here for a purpose"
S2: Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?
No one and all we know about existence is that it always comes to and end sooner or later even the Bible says that the Universes will be folded up like a garments.
S3:Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?
It is not a matter of belief about what the future might hold since it will have no bearing on the future itself. If you are happy to guarantee that I will live till I'm 99 or win the lottery or even guarantee my place in heaven if it exits I will be delighted.
S4:Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?
Since the future is unknown it can hardly be guaranteed so the question has a deficit of logic. I don't know what I will know tomorrow or what anyone else will know tomorrow - if you do tell us so that we can have tomorrow inventions and discoveries today
S5: Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?
No one knows the answer to this, string theory for example suggests that something can come from nothing.
S6:The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?
Its a comforting idea is it to you to regard 'eliminating' a whole culture or civilization as a proof of credibility whilst to any one with a hint of humanity will see it as oppression and greed. Comparable works of course are Stalinist purges, Pol pots massacres, etc
Reply

glo
09-18-2010, 07:02 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
As for S4 - Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

As opposed to killing oneself and not committing oneself to that future? This question makes the least sense of all.
I understand that question to mean 'Why should anybody subscribe to and live according to a theology/dogma/way of life, if there is no complete proof or assurance that the desired outcome with really happen?'
With regards to Islam it probably also refers to the concept that a Muslim never knows whether s/he has been good enough to be allowed entry into Jannah.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-18-2010, 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by glo
With regards to Islam it probably also refers to the concept that a Muslim never knows whether s/he has been good enough to be allowed entry into Jannah.
As opposed to christianity concept where anyone will be accepted into paradise as long as they claim that Jesus pbuh is god?
Reply

Hugo
09-18-2010, 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
As opposed to christianity concept where anyone will be accepted into paradise as long as they claim that Jesus pbuh is god?
Not quite because one has to accept that Jesus died and was resurrected and repent of our many misdeeds and such belief is counted by God as righteousness, that is we don't claim any righteousness of our own and this indeed is the faith of Abraham for he also was accepted by God through faith. The point being that as a Muslim you have no assurance of heaven but the Christian does.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-18-2010, 03:42 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
The point being that as a Muslim you have no assurance of heaven
not quite.
When a person dies as a muslim ( that is, accept that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger), then they all will eventually go to jannah/heaven, although some will go straight to heaven and some will have to go the hell first, depending on what they did when they were alive on earth.
hence justice will be served.

Originally Posted by Hugo
Not quite because one has to accept that Jesus died and was resurrected and repent of our many misdeeds and such belief is counted by God as righteousness, that is we don't claim any righteousness of our own and this indeed is the faith of Abraham for he also was accepted by God through faith. The point being that as a Muslim you have no assurance of heaven but the Christian does.
I see.
So you are now 100% certain that you will go straight to heaven when you die?
Reply

glo
09-18-2010, 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
As opposed to christianity concept where anyone will be accepted into paradise as long as they claim that Jesus pbuh is god?
Originally Posted by Hugo
Not quite because one has to accept that Jesus died and was resurrected and repent of our many misdeeds and such belief is counted by God as righteousness, that is we don't claim any righteousness of our own and this indeed is the faith of Abraham for he also was accepted by God through faith. The point being that as a Muslim you have no assurance of heaven but the Christian does.
Naidamar, I think it is more complicated than assuming that anybody who "claims that Jesus is God" will be assured salvation.
As Hugo says, it is important that we repent of our sins too.
I think there is also an expectation that our faith in and love for God is reflected in our attitudes and behaviour. ("As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:25-26)

This is a topic for another discussion, I am sure - but Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."(John 14:5-7)
I think that might mean different things to different people.

However, it certainly means that Jesus gave us all through his death and resurrection the opportunity to return to God and gain salvation. That opportunity is there for each and everyone of us.
We are free to choose, and God will be our judge. (After all, as Muslims put it so beautifully God knows best)

* * *

Anyway, this discussion belongs elsewhere and my intention was not to argue the Christian vs Muslim perception of salvation.

In answer to Pygo's question I was trying to consider how the writer of the original questions may have meant question S4.
If he is a Muslim (which I am assuming he is), then he would have almost certainly taken into account the fact that Muslims follow their faith and religion without even having the assurance that they will enter Jannah.
Do you agree?
Reply

جوري
09-18-2010, 04:01 PM
Originally Posted by glo



Naidamar, I think it is more complicated than assuming that anybody who "claims that Jesus is God" will be assured salvation.
As Hugo says, it is important that we repent of our sins too.
I thought God loves everyone in Christianity? How can he love everyone and then dam n them to the abyss?
Reply

glo
09-18-2010, 04:09 PM
I believe God does love everybody. He loves his entire creation - why else would he have created it?
But loving us doesn't mean he will not judge us and deal without according to his righteousness.

After all, I love my children - but that doesn't mean I let them do what they like or I don't punish them when necessary ...

How does Islam view God?
Does he love some people and hate others?

(I really think we should start another thread, if we want to continue this conversation. This thread is about Richard Dawkins and the atheist perspective in particular. Salvation according to Christianity has nothing to do with it ...
Do you fancy starting a new thread?)
Reply

جوري
09-18-2010, 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by glo
I believe God does love everybody. He loves his entire creation - why else would he have created it?
I can't speak for the standards of your god, but certainly loving doesn't reconcile with the picture you afore mentioned. Unless you have a different definition of love?
But loving us doesn't mean he will not judge us and deal without according to his righteousness.
How can loving us equal to eternal dam nation? seems irreconcilable.
After all, I love my children - but that doesn't mean I let them do what they like or I don't punish them when necessary ...
You'd punish them with death and burning and unending pain over and over and no chance of repentance for all eternity? I believe you'd have social services at your door in a blink with you in a mental institution if not put to death and your children in a foster home for being an unfit mother.. certainly there will be no pretenses on love then!

How does Islam view God?
You have been here long enough, perhaps you should read more and dispense with ignorance less?

Does he love some people and hate others?
God doesn't love evil or evil doers that is for sure!
(I really think we should start another thread, if we want to continue this conversation. This thread is about Richard Dawkins and the atheist perspective in particular. Salvation according to Christianity has nothing to do with it ...
Do you fancy starting a new thread?)
Such a thread already exists!
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...everybody.html

hence my conundrum really.. Everyday something else hypocritical and unusual crops about your religion!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
09-18-2010, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by glo
Naidamar, I think it is more complicated than assuming that anybody who "claims that Jesus is God" will be assured salvation.
As Hugo says, it is important that we repent of our sins too.
I think there is also an expectation that our faith in and love for God is reflected in our attitudes and behaviour. ("As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:25-26)

This is a topic for another discussion, I am sure - but Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."(John 14:5-7)
I think that might mean different things to different people.

However, it certainly means that Jesus gave us all through his death and resurrection the opportunity to return to God and gain salvation. That opportunity is there for each and everyone of us.
We are free to choose, and God will be our judge. (After all, as Muslims put it so beautifully God knows best)
What you write in three paragraphs is another round of confusion, designed I think to deflect questions about the true core of christianity.

So now you are saying you are not sure if christians are accepted into heaven?

Just a moment ago I thought I heard different thing.

Originally Posted by glo
In answer to Pygo's question I was trying to consider how the writer of the original questions may have meant question S4.
If he is a Muslim (which I am assuming he is), then he would have almost certainly taken into account the fact that Muslims follow their faith and religion without even having the assurance that they will enter Jannah.
Do you agree?
Read again the OP carefully.

The questions were designed to be answered by atheists.

And read again the following posts after that.

If you want muslims to answer your questions, then I am sure there will be plenty of muslims here happy to do so.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-18-2010, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by glo
But loving us doesn't mean he will not judge us and deal without according to his righteousness.
So who will god (according to christians) judge?
everyone including christians? or non christians only?

and some proof to back up your opinion please.

Originally Posted by glo
After all, I love my children - but that doesn't mean I let them do what they like or I don't punish them when necessary ...
Do you punish and torture your children until they die?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-18-2010, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by glo
(I really think we should start another thread, if we want to continue this conversation. This thread is about Richard Dawkins and the atheist perspective in particular. Salvation according to Christianity has nothing to do with it ...
Do you fancy starting a new thread?)
You were the one who started hijacking this thread by giving your version of muslims answer to S4 while the OP wanted ATHEISTS (or at least possible answers from atheists) answer.
This is in your post #7
Reply

AlwaysIslam
09-18-2010, 05:01 PM
Yep! Allah is going to fix a limit for Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) to admit people from hell into heaven. Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) will admit people into heaven from hell 3 times and each time he is only allowed to bring a certain limit. The 4th time the Prophet (PBUH) will come back to Allah and say "None remains in Hell but those whom the Qur'an has imprisoned in hell, and who have been destined to an eternal stay in Hell."-Sahih-Al-Bukhari
So as long as you die believing that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed (PBUH) is his last and final messenger, you will eventually go to heaven at some point.
[QUOTE=naidamar;1368433]not quite.
When a person dies as a muslim ( that is, accept that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger), then they all will eventually go to jannah/heaven, although some will go straight to heaven and some will have to go the hell first, depending on what they did when they were alive on earth.
hence justice will be served.
Reply

glo
09-18-2010, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
You were the one who started hijacking this thread by giving your version of muslims answer to S4 while the OP wanted ATHEISTS (or at least possible answers from atheists) answer.
This is in your post #7
With all due respect, naidamar, but I was trying to clarify what the original question S4 meant, as Pygo (who IS an atheist) did not seem to be sure:

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
As for S4 - Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?

As opposed to killing oneself and not committing oneself to that future? This question makes the least sense of all.
I was trying to be helpful, that's all.
If you read carefully you'll notice that I didn't answer the questions (although I do not see the OP stipulating anywhere that only atheists are allowed to answer the question. Al-Indunisiy and Hugo both did, and neither of them are atheists), instead I was trying to clarify what it meant.

I meant no criticism of Islam. I have learned from posts in this forum that no Muslim would ever claim to be assured entry into Jannah - therefore Muslims follow Islam without ever being guaranteed paradise (which is what question S4 is referring to)
Am I wrong?
Do you disagree with that view?

My post #7 was perfectly on track.
I don't think this thread was taken off topic until you wrote the following post. That's where we left the atheist's view and moved onto salvation in Christianity:

Originally Posted by naidamar
As opposed to christianity concept where anyone will be accepted into paradise as long as they claim that Jesus pbuh is god?
I agree that the topic of salvation in Christianity takes this thread off topic, hence I suggested to start a new thread if people wish to do so.
Perhaps the mods can clear up this thread a little ...
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-18-2010, 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So who will god (according to christians) judge?
everyone including christians? or non christians only?

and some proof to back up your opinion please.
In Matthew 25 Jesus tells a parable about the final judgment:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
As I read the passage, it isn't just Christians, but all who are judged. This also addresses your other question in this thread.

Originally Posted by naidamar
As opposed to christianity concept where anyone will be accepted into paradise as long as they claim that Jesus pbuh is god?
Matthew 25 would seem to imply that such a claim would not, in and of itself, be sufficient. For instance, from a Christian point of view, I would submit that Satan recognizes Jesus as God, but that isn't going to get him into heaven. I suggest that merely making the claim by mouthing a few words is insufficient without actually putting one's trust in Jesus. Further, to really give evidence that one has put his/her trust in Jesus to save would then also imply living by God's standards for one has knowledge that one's future is secure in him.
Reply

جوري
09-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
In Matthew 25 Jesus tells a parable about the final judgment:As I read the passage, it isn't just Christians, but all who are judged. This also addresses your other question in this thread.

Matthew 25 would seem to imply that such a claim would not, in and of itself, be sufficient. For instance, from a Christian point of view, I would submit that Satan recognizes Jesus as God, but that isn't going to get him into heaven. I suggest that merely making the claim by mouthing a few words is insufficient without actually putting one's trust in Jesus. Further, to really give evidence that one has put his/her trust in Jesus to save would then also imply living by God's standards for one has knowledge that one's future is secure in him.
Problem isn't accepting things from our end, problem is what your god alleges and then what he then does. Your dogma comes out hypocritical at the end (not that it has ever ceased) but this is simply another aspect to add to the list!
In other words, you can't claim to love everyone, and then put little conditions on your love as we go along or else you're dam ned into the abyss, how about simply admitting from the get go that you simply don't love everyone but only those who seem to believe that you died eating their sins?

hell and loving everyone don't go together, you simply must take one out of the equation.. same principal should apply with monotheism and three gods, you can't have both, you must get rid of one concept for the other to have some semblance of truth or at least common sense!

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-18-2010, 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by glo

I understand that question to mean 'Why should anybody subscribe to and live according to a theology/dogma/way of life, if there is no complete proof or assurance that the desired outcome with really happen?'
With regards to Islam it probably also refers to the concept that a Muslim never knows whether s/he has been good enough to be allowed entry into Jannah.
If that is what he meant, then he seems to be admitting that religion is more about comfort than truth. It would be nice if there was a rewarding afterlife, sure, especially if you have a hard time of this life, but believing it doesn't make it so. I would like to have a new ferari waiting for me when I go home tonight but no matter how much I wish it'll be there, I have no real reason to believe it will.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-19-2010, 01:43 AM
Originally Posted by glo
I meant no criticism of Islam. I have learned from posts in this forum that no Muslim would ever claim to be assured entry into Jannah - therefore Muslims follow Islam without ever being guaranteed paradise (which is what question S4 is referring to)
Am I wrong?
Do you disagree with that view?
As some others have said, you have been on this forum long enough to know this basic info about Islam.
And read again my answer in my previous post as well as others'.

Now, my question to you:

Are all christians guaranteed to enter paradise?

i just want to confirm again, because this is what you and your folks have been selling, but recent answers apparently waver from this position.
Reply

Zafran
09-19-2010, 02:09 AM
salaam

the simple idea of being a munafiq (which anybody can be) is the biggest fear of the muslims and the sins that could lead a person to hell.

To say you will go to heaven and thats certian is pure arrogance.

However the true muslims or believers will go to heaven (even if they are punished in hellfire before) - God decides who the true believers and followers of the prophet and the messege are - but nobody should be arrogant that its certian that he or she is going to heaven. Rather we should see one self as trying to get there and hoping for the mercy and grace of God will protect us in the next life from our sins and the hellfire.

peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-19-2010, 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
As some others have said, you have been on this forum long enough to know this basic info about Islam.
And read again my answer in my previous post as well as others'.

Now, my question to you:

Are all christians guaranteed to enter paradise?

i just want to confirm again, because this is what you and your folks have been selling, but recent answers apparently waver from this position.
If they are truly Christian, meaning belonging to Christ, then yes. But not all who go by that name are truly Christian. And ultimately the only one who can determine who is and who is not truly Christian is Christ himself.


I have been repeatedly told on these forums that not all who call themselves Muslims are truly followers of Islam. But that it is up for Allah to decide. Well, we have the same issue in Christianity.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-19-2010, 08:49 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If they are truly Christian, meaning belonging to Christ, then yes. But not all who go by that name are truly Christian. And ultimately the only one who can determine who is and who is not truly Christian is Christ himself.
So it seems that intentions and deeds also count towards whether a person is truly christian?
This is my understanding from your explanation above.
Reply

glo
09-19-2010, 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
As some others have said, you have been on this forum long enough to know this basic info about Islam.
I like to think that I have a basic understanding. But that doesn't prevent me from also realising that my practising Muslim friends may have a firmer foundation and therefore asking them for confirmation of my own knowledge.

Originally Posted by naidamar
Now, my question to you:

Are all christians guaranteed to enter paradise?
I agree with Grace Seeker's statement:
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If they are truly Christian, meaning belonging to Christ, then yes. But not all who go by that name are truly Christian. And ultimately the only one who can determine who is and who is not truly Christian is Christ himself.


I have been repeatedly told on these forums that not all who call themselves Muslims are truly followers of Islam. But that it is up for Allah to decide. Well, we have the same issue in Christianity.
Naidamar, yes, I believe that all Christians will enter paradise ... but we should not be so proud to assume that we know who does and doesn't qualify as a true Christian.
What people proclaim with their mouths might be quite different from what's in their hearts - and God alone knows our hearts and innermost thoughts and feelings.

Originally Posted by naidamar
So it seems that intentions and deeds also count towards whether a person is truly christian?
I most certainly think so!
I am sure we have mentioned and discussed this on many occasions before.

A true faith in and love for God should be reflected in our attitudes and behaviours.
Whilst none of us are perfect and all of us make mistakes and fall short of God's commandments, whilst we are in the painful habit of stumbling and failing and sinning - if we are open and willing to hear God's calling, to be guided by his spirit and to deny our own desires for the sake of God, then - whether suddenly or gradually - we should become more god-loving and people-loving people, and God's love and grace and mercy should work in us and through us.

I quote James again:

Originally Posted by glo
Naidamar, I think it is more complicated than assuming that anybody who "claims that Jesus is God" will be assured salvation.
As Hugo says, it is important that we repent of our sins too.
I think there is also an expectation that our faith in and love for God is reflected in our attitudes and behaviour. ("As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:25-26)
Reply

جوري
09-19-2010, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by glo
Naidamar, yes, I believe that all Christians will enter paradise ...

So what you are saying is, God only loves Christians, for if he truly loved everyone, why would he throw those who have spent their life doing righteous deeds into an eternal abyss, while sparing those causing hatred, corruption, lechery and mischief upon the earth for merely being called Christians? If we understand you correctly, and we do since the above is a direct quote, it would mean one thing and one thing alone!
The christian god doesn't love everyone as you so like to proclaim- so I'd quite with that agenda, since drowning it with enough florid padding won't change the matters any!

all the best
Reply

aadil77
09-19-2010, 06:51 PM
Originally Posted by glo
Naidamar, yes, I believe that all Christians will enter paradise ... but we should not be so proud to assume that we know who does and doesn't qualify as a true Christian.
What people proclaim with their mouths might be quite different from what's in their hearts - and God alone knows our hearts and innermost thoughts and feelings.
Exactly the same with us, we believe all muslims will eventually enter heaven but we should not be so certain and proud otherwise we may lose our faith
Reply

Hugo
09-19-2010, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So you are now 100% certain that you will go straight to heaven when you die?
The whole of existence is uncertain so whilst I am sure the Bible teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus on a day to day basis my faith shall I say wanders and doubts creep in and I think this quite normal. You may know the Al Ghazali, a famous and conservative Islamic scholar once said "the man who has never doubted has never believed either". My own view is that God in a way wants us to be on the edge of certainty and this is because in some paradoxical manner doubts keep us asking questions, keeps us in a state where we need to seek God continually. In life there is plenty to test out faith - we get ill, people die, things go badly wrong and so on but its a hope that all things work out for good in the end is something we can hang on to, sometimes though just by the fingertips.

When one in 100% certain your mind closes down and you stop thinking. It is easy to see how destructive this can be if we think about Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung, Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki or events like the inquisition. All these men think they have the truth and believe they are in some sense doing good but to me the worst of these is those who claim that they are doing God's will and work and therefore cannot be wrong with minds totally closed and their sense of humanity non existent - if Bin Laden or al-Awarki are Godly men then there is no hope for humanity.
Reply

Zafran
09-19-2010, 08:59 PM
When one in 100% certain your mind closes down and you stop thinking. It is easy to see how destructive this can be if we think about Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung, Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki or events like the inquisition. All these men think they have the truth and believe they are in some sense doing good but to me the worst of these is those who claim that they are doing God's will and work and therefore cannot be wrong with minds totally closed and their sense of humanity non existent - if Bin Laden or al-Awarki are Godly men then there is no hope for humanity.
The same could be said about Tony Blair, George Bush, the pope, John Heage, The pastor that wanted burn the quran Jones etc - the irony is that its these types of people end up having all the power and fame to preety much do what they want. Many poeple are willing to defend them and even worse die for them
Reply

glo
09-19-2010, 09:00 PM
Vale Lily, perhpas if you read and quote the whole sentence I wrote, rather than just the first part, you'll get a better understanding of what I am trying to say:
Originally Posted by glo
Naidamar, yes, I believe that all Christians will enter paradise ... but we should not be so proud to assume that we know who does and doesn't qualify as a true Christian.
What people proclaim with their mouths might be quite different from what's in their hearts - and God alone knows our hearts and innermost thoughts and feelings.
Brother aadil understood what I meant:

Originally Posted by aadil77
Exactly the same with us, we believe all muslims will eventually enter heaven but we should not be so certain and proud otherwise we may lose our faith
Amen to that, aadil. Thank you for sharing.
Reply

Hugo
09-19-2010, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The same could be said about Tony Blair, George Bush, the pope, John Heage, The pastor that wanted burn the quran Jones etc - the irony is that its these types of people end up having all the power and fame to preety much do what they want. Many poeple are willing to defend them and even worse die for them
Ah, so we agree that those who preach violence or do violence we must in no way defend them and in our own way 'fight' against the certainties they claim. However, I am not aware that the current Pope or the Qu'ran burning pastor are advocates of or have done any violence? Which John Heage are you talking about?
Reply

Zafran
09-19-2010, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Ah, so we agree that those who preach violence or do violence we must in no way defend them and in our own way 'fight' against the certainties they claim. However, I am not aware that the current Pope or the Qu'ran burning pastor are advocates of or have done any violence? Which John Heage are you talking about?
I was more focusing on the below point

All these men think they have the truth and believe they are in some sense doing good but to me the worst of these is those who claim that they are doing God's will and work and therefore cannot be wrong with minds totally closed and their sense of humanity non existent - if Bin Laden or al-Awarki are Godly men then there is no hope for humanity
all the people I have named fit very well with your above decription. John Hagee by the way.
Reply

Hugo
09-19-2010, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
all the people I have named fit very well with your above decription. John Hagee by the way.
Well almost anyone according to you is like Bin Laden and unless you can point to examples I have never heard say the the current Pope claiming the equivalent of violent Jihad as is done by Al-Awarki who claims it to be divinely mandated in the Qu'ran? Who is this John Heage or Hagee as you don't seem to be consistent with the spelling?

But in general, do you agree that 100% certainty is not a good thing especially in religion
Reply

Zafran
09-19-2010, 10:09 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well almost anyone according to you is like Bin Laden and unless you can point to examples I have never heard say the the current Pope claiming the equivalent of violent Jihad as is done by Al-Awarki who claims it to be divinely mandated in the Qu'ran? Who is this John Heage or Hagee as you don't seem to be consistent with the spelling?

But in general, do you agree that 100% certainty is not a good thing especially in religion
The Pope has said many crazy things in the past - Like the thing he said about the prophet Muhammad pbuh - and whats his issues with condoms? - Divinely mandated thanks to the bible?

Whats your problem with Anwar Al waki the guys got an Assassination contract on his head by the US - Is that violent enough for you - so has Bin Laden by the way.

John Hagee is crazy as well - google the joker - or youtube him you'll love it too - he seems to think hes divinely mandated as well, thanks to the bible. Hes preety famous in america. Its not just him many christians have that idea in america.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQvv...eature=related

By the way I'll add Rod Parsley as well - both Hagee and Parsley were spiritual endorsers of Mccain. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg



I'm sure you'll be able to find many more - They not exactly low key now are they.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-19-2010, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So it seems that intentions and deeds also count towards whether a person is truly christian?
This is my understanding from your explanation above.
Certainly intentions -- meaning the direction of one's heart. Not all are capable of having deeds, but for those who are capable and don't follow through with them, it show a lack of intention and that the focus of one's heart was not truly directed toward Christ no matter what words one has said or rituals one has partcipated in.

Now, the above is my view. I think it is shared by many, probably most Christians. But it isn't shared by all, and some who are of different opinion on this issue than I you will meet on this board and find that they self-identify as Christian.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-19-2010, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The same could be said about Tony Blair, George Bush, the pope, John Heage, The pastor that wanted burn the quran Jones etc - the irony is that its these types of people end up having all the power and fame to preety much do what they want. Many poeple are willing to defend them and even worse die for them
Yes, they all thought that they had the truth. This is one of the big problems with anyone saying that they alone have exclusive access to the truth. None of us ever thinks that we are wrong, for if we did think that we would quickly change our opinion to what we thought was right. My understanding is this "that now we see in a glass darkly", meaning that I do believe I see the truth, but my comprehension of the infinite God it is limited by my own finiteness. So, even if I do have the truth, I don't have all of it. There are some things I am willing to say are categorically true "God is good" and some things I am willing to say are categorically false "God is beholden to man." But there is a whole lot that falls inbetween, "All Christians and only Christians go to heaven." I don't think you can categorically prove that last statement from scripture. You can certainly find some substatiation for that argument, but I believe you can also find some valid argument counter to it as well. Thus, I leave these things in the hands of God. what I think becomes our responsibility as Christians is to seek truth and then speak the truth that we know. Confess and repent where we ourselves have lived contrary to that truth in our own lives. And when we see others living outside that truth to bear witness to the truth that we know once again.

To that end, I have said that Terry Jones was wrong. Bush and Blair and the pope and John Heage and Ricard Dawkins and any one else you care to mention are right on some things and wrong on others. Where I have seen this I have tried to speak truth to it. But I am well aware that what you think I should speak to and what I do speak to might differ just as the understanding of what is and isn't truth differs from one individual to the next.
Reply

Zafran
09-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yes, they all thought that they had the truth. This is one of the big problems with anyone saying that they alone have exclusive access to the truth. None of us ever thinks that we are wrong, for if we did think that we would quickly change our opinion to what we thought was right. My understanding is this "that now we see in a glass darkly", meaning that I do believe I see the truth, but my comprehension of the infinite God it is limited by my own finiteness. So, even if I do have the truth, I don't have all of it. There are some things I am willing to say are categorically true "God is good" and some things I am willing to say are categorically false "God is beholden to man." But there is a whole lot that falls inbetween, "All Christians and only Christians go to heaven." I don't think you can categorically prove that last statement from scripture. You can certainly find some substatiation for that argument, but I believe you can also find some valid argument counter to it as well. Thus, I leave these things in the hands of God. what I think becomes our responsibility as Christians is to seek truth and then speak the truth that we know. Confess and repent where we ourselves have lived contrary to that truth in our own lives. And when we see others living outside that truth to bear witness to the truth that we know once again.

To that end, I have said that Terry Jones was wrong. Bush and Blair and the pope and John Heage and Ricard Dawkins and any one else you care to mention are right on some things and wrong on others. Where I have seen this I have tried to speak truth to it. But I am well aware that what you think I should speak to and what I do speak to might differ just as the understanding of what is and isn't truth differs from one individual to the next.
Everybody thinks they are on the truth or are doing right - I believe everybody is like that - it takes a lot of courage to go back and say I was wrong here or there

The people I mentioned were specifcally to show that people from christainty are as blinded as some muslims around the world are. Its not just a one way street. It was also to show that its the people that grab the headlines and the men in power that seem show what religions represent - ignoring the vast majority and clouding the real image of the religion.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-19-2010, 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The people I mentioned were specifcally to show that people from christainty are as blinded as some muslims around the world are. Its not just a one way street.
For sure. I'll not argue that point.


Originally Posted by Hugo
Who is this John Heage or Hagee as you don't seem to be consistent with the spelling?

John Hagee is founder of Christians United for Israel, a Christian Zionist group. He has said some pretty extreme things. And Zafran is right, there are a whole lot of Christians, especially in the USA, who buy everything he says without ever taking the time to question it. There is a predisposition with some that Israel is always right, just because it is Israel. I can't begin to tell you the number of my own parishioners who (mistakenly in my opinion, btw) conflate the modern state of Israel (which I find to be filled with mostly atheists of Jewish ethnicity) with the ancient state of Israel and thereby give to it God-ordained status regardless that a better biblical hermeneutic would never grant that view.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-20-2010, 04:10 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
When one in 100% certain your mind closes down and you stop thinking. It is easy to see how destructive this can be if we think about Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung, Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki or events like the inquisition. All these men think they have the truth and believe they are in some sense doing good but to me the worst of these is those who claim that they are doing God's will and work and therefore cannot be wrong with minds totally closed and their sense of humanity non existent - if Bin Laden or al-Awarki are Godly men then there is no hope for humanity.
I'm not sure about bin ladin. He has not been captured and tried, is he? so we don't know what his crimes are.
and i don't really know about Anwar al awlaki, but you seem to think he is bad enough to put him in the same sentence as hitler, stalin, pol pot and mao.
Has he killed anyone at all? how many has he killed? a million? two millions?

It seems you are fond of playing who's the worst of "godly men".
Well, let us have a list, shall we?

1. The POPES (we would need days, no, months, to satisfactorily discuss the heinous crimes done by people who claim they are god's representatives on earth, and intercession to god)
the top ten: Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099), Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555), Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303), Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503), Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964), Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85), Pope Sergius III (? – 911), Pope Stephen VI (? – 897), Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352), Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521).

2. European kings/queens and US presidents who killed tens of millions of people unjustly throughout history in the name of god and christianity. Many of them claimed they are very pious. see: Bush, George W.

3. American evangelists and televangelists. need I say more?

4. Little boys-loving priests. ugh.

5. Does anyone actually remember Rwanda? And the central role the churches played in the genocide of a million of its people?

I can go on and on, but this alone makes me sick already at those "godly men".
Reply

Ramadhan
09-20-2010, 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Certainly intentions -- meaning the direction of one's heart. Not all are capable of having deeds, but for those who are capable and don't follow through with them, it show a lack of intention and that the focus of one's heart was not truly directed toward Christ no matter what words one has said or rituals one has partcipated in.
so, "directed towards christ", eh? not god?

Also, it seems "being saved by jesus" is not guaranteed enough to enter paradise, from you and glo's latest explanations.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
so, "directed towards christ", eh? not god?
You did ask about Christians, correct. We understand that Christ is our mediator with the Father. But to say "directed towards Christ" or "directed towards God" are in essense synonymns for us.

Also, it seems "being saved by jesus" is not guaranteed enough to enter paradise, from you and glo's latest explanations.
Being saved is being saved. Of course that is enough. But a person simply making the claim that he/she is saved is not synonymous with the experience of it. Many may think that they are saved who are not. I believe that I am, but I also understand that all such a statement really means is that I have put my trust in Christ to save me and believe that to be enough. One might need to ask the question is salvation a past tense or future tense experience -- I have been saved or I will be saved? One of the confusing things about Christianity is that we speak of a future event (our salvation and entry into eternal life) as if it has already happened, such is our confidence in the saving work of Christ on the cross and God's promises to accept our trust in Christ as sufficient for salvation. (Bearing in mind what I have already said, that trust is something that we must then live out as we have opportunity to express it in words and deeds.)
Reply

Hugo
09-20-2010, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The Pope has said many crazy things in the past - Like the thing he said about the prophet Muhammad pbuh - and whats his issues with condoms? - Divinely mandated thanks to the bible? Whats your problem with Anwar Al waki the guys got an Assassination contract on his head by the US - Is that violent enough for you - so has Bin Laden by the way.
I cannot see that we can have any meaningful discussion if you regard an 86 year old priest's comment on condoms to be as reprehensible as someone advocating in the name of Allah violent Jihad - our moral standpoints and sense of values are miles apart.
Reply

Argamemnon
09-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I cannot see that we can have any meaningful discussion if you regard an 86 year old priest's comment on condoms to be as reprehensible as someone advocating in the name of Allah violent Jihad - our moral standpoints and sense of values are miles apart.
LOL Hugo, all Muslims support Jihad and we are all jihadists. You can't be a Muslim and reject jihad. You westerners are truly obsessed with this term, aren't you?
Reply

Hugo
09-20-2010, 08:23 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
LOL Hugo, all Muslims support Jihad and we are all jihadists. You can't be a Muslim and reject jihad. You westerners are truly obsessed with this term, aren't you?
Well that is pretty clear YOU are all for killing the infidel, the kaffa, the idolater as advocated in the verse I quoted (there are many similar ones). So much for a the religion of peace.
Reply

جوري
09-20-2010, 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well that is pretty clear YOU are all for killing the infidel, the kaffa, the idolater as advocated in the verse I quoted (there are many similar ones). So much for a the religion of peace.
can't have peace without getting rid of evil and corruption!

try to reconcile that with your loving god who brought a sword instead of peace, alleges to love everyone yet according to your faith would throw the faithful in hell while favoring manworshipping idolaters such as yourself.. so much for love love love...

all the best
Reply

aadil77
09-20-2010, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well that is pretty clear YOU are all for killing the infidel, the kaffa, the idolater as advocated in the verse I quoted (there are many similar ones). So much for a the religion of peace.
hmm perhaps you don't understand that 'infidel, the kaffa, the idolater' are terms used to describe those who waged war against us at the time because of our beliefs.
Again islam is not a religion of pacifism, it is a religion of peace in the sense that it brings about peace in the land and in one's own self

I didn't notice this post of yours, let me again expose your hypocrisy:

-46 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Bring a mob against them and give them over to terror and plunder. 47 The mob will stone them and cut them down with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn down their houses.

-Ezekiel 9:5-7 "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.

-Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

-If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. – Deut 17:2-7


read more about the religion of love and peace here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ses-bible.html
Reply

Zafran
09-21-2010, 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I cannot see that we can have any meaningful discussion if you regard an 86 year old priest's comment on condoms to be as reprehensible as someone advocating in the name of Allah violent Jihad - our moral standpoints and sense of values are miles apart.

Yes the thousands of people/catholics who have contracted aids cannot have sex with condoms because the pope says so - even though its one of the easiest way in preventing aids from spreading. Thats preety messed up. How many lives are going to be ruined there Hugo? This guy isnt just a priest hes the Pope and serious authority for many christians.

You cant seem to have a meaningful discussion with anyone except anybody that agrees with your own world view - Frankly most of us here dont. We wonder why you come here?

Your all out in "condeming violent Jihad" but have zero problem when america or any other country that its allied with which does the same - is Iraq and afghanistan violent enough for you - or actually killing Bin laden without a trial violent enough for you? or anwar al waki who hasnt killed anyone - no problem america is willing to assassinate him. Is that violent enough for you?

Your a pure hypocrite - its easy saying the other guys are bad - try looking at yourself first.

Bin Laden maybe a terrorist but the way the US acts it clearly takes the cake for the biggest terrorist on the planet.
Reply

جوري
09-21-2010, 12:11 AM
Originally Posted by aadil77
hmm perhaps you don't understand that 'infidel, the kaffa, the idolater' are terms used to describe those who waged war against us at the time because of our beliefs.
Again islam is not a religion of pacifism, it is a religion of peace in the sense that it brings about peace in the land and in one's own self

I didn't notice this post of yours, let me again expose your hypocrisy:

-46 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Bring a mob against them and give them over to terror and plunder. 47 The mob will stone them and cut them down with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn down their houses.

-Ezekiel 9:5-7 "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.

-Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

-If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. – Deut 17:2-7


read more about the religion of love and peace here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ses-bible.html

we all know christians personal beliefs are at odds with what their books say, as to why they insist that they are actually following some sort of religion is beyond me as they clearly concoct beliefs to suit the moment!

:w:
Reply

Ramadhan
09-21-2010, 03:31 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You did ask about Christians, correct. We understand that Christ is our mediator with the Father. But to say "directed towards Christ" or "directed towards God" are in essense synonymns for us.
So Christ is your mediator with your father?
can you not directly connect with the father, or does christ have the monopoly?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Being saved is being saved. Of course that is enough. But a person simply making the claim that he/she is saved is not synonymous with the experience of it. Many may think that they are saved who are not. I believe that I am, but I also understand that all such a statement really means is that I have put my trust in Christ to save me and believe that to be enough. One might need to ask the question is salvation a past tense or future tense experience -- I have been saved or I will be saved? One of the confusing things about Christianity is that we speak of a future event (our salvation and entry into eternal life) as if it has already happened, such is our confidence in the saving work of Christ on the cross and God's promises to accept our trust in Christ as sufficient for salvation. (Bearing in mind what I have already said, that trust is something that we must then live out as we have opportunity to express it in words and deeds.)
This is all very confusing. Christianity concept seems to always need lots of vague words to explain simple concept.

So, you say that "intentions" and "deeds" are needed in order to be saved.
Does christianity provide guidance on those necessary "intentions" and "deed"?
Because I've always read about how Jesus pbuh abolished the old covenant and created new covenant that seemingly does not require anyone to do anything to be saved (this is the essence of what paul said)?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-21-2010, 03:34 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well that is pretty clear YOU are all for killing the infidel, the kaffa, the idolater as advocated in the verse I quoted (there are many similar ones). So much for a the religion of peace.
the person you worship as the ultimate loving god (Jesus pbuh) will lead big big war, and he will kill at least one kaffir person (the antichrist), the ultimate idolater. And all people who will be true followers of Jesus pbuh will certainly kill a lot (maybe millions) of kafirs and idolaters.

really, are all christians THAT disconnect from their own true religion teachings??
It seems every christians are allowed to make up things related to their religion to suit their own desires.

Are you not worry that your belief seems to be at the opposite end of jesus pbuh sword?
Reply

Zafran
09-21-2010, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
the person you worship as the ultimate loving god (Jesus pbuh) will lead big big war, and he will kill at least one kaffir person (the antichrist), the ultimate idolater. And all people who will be true followers of Jesus pbuh will certainly kill a lot (maybe millions) of kafirs and idolaters.

really, are all christians THAT disconnect from their own true religion teachings??
It seems every christians are allowed to make up things related to their religion to suit their own desires.

Are you not worry that your belief seems to be at the opposite end of jesus pbuh sword?
He seems to forget about His own so called religion of peace. He real does have a deep hatred for Islam - from his quote you can see it very clearly. Seems to explain why he knocks around here.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-21-2010, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Your a pure hypocrite - its easy saying the other guys are bad - try looking at yourself first.
He truly is.
He is even willing to say things which are definitely against his religions teachings just to advance his argument. see: jesus pbuh and violence/killing.
Reply

Zafran
09-21-2010, 03:51 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
He truly is.
He is even willing to say things which are definitely against his religions teachings just to advance his argument. see: jesus pbuh and violence/killing.
Ofcourse he is - he doesnt dare to to apply the same moral standards to himself and his own views which applies to others who disagree with him.
Reply

marwen
09-21-2010, 01:13 PM
can someone give me any references of books or writings/articles written by Richard Dawkins. I saw some of his articles on the net, but I didn't have the chance to read a detailed article or book from the guy. I just want to know his main ideas and arguments. does someone know links or book names ?
Reply

Hugo
09-21-2010, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
hmm perhaps you don't understand that 'infidel, the kaffa, the idolater' are terms used to describe those who waged war against us at the time because of our beliefs. Again islam is not a religion of pacifism, it is a religion of peace in the sense that it brings about peace in the land and in one's own self
I take this to mean that its ok to kill those who don't or will not agree with Islam because ultimately that will bring peace - this is one supposes your hypocrisy? Thanks for the quotation but I guess you have not actual read the passage fully. But (Ignore the first quote as you give no reference)

Ezekiel 9:5-7 "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.
This is clearly a vision and it is mean to show the wickedness of sin and how it is an abomination to God. No Jew or Christian would take this as a command to go and kill those they thought were evil.
Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

This is a prophesy and its is speaking of the various invasions that engulfed the land of Israel from the Assyrians to the Romans over many many years. Again it is not about going out and doing this kind of thing.

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. Deut 17:2-7
This was that law but both Jews and Christian regard this kind of command as 'shut up' and so we interpret it in a metaphorical sense as speaking of evil. If you had read the passage you would also find the line in verse 6 "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."

There is ONLY one witness to the verses in the Qu'ran about violent Jihad - Mohammed so those verses are unreliable.Now, how do you interpret the violent Jihad verses, are they commands to go and do likewise or not - shall I spell them out as there are a large number of them and all on the single witness of one man.
Reply

Hugo
09-21-2010, 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by marwen
can someone give me any references of books or writings/articles written by Richard Dawkins. I saw some of his articles on the net, but I didn't have the chance to read a detailed article or book from the guy. I just want to know his main ideas and arguments. does someone know links or book names ?
The quickest way is just to go to Amazon and search for Dawkins and all his books will be listed there and also there will be second hand copies. His books mare very well written and in many way a good read though one does not have to agree with all he says. But you will be foolish to suspect that you can easily refute what he says, he is not a professor at Oxford for nothing.
Reply

Hugo
09-21-2010, 01:47 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
the person you worship as the ultimate loving god (Jesus pbuh) will lead big big war, and he will kill at least one kaffir person (the antichrist), the ultimate idolater. And all people who will be true followers of Jesus pbuh will certainly kill a lot (maybe millions) of kafirs and idolaters. really, are all christians THAT disconnect from their own true religion teachings??
It seems every christians are allowed to make up things related to their religion to suit their own desires. Are you not worry that your belief seems to be at the opposite end of jesus pbuh sword?
Can you give is the scriptural references to all this and whether those reference's are about visions or actual events or what? Why don't you go an look up where Jesus says in Matt 10 and find out its context and meaning
Reply

marwen
09-21-2010, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
The quickest way is just to go to Amazon and search for Dawkins and all his books will be listed there
Thanks Hugo. I just did that, some of his work are about theology, others are not (evolution-ism, biology etc.). I wondered if someone (who read his works) could redirect me to one or 2 main books which reflect the most his approach. I can only afford to buy one or 2 books, so I needed some advice to get something worthy :p.
But Thanks a lot for your help.

Originally Posted by Hugo
But you will be foolish to suspect that you can easily refute what he says
Refuting is not my strongest point, especially when it comes to consistent writings from big scientists. So, no, it's not my intention to refute what he said, at least right now. There are more competent people (non muslims and muslims) who don't agree with his ideas and can refute (if they didn't already).
I just want to participate in open discussions to learn first, and to show others that there is other viewpoints they don't know and to clarify/correct some misconceptions.

Besides, I never think about refuting a whole thesis or theory if I'm not learned enough about it, even if I don't agree with it in the beginning. For example when dealing with Dawkins' ideas, I can assure that I believe what he writes is mainly wrong, and I'll never agree with him because it's totally against my convictions. But I can not proceed to refuting his ideas before learning in deep what he said, what are his arguments and his reasons and what he really means (because I can understand him wrongly). I should never start reading an article or a book with the intention to refute what is written (before reading), that's not correct. I'll never be objective.
We should first try to read a book just to learn and to find the truth if it exists. We should be as objective as possible when we are still learning. When we finally learn all the details about the problem and become able to define the reasons that support the ideas presented to us, that's the right time to try to find if there is any logical inconsistency in the arguments/deductions, or any misconception in it. And then finally, try to refute it.
Reply

Junon
09-21-2010, 10:57 PM
Salaam

Hmmm why are you people giving time to a secular bigot like Dawkins?+o( Seriously theres better things to do with your time.

His TGD is not an intellectually sophisticated book, its little more than an angry bitter diatribe against us religious folks. He does strike me as a distrubed individual, his almost pathological hate for the religious is distrubing to the say the least. And you can see the consequences of it by the rather ugly athiest subculture that he himself has helped to create.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-21-2010, 11:11 PM
First, I'm going to agree that there is much in Christianity that not only can be, but often is confusing. We talk about the kingdom of God being here and not yet. We say that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not by works (lest any man should boast), and then at the same time say that faith without works is dead. We talk about Jesus being both fully human and fully divine in one person at the same time, and yet without intermingling those two natures. We talk about (what we at least term) a monotheistic God who exists in three persons. And then we go so far as to suggest that somehow all of this is supposed to make logical sense.

We ought to at least admit, that while it might make some degree of sense to those who grew up with it, that it is suggesting some pretty heavy stuff to those who grew up not hearing this kind of conversation every day. (And frankly, it obviously has caused some confusion even among its adherents or theologians wouldn't still being arguing over the finer points and calling them major points.)

Originally Posted by naidamar
So Christ is your mediator with your father?
can you not directly connect with the father, or does christ have the monopoly?
There is no short version, Yes/No answer to your question, but I'll try to keep it as brief as I can.

Remember that one aspect of the Christian understanding of sin (which differs from Islamic understanding) is that we were all created perfect and sinless, but that Adam's (and Eve's) sin changed everything and has a continuing effect on all. This means that even a person who does not committ sins, is not sinless because we are all born into a fallen world and with a Sinful nature. To speak of there being a Sinful nature is to suggest that our human nature is not automatically and primarily directed toward living in fellowship with God, but rather that our basic nature as human beings is to be primarily focused on pleasing the self.

Like I said, I know Muslims have a different starting point than Christian with regard to this, but to understand Christian theology you have to understand that this view of sin is one of our apriori assumptions with regard to human nature: people are by nature messed up, and so messed up, that try as we might we can never get it right to be good enough for God all on our own merits.

Given that not even the best of us -- to put it in an Islamic context, not even a prophet -- is good enough for God. We all fall short. We all sin --big or little it doesn't make a difference. Falling short is falling short. Abraham, according to the Qur'an, may only have lied three times in his life and they may even have been little ones that were done for an ultimately "good" purpose (don't know that that last part would be in the Qur'an, just trying to minimized Abraham's sin to make it infinitesimally small), but God demands perfection and so even near perfect (but not quite 100% perfect) Abraham would on his own merit be unable to enter paradise. So, Sin (meaning the entire Sin nature, not just the list of individual sins) becomes the big issue that needs to be solved in order to re-establish humanity's ability to live in fellowship and communion with God (e.g. to fully in harmony with to God's will) that he was intended to do in his creation.

Now, should we accept the theology of the Tanakh, God provided a means by which people could make sin offerings and re-establish their relationship with him. But it didn't keep people from sinning, and it certainly didn't take away the Sin nature. In that sense it was an imperfect solution. (I expect at least some Jews to disagree with the view that the sacrificial system was imperfect, and for Muslims to object that it is ridiculous to consider God offering an imperfect solution to anything that he offers a solution for. Be that as it may, it is the Christian view.) Christians believe that the Bible proposes God offering an ultimate solution to the issue of sin in the final act of cleansing of the entire world in the last days. But the question is, in those last days of final cleansing who shall be saved? How can anyone who is sinful endure that cleansing? And the answer is that again on one's own merits they can't. But....and here is where if I haven't lost you already I expect to lose you now....Christians hold that in the same way that God's angel of death passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt whose doorways were covered by the blood of the lambs to mark them as belonging to God's chosen people, so too will those who are covered by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus, God's anointed one) be spared eternal death (which is another thing that Adam's sin introduced to the world) and be saved for eternal life.

Again, this act of salvation is not something that a person is able to do for one's self, but must be done for him/her. Because it must be for us, because it comes to us from outside our own selves and our own efforts, but is made possible by the work of another and then offered to us, to receive it is a gift. And the way to receive it is to trust that it really is true, that Christ's voluntary offering of himself on the cross does provide a perfect sacrifice that ultimately promises the removal of this Sin nature so that we can be fitted for heaven. I need to be quick to point out, that this does not make Christians any better than anyone else. It only makes us better than we would otherwise be apart from Christ. (Sometimes that's still pretty bad.) But in doing this, God himself comes back into our lives in a unique way that he was not present before, and has not been present in anyone's life since the time that God breathed his life giving Spirit into Adam.

OK. There is more. But I promised that even though I couldn't make it short that I would try to make it as brief as I could. So, hopefully you see how Christ's role -- God the Son making the perfect offering on our behalf, which he couldn't do unless he was perfect as God is perfect --provides us with access to God the Father with whom we were created to live in communion and fellowship. It is in this sense that he is a mediator. We can pray to God the Father (or for that matter God the Son or God the Spirit) all on our own. We don't need a mediator for that. But when Satan, the accuser, declares that we are sinful beings, unworthy of living in God's presence, the Son becomes our advocate saying that the devil lies, we have been washed clean of sin and those sins have been cast as far from us as the east is from the west and then forgotten so that God remembers them no more and does not count them against us. And therefore, we are, by his grace, priviledge to stand perfect and blameless before God at the time of judgment.

So, you say that "intentions" and "deeds" are needed in order to be saved.
Does christianity provide guidance on those necessary "intentions" and "deed"?
Yes. Our guidance comes in the person of the Holy Spirit who is the very presence of God in our lives to lead and direct us according to his will.

Does it happen that all Christians respond to this leading should be your next question? And the answer is, I don't know. It would not appear so.

It appears that we still sometimes sin. And some people who claim to be saved seem to act exactly as the unsaved do. Since only God can see into a person's heart, I won't try to answer whether they are or are not saved. But, Jesus does tell us that by their fruits you shall know them. Reading a bit more in the scriptures we also find that it seems though Christ's offering is once for all, each individual needs to grow in the practice of righteousness. What I suspect (and this is making some assumptions on God's behalf for the sake of brevity in this post) is that those who allow themselves to be led by the Holy Spirit are like an athlete in training. We keep our eyes in the prize. And little by little, by practicing righteousness and giving up our sinful lives, we become made over into the person that God would have us become. But few, if any, of us are automatically there at the point of our coming to faith. However, should we die before we have perfected living a fully righteous and submitted life, faith not works, is what counts. God counts our hearts directed toward him, our willingness to be guided by his Spirit, as the same as having accomplished our goal of living a fully submitted life. (Sort of like the Hadith about the person who is approaching hell and gets within an arm's length and yet is saved by Allah's mercy.) Still, for as long as we live, we need to remember that the goal is to live that submitted life and to let ourselves be guided by God's Spirit in doing so. When we really are open to his leading, one will see the results in works of good deeds, righteous living, and the expressing of love both toward God and toward neighbor in all we do.


Because I've always read about how Jesus pbuh abolished the old covenant and created new covenant that seemingly does not require anyone to do anything to be saved (this is the essence of what paul said)?
Yeah, I know. I've even put it that way myself. The more I'm learning the more I think we have to be careful about that particular construction. It is just a bit too simplistic.

The old covenantal rituals by which one made connection with God are no longer necessary because Christ has made a perfect offering, so the old offerings of blood are no longer required. But the nature of the original covenant -- that God would be our God and we would be his people -- has not changed. In essence, what the New Covenant celebrates is that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. The promise of God to redeem the world has taken place. Though the end times may not have quite yet arrived, those who are in Christ are already a part of that eternal promise of God. We can live (through faith) in the knowledge of our salvation being fulfilled in Christ's return, even as we await his promised second coming.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-22-2010, 03:26 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Can you give is the scriptural references to all this and whether those reference's are about visions or actual events or what? Why don't you go an look up where Jesus says in Matt 10 and find out its context and meaning
So you don't believe that Jesus pbuh will kill the antichrist?
Reply

DancesWithChair
09-22-2010, 03:38 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I thought God loves everyone in Christianity?

How can he love everyone and then **** them to the abyss?

Is you're name Richard Dawkins by any chance ;D

-
Reply

Ramadhan
09-22-2010, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yes. Our guidance comes in the person of the Holy Spirit who is the very presence of God in our lives to lead and direct us according to his will.
So God send holy spirit to come to you?
How do you know if holy spirit has visited you?
This holy spirit thing seems so mysterious to me.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Does it happen that all Christians respond to this leading should be your next question? And the answer is, I don't know. It would not appear so.
But how do you christians respond to this leading?
I mean, holy spirit is so abstract and mysterious.
What can a christian do to make sure that they are responding to the leading by holy christ?
because it seems the most heinous crimes are conducted by among the highest authority of the churches.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The old covenantal rituals by which one made connection with God are no longer necessary because Christ has made a perfect offering, so the old offerings of blood are no longer required. But the nature of the original covenant -- that God would be our God and we would be his people -- has not changed. In essence, what the New Covenant celebrates is that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. The promise of God to redeem the world has taken place. Though the end times may not have quite yet arrived, those who are in Christ are already a part of that eternal promise of God. We can live (through faith) in the knowledge of our salvation being fulfilled in Christ's return, even as we await his promised second coming.
This is a bit meaningless I might say, it does not really answer my question.
I'm just responding to the bolded statement, so any christian who are already living through faith have knowledge that they are going straight to paradise?
So can I assume that people like you, hugo or glo who seem to be "living through faith" know that you guys are going straight to paradise? How about the pope?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-22-2010, 03:47 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But the nature of the original covenant -- that God would be our God and we would be his people -- has not changed.

Except, god seems to have undergone a physical change.
In the old covenant, God is one, in the new covenant according christianity god is three in one.
Reply

glo
09-22-2010, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by marwen
Thanks Hugo. I just did that, some of his work are about theology, others are not (evolution-ism, biology etc.). I wondered if someone (who read his works) could redirect me to one or 2 main books which reflect the most his approach. I can only afford to buy one or 2 books, so I needed some advice to get something worthy :p.
But Thanks a lot for your help.
Hi marwen.

Dawkin's most famous book directly on God and theology is The God Delusion. It became is bit of a best seller, although I have heard people say that it is not one of his best written books and that he tends to go off on tangents.

His most recent book on evolution is The Greatest Show on Earth.
Older books about evolution, which were highly praised at the time, and still are, are The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
You can probably find them in second hand shops.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-22-2010, 07:34 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
First, I'm going to agree that there is much in Christianity that not only can be, but often is confusing. We talk about the kingdom of God being here and not yet. We say that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not by works (lest any man should boast), and then at the same time say that faith without works is dead.
Sounds awfully similar to Islam. I guess there are still morsels of jesus pbuh real teachings that survived christianity (or rather paulian).
so, deeds are still important in obtaining salvation, correct?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now, should we accept the theology of the Tanakh, God provided a means by which people could make sin offerings and re-establish their relationship with him. But it didn't keep people from sinning, and it certainly didn't take away the Sin nature. In that sense it was an imperfect solution. (I expect at least some Jews to disagree with the view that the sacrificial system was imperfect, and for Muslims to object that it is ridiculous to consider God offering an imperfect solution to anything that he offers a solution for. Be that as it may, it is the Christian view.)
I did not mean the sacrificing and all that.
But it seems since paul said that with the new covenant it is no longer necessary to obey/observe all those things listed in the old covenant.
And it has become slippery slope for christianity since then.
for example:
extra marital sex and homosexual acts were certainly major major sins that deserve major punishment according to old covenant, but since there is a story where (some think, with evidence, it was fabricated) about the first non-sinner cast the first stone, christians have become permissive over the such crimes/sins.
And now you get priests and pastors marry gays and lesbians in churches.
That's what I was getting at, that it seems the new covenant makes everything somehow permissible because old covenant was dead.
So the pastors who marry gays in churches work through faith, correct?
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
09-22-2010, 10:19 AM
Okay, I think this Islam-Christianity debate has to stop this instant.

Please, keep on topic, people!

Only atheists responding ot the OP/religious speculating the atheist perspective/discussions with the original poster, s'il vous plait!
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-22-2010, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by glo
Hi marwen.

Dawkin's most famous book directly on God and theology is The God Delusion. It became is bit of a best seller, although I have heard people say that it is not one of his best written books and that he tends to go off on tangents.

His most recent book on evolution is The Greatest Show on Earth.
Older books about evolution, which were highly praised at the time, and still are, are The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
You can probably find them in second hand shops.
Dawkins is one of the greatest leading minds of evolution. Problem here is that he recently took the bait and started taking on the creationists that have berated him for so many years (who complain that we "didn't come from monkeys" etc - having no clue what evolution actually is).

I can see how he'd get frustrated and want to write "God Delusion". It isn't a very well written book though and you can clearly tell he has left his area of expertise. He made no argument against theism that I have not already seen elsewhere or thought of on my own.

He recently wrote "the greatest show on earth" which follows up "Extended Phenotype" which followed "Selfish Gene" (an absolutely brilliant ground breaking book he wrote on evolution back in the early 80s). Maybe he'll get back to that area and be brilliant again.
Reply

جوري
09-22-2010, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Maybe he'll get back to that area and be brilliant again.

He can only be brilliant to those who know science by 'proxy' science is in the details, and if you don't know what those details are, you are in fact bound to turn a cultist into a 'brilliant'.. what questions can you ask, when that is all you know?

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-22-2010, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
Okay, I think this Islam-Christianity debate has to stop this instant.

Please, keep on topic, people!

Only atheists responding ot the OP/religious speculating the atheist perspective/discussions with the original poster, s'il vous plait!
Of course. I understand the need to keep a thread from wandering too many different directions. One question leads to another and soon the conversation has nothing to do with the original purpose of the thread.

naidamar, I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, if a conversation is what you want. Either PM me, or use my above post to start a new thread.
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-25-2010, 04:58 AM
Nope, this thread was dead on arrival. The questions were answered in the first couple of posts and the original poster never followed up. Nothing wrong with the derail. The thread was already over.
Reply

Hugo
09-25-2010, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So you don't believe that Jesus pbuh will kill the antichrist?
Please give the reference's here so we can all see you have looked it up and understood its context. The words we were speaking of was when Jesus said in Matthew 10

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
You might understand what the word 'sword' implies if you think what would happen to a Muslim who rejects Islam and becomes Christian and that person may well be you brother or sister or Mother. So this verses is not about Christian wielding a sword to kill unbelievers its about the cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus and facing the hatred and violence of those who cannot stand the idea that others may choose a different and better path.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-25-2010, 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Please give the reference's here so we can all see you have looked it up and understood its context. The words we were speaking of was when Jesus said in Matthew 10
I am asking you the question again:
" do you believe that jesus will kill the antichrist?"

no need to go into verbal diarrhea which amounts to nothing.... as usual
Reply

Hugo
09-25-2010, 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I am asking you the question again: " do you believe that jesus will kill the antichrist?"
no need to go into verbal diarrhea which amounts to nothing.... as usual
It not a question of verbal diarrhoea its about you telling us what or where you have found this term but as we can see you are ignorant and prefer insults. The word 'Antichrist' comes from the Greek word 'antichristos' and can mean either against Christ or instead of Christ or perhaps combining the two we get one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ. The word is only found in John's epistles (4 times) and the implications is that there will be many Antichrists who are forerunners of the Antichrist himself. What John say of him closely resembles what he says of the first beast in Revelation 13 and what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2. What all this means I am unsure and I suppose that is the nature of the way the revelation is expressed. I content myself with the belief that it all mean that ultimately Jesus will triumph over and abolish sin and death.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-25-2010, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I content myself with the belief that it all mean that ultimately Jesus will triumph over and abolish sin and death.
From this I'll take it that jesus will "exterminate" the anti-christ and his followers ("the lamb will lead 144,000 people against the antichrist"), if you don't like the word "kill".

I don't know how you can exterminate or destroy without violence, unless christians invent new meanings to well-established words/concept (just like the word "begotten" or the concept of "3 is actually 1").

Also, you didn't address the other point before:
jesus sent demon into thousands of pigs, sending all of them into violent death.
Reply

Hugo
09-25-2010, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
From this I'll take it that jesus will "exterminate" the anti-christ and his followers ("the lamb will lead 144,000 people against the antichrist"), if you don't like the word "kill". I don't know how you can exterminate or destroy without violence, unless christians invent new meanings to well-established words/concept (just like the word "begotten" or the concept of "3 is actually 1"). Also, you didn't address the other point before: jesus sent demon into thousands of pigs, sending all of them into violent death.
You are taking everything literally and expecting to see Jesus charging into the infidels with a sword or something riding on a horse. No one can take literally that say 144,000 people exactly are involved. Its like any scripture, it has to be interpreted otherwise you end up with total nonsense and because these are prophesies we cannot be sure how they will work out in practice nor when they will occur. It is not the Christian position that these verses licence us to kill all who we might regard as Antichrist and only a tiny deluded mind would take that view. These visions are about how God will deal with the end of time not you and he will do that when he is ready. Why is it that a Muslim mind springs to the killing idea so readily whilst the Christian one recoils from it?

If we take the pigs incident the point is that the restoration of one human life from madness is worth more that a herd of pigs - that is the message of the story and there is no teaching here that we are go off and kill herds of pigs or anyone.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-26-2010, 05:04 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
You are taking everything literally and expecting to see Jesus charging into the infidels with a sword or something riding on a horse. No one can take literally that say 144,000 people exactly are involved.
If you say so, although the number 144,000 is quite such precise and elaborate number if it's not meant to be taken literally.
So which ones in the bible are literals and which ones are not? no two christians have the same answer.
It seems interpretations of bible throughout history varied dramatically depending on the politics of the day.

Originally Posted by Hugo
It is not the Christian position that these verses licence us to kill all who we might regard as Antichrist and only a tiny deluded mind would take that view.
i did not say that, so why did you get defensive?

I was only saying that jesus will lead an army to destroy the antichrist and his own army.

Christians might not use violence to kill everyone they think as the antichrist, but they definitely love(d) using violence to kill anyone they think is evil.
Past history and current events support this.






Originally Posted by Hugo
Why is it that a Muslim mind springs to the killing idea so readily whilst the Christian one recoils from it?
you dont like the word "killing", i will accept that.
But lets go back to your scripture: It clearly described that towards the end of time jesus with the assistance of many people faithful to One God will lead war and destroy the antchrist and his followers.

And i suspect you havent learned your history well and ignorant of current events to even suggest to christians recoil from the killing idea they think they will have to destroy evil.

Either you are a complete ignorant, or a hypocrite. there you go again.

Originally Posted by Hugo
If we take the pigs incident the point is that the restoration of one human life from madness is worth more that a herd of pigs - that is the message of the story and there is no teaching here that we are go off and kill herds of pigs or anyone.
Is that your interpretation of the event?

No matter how you spin it, the fact is jesus still killed thousand of innocent pigs unjustly.
You consider him as a god, dont you? couldn't he have cast away the demon without having to kill the pigs?

There goes your belief that jesus did not precribe violence in all cases.
based on these two events written in your bible, jesus was willing and is not going to be shy in using violence when need be.
Reply

Hugo
09-26-2010, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
If you say so, although the number 144,000 is quite such precise and elaborate number if it's not meant to be taken literally. So which ones in the bible are literals and which ones are not? no two christians have the same answer. It seems interpretations of bible throughout history varied dramatically depending on the politics of the day.
There is a saying by Jewish and Christian scholars: "to go from text to application without interpretation is itself heresy". It can be hard to decide what is literal and what is not but Ibn Rushd defined a way of doing it: "if the literal words don't make sense then the author must have meant something else". Consider Q9:5 about slaying idolaters wherever you find them (chronologically the last passage spoken by Muhammad) or Q5:60 that Allah transformed Jews into pigs and monkeys - how do you interpret these verses: literally so you are out to kill unbelievers and like Abdul Rahman Ibn Abdul Aziz as-Sudais (imam of the Grand mosque in Mecca and Islamic Personality Of the Year 2005) vilify non-Muslims and has called for the annihilation of Jews and he quite definitely take these verses literaly and called Jews Pigs and Monkey. So stop hiding and tell us what your view is.
I was only saying that jesus will lead an army to destroy the antichrist and his own army.
I have asked this before but what Bible verse or verses do you base this claim? You say it 'clearly describes ..." so where does it do this? Then we can look at what is actually said and find an interpretation - but I guess you don't know where this idea comes from but I will wait and see.

Of course I know that events such as the inquisition and the crusades happened and I regard them both as an absolute disgrace. Now let me ask you; is there ANY event in Islamic history you are ashamed of: Massacre of Jews in Medina, millions died in Bangladesh, Darfur, 9/11 and hundreds of other events?
No matter how you spin it, the fact is jesus still killed thousand of innocent pigs unjustly. You consider him as a god, dont you? couldn't he have cast away the demon without having to kill the pigs?
This event is recorded in Matthew chapter 8 and if you had bothered to read it we see that Jesus allowed the demons to go into the pigs and they then ran into the water. You are not the first to ask why allow this destructive work which seems alike needles and pointless and many explanations are available. So what can we learn from this if we take your literal approach; well it can only be that when we cast out demons they must be sent into pigs and if you do it the pigs may commit suicide and because we have cast out the demons whatever the pigs do is our fault. AS I said, I don't know for sure what the answer is here but I do know that two lives were saved by it. But are you trying to prove here - that Jesus is a mass murderer? Only a blind mind can read the four Gospels and conclude that Jesus was violent or advocated violence or that this passage means we can also be violent - but you have not read them have you?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 05:58 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
There is a saying by Jewish and Christian scholars: "to go from text to application without interpretation is itself heresy". It can be hard to decide what is literal and what is not but Ibn Rushd defined a way of doing it: "if the literal words don't make sense then the author must have meant something else".
Is that your standard (I am bolding the part)?
So I'll take it that because the term "son of god" in the literal sense is impossible as well as illogical (in the monotheism religion as practiced by Abraham, Musa, and David), then Jesus as "the son of god" means that he is slave of god and servant of god instead of the actual son of god (just like the previous prophets had also been referred to as).
I got ya!

Originally Posted by Hugo
Consider Q9:5 about slaying idolaters wherever you find them (chronologically the last passage spoken by Muhammad)
Do you even know how this verse is related to the verses before and after and how and why the verses were revealed (ie. the situation where/when the verses directed to?).

Here's some explanation of the verse:

Allah mentions the wisdom in dissolving all obligations to the idolators and giving them a four month period of safety, after which they will meet the sharp sword wherever they are found,

[كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ]

(How can there be a covenant for the Mushrikin), a safe resort and refuge, while they persist in Shirk with Allah, and disbelief in Him and His Messenger,

[إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ عَـهَدْتُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ]

(except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid Al-Haram), on the day of Hudaybiyyah. Allah said in another Ayah [concerning the day of Hudaybiyyah],

[هُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَصَدُّوكُمْ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْهَدْىَ مَعْكُوفاً أَن يَبْلُغَ مَحِلَّهُ]

(They are the ones who disbelieved and hindered you from Al-Masjid Al-Haram and detained the sacrificial animals, from reaching their place of sacrifice.) [48:25] Allah said next,

[فَمَا اسْتَقَـمُواْ لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُواْ لَهُمْ]

(So long as they are true to you, stand you true to them.), if they keep the terms of the treaties you conducted with them, including peace between you and them for ten years,

[فَاسْتَقِيمُواْ لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ]

(then stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.) The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year [of Hijrah], until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger . Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. The Messenger of Allah freed the Quraysh who embraced Islam after they were overpowered and defeated. These numbered around two thousands, and they were refered to by the name `Tulaqa' afterwards. Those among them who remained in disbelief and ran away from Allah's Messenger were sent promises of safe refuge for four months, during which they were allowed to move about freely. They included Safwan bin Umayyah, `Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl and many others. Allah later on guided them to Islam, and they became excellent believers. Surely, Allah is worthy of all praise for all His actions and decrees.

[كَيْفَ وَإِن يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لاَ يَرْقُبُواْ فِيكُمْ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً يُرْضُونَكُم بِأَفْوَهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَى قُلُوبُهُمْ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَـسِقُونَ ]

(8. How When if you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship, (Ill) or of covenant (Dhimmah) With their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are rebellious.)

Q5:60 that Allah transformed Jews into pigs and monkeys - how do you interpret these verses
Yes, we do take this verse as literal.
What is your problem here? Are you doubting God not able to transform jews (who became extremely obedient, read other verses related to it and you would understand how extremely obedient were the jews) into pigs and monkeys?
This does not make sense to you?

I know how your scripture is filled with unbelievable things such a prophet who wrestled with god and won, a prophet who drank and then had sex with his own daughters, etc etc
so that you eschew almost everything in your own scripture that does not fit your taste.

Originally Posted by Hugo
Of course I know that events such as the inquisition and the crusades happened and I regard them both as an absolute disgrace. Now let me ask you; is there ANY event in Islamic history you are ashamed of: Massacre of Jews in Medina, millions died in Bangladesh, Darfur, 9/11 and hundreds of other events?
I am not ashamed of the massacres of jews in madina, why should I?
t seems you think you know more than all muslims in the world, so please tell us more about what actually happened, why it happened, basically the complete details regarding the events.
what is the name of the jews tribe? why did they get killed?

millions died in bangladesh? from flooding?
darfur? Please enlighten me of what truly happenend in Darfur sans western media propaganda? Maybe you can also fill us in on "the LORD's Resistance Army"?
9/11? a two planes that took down cleanly THREE towers? Independent investigation please.
Hundreds other events? is that the best you can do?

What about this teaching from christ:
Thou shall not kill??
Judge not les ye be judged??
Give your other cheek?
Love your enemy??
Apparently this is completely lost on the churches throughout history to current dates.

Apparently it was totally lost on leaders of main congregation in america who were the main cheerleaders for Bush' invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq that killed a million muslims in the name of "fighting evil"

How about the 800,000-1,000,000 killed in Rwanda where the main perpretators were churches leaders including priests, pastors and nuns? What about a million killed in congo?

How about the slaughtering of muslims in bosnia and kosovo where the christian europe sitting idle?

All these are current massacres, not past history like the unspeakable crimes of the crusades and teh inquisitions.

Why do churches leaders keep repeating history and committing heinous crimes?
Is it because they believe that jesus has died for their sins so they have a free pass to heaven and so they can do anything they like?


Originally Posted by Hugo
Only a blind mind can read the four Gospels and conclude that Jesus was violent or advocated violence or that this passage means we can also be violent
Chill out dude.
No one said jesus pbuh was violent or advocating viol
i said that according to your scripture he is not shy to kill thousands of pigs to save a human live, and will kill the antichrist and its followers.

By the way,
Is there a "Gospel according to Jesus?"

I'd love to read that.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-27-2010, 08:32 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Is that your standard (I am bolding the part)?
So I'll take it that because the term "son of god" in the literal sense is impossible as well as illogical (in the monotheism religion as practiced by Abraham, Musa, and David), then Jesus as "the son of god" means that he is slave of god and servant of god instead of the actual son of god (just like the previous prophets had also been referred to as).
No. That he can't be a son in the literal sense, means that the term is conveying something other than sonship in the way that humans have sons. But that the term sonship still speaks to what is present. The answer does not come from changing terms. The answer come by looking deeper at what one means by sonship. (Though Christians have no problem with speaking of Jesus not just as the Son of God, but also as the servant of God.)

Since the question you posed is about sonship, let's look at sonship. To say that one is the son of another implies a relationship. Typically it implies a biological relationship. However, we all know of circumstances in which sonship is still recognized even when there is no biological relationship. The courts can grant sonship as a legal relationship, this is what adoption is all about. Now, I have some acquaintance with adoptions as my brother-in-law (my wife's brother) is adopted. Should you have been around my wife's family when Jack was young and not known that he was adopted, you would never have known that he was not the natural son of my wife's parent's. No Jack is not their son in a biological or natural sense. Yes Jack is their son in a legal sense. But there is more to it than just legal status, in terms of the interactions between them it is clear that Jack is their son most especially in the nature of the relationship between parent and child.

Likewise, I speak of having 8 children. Only two of those are biological children, one is a foster son, and 5 are exchange students that we have hosted. And while the relationship with each of my children is unique, it is best describe with each of them as that of parent-child. They call us "Mom" and "Dad" and we interact with them accordingly. Our foster-son, who came to us as a refuge from Vietnam, eventually became a citizen of the US and was finally able to sponsor his biological mother to come to this country, and thus a couple of years ago we were finally able to meet her. Now, by this time our son Hoa had grown up,. been living independently for severaly years, married and had to two kids. We made a trip for a visit and would meet his biological mother (now living with them also) for the first time in our lives. Yet so strong is the connection between us in the form of a parent-child relationship that we were introduced to each other with the following line: "Mom, Dad, this is my mom. Mom, this is Mom & Dad." And with that we were greeted with the biggest hug.

Some people don't seem to be able to fathom these sorts of relationship that don't fit the patterns that they are accustomed to. Confused, they ask me, now how many of them are your "real children"? What they mean is "natural" or "biological" children. But they use the term "real". And to that question my response is "all of them, last time I checked none of them were fakes."

The Son is not the biological son of the Father. But he is the Son. He isn't any less the Son because he is not the biological offspring or produced through some sort of reproductive process. Those might be one way that sonship is established, but it isn't the only way, and I suggest it isn't the most important. I don't think that the man and women who contributed the egg and sperm that became my brother-in-law Jack have any claims on parenthood. Beyond sharing some DNA, they are not Jack's mother and father in any meaningful way. It is rather the man and the woman who raised him, nurtured him, and helped him to become a man that are his "real" mother and father because that kinship is born not out of blood, but generated by the interactions borne out of their unique relationship to one another.

In the same way, the Son is the Son of the Father because of the unique nature of the interations of their relationship that is like no other.

Get it or not get it, it makes no difference to me. I know the nature of my relationship with my children whether you recognize it or not, because I in fact live it with them and they testify to that with me. And, likewise, whether any human being recognizes it or not, so too do the Father and the Son testify to the nature of their relationship with one another.

I got ya!
Poor. When did our discussions here become something to which one would ever conclude them with a statement like, "I got ya!"? The only thing you got out of that post is egg on your face for such a petulant way of conversing with another.


Apparently it was totally lost on leaders of main congregation in america who were the main cheerleaders for Bush' invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq that killed a million muslims in the name of "fighting evil"
You are so big on doubting 9/11 facts, asking for independent investigations. Please provide evidence that the "leaders of main congregation in amercia ...were the main cheerleaders for Bush' invasion and occupation of Afghanistand and Iraq". Do you even know what the "main" congregations in the USA are?

Please provide evidence that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistand and Iraq killed a million muslims. Certainly count "collateral" damage, but don't go counting those killed by Muslim on Muslim violence. If you want someone to blame for that, blame those who create and plant IEDs without regard to whether the victim is a US soldier or the neighbor boy. Blame those who recruit children to blow themselves up for political ends and lied to them about alleged blessings in paradise when the real Islamic teaching is that suicide is a pathway to hell.


How about the 800,000-1,000,000 killed in Rwanda where the main perpretators were churches leaders including priests, pastors and nuns? What about a million killed in congo?
How about them? Rwanda was horrific, and no doubt there were Christians, even clergy, involved in it. But the battle was political, civil, and ethnic. One did not here religion used as an excuse or justification for it. Unlike some folks feel a need to use jihaad as justification for the same goals in other places. In so doing, they not only prove themselves to be personally be nothing more than murders, then also make a mockery out of true Islam. Sadly, only in recent months have the voices within Islam decrying such activity begun to shot louder than those applauding it. But the good news is that it is beginning to happen.


How about the slaughtering of muslims in bosnia and kosovo where the christian europe sitting idle?
How about it? I'm not sure where you get this idea of a "Christian" Europe. I can't think of a more secular continent, except perhaps Australia. But who did step in a fight to protect the lives of Muslims? The same country that had Palestinians dancing in the streets when it was attacked a few years later.

All these are current massacres, not past history like the unspeakable crimes of the crusades and teh inquisitions.
And other than the religious strife in Kosovo, which went both ways, none of the other conflicts were motivated by religion, unless of course you are suggesting that the actions of the Taliban are not self defense but religious in nature.

Why do churches leaders keep repeating history and committing heinous crimes?
Is it because they believe that jesus has died for their sins so they have a free pass to heaven and so they can do anything they like?
We don't. You failed to prove that it is anyone acting as the leader of a church who are to blame for these actions.

By the way,
Is there a "Gospel according to Jesus?"

I'd love to read that.
Indeed there is. Luke 4:18-19 -- "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." This is a description of life in God's coming Kingdom. That was the message that Jesus primarily preached.

You can go to www.biblegateway.com to read Jesus parables about the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Though most people think the best illustration of Jesus' message contain in one is single unit is Jesus "Sermon on the Mount":
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."


When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 09:06 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Since the question you posed is about sonship, let's look at sonship. To say that one is the son of another implies a relationship. Typically it implies a biological relationship. However, we all know of circumstances in which sonship is still recognized even when there is no biological relationship. The courts can grant sonship as a legal relationship, this is what adoption is all about. Now, I have some acquaintance with adoptions as my brother-in-law (my wife's brother) is adopted. Should you have been around my wife's family when Jack was young and not known that he was adopted, you would never have known that he was not the natural son of my wife's parent's. No Jack is not their son in a biological or natural sense. Yes Jack is their son in a legal sense. But there is more to it than just legal status, in terms of the interactions between them it is clear that Jack is their son most especially in the nature of the relationship between parent and child.
Is this another new way to insist that jesus pbuh was son of god? more elaborate than the egg-shell-yolk-white, and less amusing.

Graceseeker, let me ask you this: why do you insist that jesus pbuh is god?
because you were brought up as a christian and the church told you so?

Otherwise, please produce from your own scripture proof that jesus pbuh said "I am God"
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-27-2010, 09:46 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Is this another new way to insist that jesus pbuh was son of god? more elaborate than the egg-shell-yolk-white, and less amusing.

Graceseeker, let me ask you this: why do you insist that jesus pbuh is god?
because you were brought up as a christian and the church told you so?

Otherwise, please produce from your own scripture proof that jesus pbuh said "I am God"

First, my scripture contains more than just Jesus' speaking. The words of these others in scripture can be just as authoritative Jesus' words. So, if any person in scriptrue should say, "Jesus is God" and have that statement accepted, that would have the very same weight as Jesus himself saying it. And indeed, there is record of just such a statement: Thomas (one of Jesus disciples) addresses Jesus, "My Lord and my God." Jesus doesn't repudiate this statement, but accepts it and blesses Thomas immediately thereafter.

That's suffiicient. We don't need any more than that. But, guess what, we do have more.

We have God himself being quoted in Hebrews referencing Jesus as God. We have the prologue to John's gospel identifying the Word as God and Jesus as the Word made flesh. The evidence is in the scriptures repeatedly. It doesn't take a theologian twisting every nuance out of the text to find it either. You may disagree with its message, but only those who close there eyes to it would be blind to what its message clearly is, that Jesus is God come to dwell among us.

As for why I believe it, well I didn't always. But I came to realize in time that I had no convincing argument for why the disciples would have told the story about him that they did, and suffered completely avoidable consequences for doing so, unless they believe it was true. And given that they were present to know what was and was not true, and still believe it, and that no one from that time ever was able to do the simplest thing in the world to contradict their message of Jesus being resurrected -- that is no one ever produced his body, not the soldiers guarding him, not the rabbis or priests who had him executed, not Pilate who was ultimately responsible for seeing to it, not Herod who wanted to silence him, none of them were ever able to silence the disciple with the trump card of all trump cards, Jesus' body. One presumes that if they would have had it, they would have played it. And if the disciples would have had it, or even simply had reason to doubt that Jesus was anything less than fully alive, they never would have done the things they did. So, I contend that Jesus was alive. And then as the scriptures go on to say, on this basis he is known as Lord and elevated to the right of God. That phrase is synonymous with saying that he is God. And, yes, since the scriptures say it, and no one denies it, I now believe it.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-27-2010, 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
First, my scripture contains more than just Jesus' speaking.
I don't dispute that. No one ever does.
Your scripture contains maybe 99.99% other people stories and their opinions rather than those that can be allegedly accredited to jesus pbuh.
Hence there is no such "gospel accroding to jesus"

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The words of these others in scripture can be just as authoritative Jesus' words. So, if any person in scriptrue should say, "Jesus is God" and have that statement accepted, that would have the very same weight as Jesus himself saying it
So, the words of other mere humans carry the same weight as god's?
And those "others" (writers) had not even been born when jesus pbuh left.
I don't know what else to say. God seems valued by christians less and less.
Reply

Hugo
09-27-2010, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Is that your standard (I am bolding the part)? So I'll take it that because the term "son of god" in the literal sense is impossible as well as illogical (in the monotheism religion as practiced by Abraham, Musa, and David), then Jesus as "the son of god" means that he is slave of god and servant of god instead of the actual son of god (just like the previous prophets had also been referred to as). I got ya!
Is this your standard "I got ya!", no interest in truth? If you wish to discuss the phrase "Son of God" then tell us the passage and we can look at it together - but its not your style to do that is it for I have asked your repeatedly where the teaching on the killing the Antichrist is but you clearly have no idea.
Do you even know how this verse is related to the verses before and after and how and why the verses were revealed (ie. the situation where/when the verses directed to?).
Well according to Islam they were written before time began, in the far reaches of entirety God constructed these verses wholly it seems according to you for the convenience of Muslims at a particular time. If one examines the historical and scholarly Islamic documents related to 9:5 and jihad and there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: 9:5 was meant to be both offensive and defensive and was meant for worldwide application. The theology of jihad is composed in part of verse 9:5 and in particular this verse applies to "polytheists". Corresponding to 9:5, 9:29 issues a similar edict of war upon Jews and Christians, forcing them to bow the knee to Islam in humility, pay extortion, or die. In this case it subjects man to a brutality, "believe or die", where son will turn against family, friends against friends, and blood spills if one challenges the belief of Muhammad’s dominance. You commentary and verses confirmed this so you position is that the injunction to violent Jihad is mandatory.

Yes, we do take this verse as literal. What is your problem here? Are you doubting God not able to transform jews (who became extremely obedient, read other verses related to it and you would understand how extremely obedient were the jews) into pigs and monkeys? This does not make sense to you?
No this does not make sense to me and to take it literally is an absurdity - that perhaps is your trouble, you are totally uncritical of Islam and its history, to you it is all perfect and logical. You see to be critical you have to begin by at least accepting that there may be faults so for you is there ANYTHING in Islam or its history that you are ashamed of - anything?
All these are current massacres, not past history like the unspeakable crimes of the crusades and the inquisitions.
I take it you do not regard the Muslim invasions, imperial crusades and subjugation of people right across the middle east as anything but wholly right and good? So churches leaders keep repeating history and committing heinous crimes but Muslims are all sweetness and light and cannot do anything wrong.
Reply

Hugo
09-27-2010, 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Your scripture contains maybe 99.99% other people stories and their opinions rather than those that can be allegedly accredited to jesus pbuh.
Hence there is no such "gospel accroding to jesus". So, the words of other mere humans carry the same weight as god's? And those "others" (writers) had not even been born when jesus pbuh left.
I don't know what else to say. God seems valued by christians less and less.
For this to have any validity you have to show where we can find without doubt the words of God and of course whilst doing that you have to prove his existence as a pre-requisite. If we are going to be precise the Qu'ran was written down by human scribes and all on the word of a single witness.
Reply

جوري
09-27-2010, 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Is this your standard "I got ya!", no interest in truth? If you wish to discuss the phrase "Son of God" then tell us the passage and we can look at it together - but its not your style to do that is it for I have asked your repeatedly where the teaching on the killing the Antichrist is but you clearly have no idea.
well then please allow me:
"The Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth" (2 Thess. 2:8).
Well according to Islam they were written before time began, in the far reaches of entirety God constructed these verses wholly it seems according to you for the convenience of Muslims at a particular time. If one examines the historical and scholarly Islamic documents related to 9:5 and jihad and there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: 9:5 was meant to be both offensive and defensive and was meant for worldwide application. The theology of jihad is composed in part of verse 9:5 and in particular this verse applies to "polytheists". Corresponding to 9:5, 9:29 issues a similar edict of war upon Jews and Christians, forcing them to bow the knee to Islam in humility, pay extortion, or die. In this case it subjects man to a brutality, "believe or die", where son will turn against family, friends against friends, and blood spills if one challenges the belief of Muhammad’s dominance. You commentary and verses confirmed this so you position is that the injunction to violent Jihad is mandatory.
The transcendent Quran isn't meant for the 'convenience of Muslims at a particular time' if that were the case, then the religion will have long perished and been akin to well Christianity. The Quran is for every time for all times and all people.
The God who created the world surely knows of the events that will take place in it, try to contrast that with a god who didn't know if a tree bore him fruit.


Also why not follow 9:5 by 9:6: (and I must admit I am surprised that quoted correctly for a change)
[Pickthal 9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

as for the rest, I mean you speak as if the god of the bible is so full of love?
let's examine shall we?


  1. Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
  2. Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
  3. Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
  4. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5
  5. According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30
  6. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31
  7. Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32
  8. In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27 John
  9. As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
  10. People are ****ed or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36
  11. The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36
  12. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
  13. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6
  14. Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66 Acts
  15. Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
  16. Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
  17. Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13
  18. Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-6
  19. The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23
  20. David was "a man after [God's] own heart." 13:22
  21. The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34
  22. Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11 Romans
  23. Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
  24. The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
  25. God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12 1 Corinthians
  26. If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you. 3:17
  27. Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for "committing *****dom with the daughters of Moab 10:8
  28. If you tempt Christ (How could you tempt Christ?), you'll will die from snake bites. 10:9
  29. If you murmur, you'll be destroyed by the destroyer (God). 10:10 2 Corinthians
  30. The terror of the Lord 5:11 Galatians (None)
    Ephesians
  31. We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11
  32. God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn't do. 1:7
  33. The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
  34. Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6 Philippians (None)
    Colossians
  35. God bought us with someone else's blood. 1:14
  36. God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20 1 Thessalonians
  37. God is planning a messy, mass murder in "the wrath to come" and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10
  38. Christians shouldn't mourn the death of their fellow believers. They'll be OK and you'll see them later in heaven. The people you should mourn are dead nonbelievers. They have no hope (becasue they're going to hell). 4:13 2 Thessalonians
  39. Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9
  40. Jesus will "consume" the wicked "with the spirit of his mouth." 2:8
  41. God will cause us to believe lies so that he can **** our souls to hell. 2:11-12 1 Timothy (None)
    2 Timothy (None)
    Titus (None)
    Philemon (None)
    Hebrews
  42. God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature. 9:13-14, 22
  43. Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29
  44. The Israelites kept the passover and sprinkled blood on doorposts so that God wouldn't kill their firstborn children (like he did the Egyptians in Exodus 12:29). 11:28
  45. God ordered animals to be "stoned, or thrust through with a dart" if they "so much as ... touch the mountain." 12:20 James
  46. If you are merciless to others, God will be merciless to you. (Two wrongs make a right.) 2:13
  47. James says Abraham was justified by works (for being willing to kill his son for God); Paul (Rom.4:2-3) says he was justified by faith (for believing that God would order him to do such an evil act). 2:21 1 Peter
  48. We are all, according to Peter, predestined to be saved or ****ed. We have no say in the matter. It was all determined by "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."1:2
  49. "The precious blood of Christ ... was foreordained before the foundation of the world."
    God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20
  50. God drowned drowned everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. 3:20 2 Peter
  51. God drowned everyone else on earth except for Noah and his family. 2:5, 3:6
  52. "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes" 2:6
  53. God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3:7
  54. When Jesus returns, he'll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:10 1 John
  55. Jesus' blood washes away human sin. 1:7 2 John (None)
    3 John (None)
    Jude
  56. "The Lord destroyed them that believed not." 5 Revelation
  57. Jesus "washed us ... with his own blood." 1:5
  58. Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
  59. Jesus has "the keys of hell and death." 1:18
  60. Repent -- or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. (Like the limbless knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail.") 2:16
  61. "I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23
  62. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God created predators, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
  63. "Thou art worthy ... for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." 5:9
  64. God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2
  65. God gave power to someone on a red horse "to take from the earth ... that they should kill one another." 6:4
  66. God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth's population with the sword, starvation, and "with the beasts of the earth." 6:8
  67. The martyrs just can't wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he's done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
  68. God tells his murderous angels to "hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads." This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God's loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to "hurt the earth and the sea" just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3
  69. 144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
  70. Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14
  71. God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8:7-13
  72. "Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." 8:11
  73. The angels are instructed not to "hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8:7] ... but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads." God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won't let them. 9:4-6
  74. God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women's hair, lion's teeth, and scorpion's tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
  75. Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth's population. 9:15-19
  76. Anyone that messes with God's two olive trees and two candlesticks (God's witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5
  77. God's witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues "as often as they will." 11:6
  78. After God's witnesses "have finished their testimony," they are killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
  79. Their dead bodies lie unburied for three and a half days. People will "rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another." After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12
  80. When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. "The third woe cometh quickly." 11:13-14
  81. "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"
    God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8
  82. Those who receive the mark of the beast will "drink of the wine of the wrath of God ... and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." 14:10-11
  83. Jesus sits on a white cloud with a sharp sickle in his hand. When the angel tells him to reap, he kills all the people with his sickle. 14:14-18
  84. "The great winepress of the wrath of God ... was trodden ... and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles." 14:19-20
  85. Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 15:7
  86. The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1
  87. "There fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast." 16:2
  88. "The second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea." 16:3
  89. "The third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood." 16:4
  90. God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
  91. An angel tells God how righteous he is because he gives saints blood to drink. 16:7
  92. "Power was given unto him [the fourth angel] to scorch men with fire." 16:8
  93. Those who were being burned to death by God didn't repent "to give him glory." 16:9
  94. "The fifth angel poured out his vial ... and they gnawed their tongues for pain." 16:10
  95. Even after being burned alive, those nasty people wouldn't repent! 16:11
  96. Christians will fight in the war between Jesus and those allied with the beast. 17:14
  97. "They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17
  98. To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and "she will be utterly burned with fire." 18:8
  99. God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings "who have committed fornication with her" will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9
  100. Jesus makes war. 19:11
  101. Jesus's clothes are dipped in blood and his secret name ("that no man knew") is "The Word of God". (I bet you thought it was Jesus!) 19:13
  102. With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful in heaven into holy war on earth. 19:14-15
  103. "Come ... unto the supper of the great God." An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, "both free and bond, both small and great." 19:17-18
  104. The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. "And all the fowls were filled with their flesh." 19:20-21
  105. God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented "day and night for ever and ever." 20:9-10
  106. Whoever isn't found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15
  107. All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." 21:8
I mean honestly where do you get off that holier than thou attitude and an all loving god, this is just a smidgen as I had no desire to copy the site in its entirety and here you are quoting a couple of verses out of context to showcase none other than your endless hatred and hypocrisy!



No this does not make sense to me and to take it literally is an absurdity - that perhaps is your trouble, you are totally uncritical of Islam and its history, to you it is all perfect and logical. You see to be critical you have to begin by at least accepting that there may be faults so for you is there ANYTHING in Islam or its history that you are ashamed of - anything?
Well again, what you take to be absurd should be taken by the rest by a grain of salt, for not only are you utterly ignorant of Islam and its history save for the cesspool you frequent and unable to verify of Islamic sources correctly, you seem to also exempt yourself from having that all too critical look at the bible? why is that do you suppose?
I take it you do not regard the Muslim invasions, imperial crusades and subjugation of people right across the middle east as anything but wholly right and good? So churches leaders keep repeating history and committing heinous crimes but Muslims are all sweetness and light and cannot do anything wrong.
Thank God, Muslims came and 'invaded' my country, for without their age of enlightenment we would have been left to similar dark ages of Christianity.. May Allah swt reward them for taking my country and other neighboring countries from the darkness into the light!

all the best
Reply

Hugo
09-27-2010, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
"The Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth" (2 Thess. 2:8).
As is usual with you we have 60% copied from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com and even then what you cited has been copied 108 times all over the place so I am absolutely certain you have not bothered to read any of it but later I will reply. If you were an honest observer than visit the sister site http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/ and here is a taste and there is plenty more

Absurdity in the Quran
We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils.--67:5

"This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil)." There is no doubt about this or any other "Scripture". It is false. It wasn't revealed by God and it won't "ward off evil." 2:2

"Shall we believe as the foolish believe?"
According to the Quran, the answer is, yes. To be truly wise you must believe whatever the foolish believe. 2:13

"If Allah willed, He could destroy their hearing and their sight. Lo! Allah is able to do all things." 2:20
And He taught Adam all the names."
Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31

"And if ye are in doubt ... then produce a surah of the like thereof."
If you doubt that the truth of the Quran, then try making some stuff up and see how it compares. (Whatever you come up with will be better than the Quran.) 2:23
Allah commands the angels to worship Adam. They all do, except for Iblis, who becomes a disbeliever. 2:34

Allah struck Moses with lightening and then revived him just so that Moses would thank him for it! 2:55-56

Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews at the time of Moses because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. But what prophets could they have killed and what revelations could they have rejected? Most of the prophets and revelations came later, didn't they? 2:61

Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66
"Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is."
A load of silly bull **** about a yellow cow. 2:67-71
To settle a murder mystery, Allah brought a murder victim back to life by hitting his dead body with a piece of the yellow cow. The risen man then identified his murderer! 2:72-3
Reply

جوري
09-27-2010, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
As is usual with you we have 60% copied from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com and even then what you cited has been copied 108 times all over the place so I am absolutely certain you have not bothered to read any of it but later I will reply. If you were an honest observer than visit the sister site http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/ and here is a taste and there is plenty more
Any idiot knows where it has come from, do you have a point? You are sitting there taking a couple of verses out of context from the Quran with which to make your usual non-points, and I have shown you passages upon passages (which by the way I have read about your all loving god) with exactly that which has you so riled up.. are you equally critical of all that 'love' from your bible of god pillaging, and murdering of the 'innocents'? or that keen discerning critical eye only used when you yourself copy from a disgusting site? without cross referencing in the majority of cases if I may add!

all the best
Reply

CosmicPathos
09-27-2010, 08:42 PM
We should be asking this question to Hitchens who is dying from esophageal cancer ..... maybe Dawkins should learn a thing or two from the disease of his friend.
Reply

Trumble
09-27-2010, 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by mad_scientist
We should be asking this question to Hitchens who is dying from esophageal cancer ..... maybe Dawkins should learn a thing or two from the disease of his friend.
Like what? Smoking is bad for your health?
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-28-2010, 12:17 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I don't dispute that. No one ever does.
Your scripture contains maybe 99.99% other people stories and their opinions rather than those that can be allegedly accredited to jesus pbuh.
Hence there is no such "gospel accroding to jesus"



So, the words of other mere humans carry the same weight as god's?
And those "others" (writers) had not even been born when jesus pbuh left.
I don't know what else to say. God seems valued by christians less and less.
You mock the scriptures that actually record what multiple people heard God say and publish it within the lifetime of many of those same eye witnesses, yet then lift up as authoritative a set of scriptures that even by your own description (God to Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit to Muhammad, Muhammad to others, others to asundry pieces of paper, asundry pieces of paper to compiled Qur'an) bears a striking resemblence to the game of "Telephone."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that Allah knows best. But I find it curious what you things you swallow and what things you turn your nose up at.
Reply

CosmicPathos
09-28-2010, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Like what? Smoking is bad for your health?
Dawkins could learn that from a not-so-terrible disease, dont you think, especially not of his friend? You
atheists are a funny bunch.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-28-2010, 02:46 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You mock the scriptures that actually record what multiple people heard God say and publish it within the lifetime of many of those same eye witnesses,
Grace seeker, you seem to believe your own lies. Is your faith that weak?

The New Testament (modern Christian Bible) was written in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine and his council in his own words. This fact is confirmed in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, which also states that any original text was altered, apparently in order to create some form of consistency across all documents.

Unfortunately, the copying of earlier texts, leaving some out, making some up, introduced many errors and inconsistencies in the modern Christian bible. For example in Genesis alone there are dozens. And example of these are as follows:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

There were originally 252 commandments in the Old Testament, in Judaism there are 613 commands found in the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses, a.k.a. The Torah.), and in the modern day Christian Bible a mere 10 commandments, not including Psalms and Proverbs.

So in summary man created the Bible. Many men writing earlier documents, and later copied, altered and modernized through the ages.

And if you are strong with your faith, you should be comfortable with this fact, no need to make up lies.
Reply

Trumble
09-28-2010, 08:38 AM
Originally Posted by mad_scientist
Dawkins could learn that from a not-so-terrible disease, dont you think, especially not of his friend?
So what is it you think he should be learning then, and how is that different in your opinion from what a muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu etc, etc might learn from it?
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-29-2010, 05:46 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Grace seeker, you seem to believe your own lies. Is your faith that weak?

The New Testament (modern Christian Bible) was written in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine and his council in his own words. This fact is confirmed in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, which also states that any original text was altered, apparently in order to create some form of consistency across all documents.

Unfortunately, the copying of earlier texts, leaving some out, making some up, introduced many errors and inconsistencies in the modern Christian bible. For example in Genesis alone there are dozens. And example of these are as follows:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

There were originally 252 commandments in the Old Testament, in Judaism there are 613 commands found in the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses, a.k.a. The Torah.), and in the modern day Christian Bible a mere 10 commandments, not including Psalms and Proverbs.

So in summary man created the Bible. Many men writing earlier documents, and later copied, altered and modernized through the ages.

And if you are strong with your faith, you should be comfortable with this fact, no need to make up lies.

We weren't talking about the whole of the Bible or any of what you reference here, we were specifically talking about the Biblical testimony regarding Jesus being God. The Gospel records that announce Jesus as good news for the world were written and circulated while there were still people living who had personally known Jesus. No such witnesses are available to testify to the accuracy of what Muhammad purports to be the recitation that he received.
Reply

Zafran
09-29-2010, 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
We weren't talking about the whole of the Bible or any of what you reference here, we were specifically talking about the Biblical testimony regarding Jesus being God. The Gospel records that announce Jesus as good news for the world were written and circulated while there were still people living who had personally known Jesus. No such witnesses are available to testify to the accuracy of what Muhammad purports to be the recitation that he received.
for being so many years here and you dont even know what a sahabi is or a hadith is?

How long did it take the NT to actaully develop into the NT - a few hundred years. Wheres the chain of narrations? that go back to christ or even better where is the "good news" or The Gospel - instead we have a gospels according to - and even biblical scholars have become sceptic over the bible and who wrote it.

We also have people saying Jesus pbuh wasnt God.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-30-2010, 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
We weren't talking about the whole of the Bible or any of what you reference here,
Good. So yo don't dispute the facts that I wrote.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The Gospel records that announce Jesus as good news for the world
in your language is good news = God?

because the gospels did NOT say that jesus was god. And the first three gospels did not even write jesus as "son of god", but he referred to himself as "son of man" instead.
So, according to paulian christians, a god refers to himself as "son of man" is acceptable?


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
were written and circulated while there were still people living who had personally known Jesus.
I'd like to see records of transmission from the writers of the bible all the way up to jesus, because as I have demonstrated in previous posts, the new testaments that you have today was not written when Jesus was still alive nor when his disciples were still alive.

Maybe you have something that the rest of the word do not?
Reply

Hugo
09-30-2010, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
for being so many years here and you dont even know what a sahabi is or a hadith is? How long did it take the NT to actaully develop into the NT - a few hundred years. Wheres the chain of narrations? that go back to christ or even better where is the "good news" or The Gospel - instead we have a gospels according to - and even biblical scholars have become sceptic over the bible and who wrote it. We also have people saying Jesus pbuh wasnt God.
Well who wrote the Qu'ran - does your chain of narrators take us back to him - can we check it out with God?
Reply

Hugo
09-30-2010, 07:35 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Grace seeker, you seem to believe your own lies. Is your faith that weak? The New Testament (modern Christian Bible) was written in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine and his council in his own words. This fact is confirmed in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, which also states that any original text was altered, apparently in order to create some form of consistency across all documents. Unfortunately, the copying of earlier texts, leaving some out, making some up, introduced many errors and inconsistencies in the modern Christian bible. For example in Genesis alone there are dozens. And example of these are as follows: GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. There were originally 252 commandments in the Old Testament, in Judaism there are 613 commands found in the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses, a.k.a. The Torah.), and in the modern day Christian Bible a mere 10 commandments, not including Psalms and Proverbs. So in summary man created the Bible. Many men writing earlier documents, and later copied, altered and modernized through the ages. And if you are strong with your faith, you should be comfortable with this fact, no need to make up lies.
Muslim are so keen to tell us about Hadith sciences and how accurate everything is but when it comes to propping up your faith anything will do, is Islam so fragile and the Bible so fearful to you? What you have written can be found in Wiki.answers.com and it is so absurd that its a joke. There 6,000 Biblical manuscripts and many virtually complete (99%) copies that date before the 4th century (Arabic was not even a written language then) .

In the Hebrew Bible or as we might call it the Old Testament it is plain that what you have copied is a total muddle. The great orthodox scholar, Solomon Schechter, pointed out, the 613 commandments in the Torah are for all practical purposes, now reduced to about 100, if we exclude 'conventional' prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery etc and those commandments specifically connected to the land of Israel and the Temple. A Jew and Christian will differentiate between the sublime and timeless legislation such as the 'holiness code' in Leviticus 19, and the cruder injunctions about treatment of lepers or women suspected of adultery, which betray attitudes prevalent at the time of composition but are no longer acceptable to day.

You cannot have read any of what you wrote for then you could not possibly have written ".. in the modern day Christian Bible a mere 10 commandments, not including Psalms and Proverbs" or you show embarrassing ignorance since clearly you cannot make a distinction between a Biblical book and a Biblical command.

Why don't you try reading "The Jewish People" by Goldberg and Rayner, Penguin Books.
Reply

Zafran
09-30-2010, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well who wrote the Qu'ran - does your chain of narrators take us back to him - can we check it out with God?
Quran tells you whos speech it is - open it up and check it .
Reply

جوري
09-30-2010, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Quran tells you whos speech it is - open it up and check it .

You are asking him to read a book before he argues against it? That seems a little too much-- check out his misquotes of Azami's book on the previous thread or in fact on every thread.. I think you should lower your standards and extremely so when addressing this guy!

:w:
Reply

Hugo
09-30-2010, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Quran tells you whos speech it is - open it up and check it .
Is this an example of the famed Islamic logic (usually circular)? So I presume you mean the speech was God's. so any book that say it is from God is automatically from God.
Reply

جوري
09-30-2010, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Is this an example of the famed Islamic logic (usually circular)? So I presume you mean the speech was God's. so any book that say it is from God is automatically from God.
The criteria of testing what is divine has been afforded you numerous times before and it follows a very logical, concise fashion.. the same fashion was followed by many that lead a former christian like Dr. Gary Miller, or the former atheist Dr. Jeffrey lang amongst millions of others to Islam.. you ought to try it sometimes.. you know reading, comprehending and then posing questions!

all the best
Reply

Zafran
09-30-2010, 08:15 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Is this an example of the famed Islamic logic (usually circular)? So I presume you mean the speech was God's. so any book that say it is from God is automatically from God.
I find it odd coming from you a man who believes that Newtons laws worked in the past - so they will do in the future as a certainty. Circular reasoning, But you have no problem with Newtons laws, so why have it here?
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-30-2010, 11:02 PM
That isn't circular logic... that isn't logic at all.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 05:32 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
for being so many years here and you dont even know what a sahabi is or a hadith is?

How long did it take the NT to actaully develop into the NT - a few hundred years. Wheres the chain of narrations? that go back to christ or even better where is the "good news" or The Gospel - instead we have a gospels according to - and even biblical scholars have become sceptic over the bible and who wrote it.

We also have people saying Jesus pbuh wasnt God.
I know what a hadith is. I don't know what a sahabi is. I don't see how either is relevant. It seems that after all this time you don't understand what either the NT or the Gospel is.

For your information, the NT is a collection of writings regarding the New Covenant that God made with mankind in and through Jesus Christ. That they weren't collected into a codex and canonized for a few hundred years doesn't matter one whit with regard to their authenticity. That God chose to make this new covenant, and also to make it not just with the Jews but with all of humanity, is the good news. Jesus himself is the Gospel message. There is no Gospel "according to Jesus" in the sense that Muslims speak of it, and there never was one. No such Gospel is even needed.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 05:40 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
as I have demonstrated in previous posts, the new testaments that you have today was not written when Jesus was still alive nor when his disciples were still alive.

Maybe you have something that the rest of the word do not?
You've never demonstrated any such thing. None of it was written in Jesus' lifetime. But John was the last of the Gospels written, and it was written by a disciple of Jesus, so your second statement fails on that ground alone. I've provided substantiation for that many times in the past. That you choose to ignore it and continue on presenting error as truth tells me that you are simply not an honest investigator in search of truth. You want to play the "gotcha game" that you tried with Hugo earlier. I'm not interested in that. And you don't appear to be interested in the facts, learning, or the truth. Why should I bother to continue to address your questions if you aren't really serious in the asking?

That's a serious question to which I expect a serious, reasoned, and non-flippant response -- not a retort. At least, not if you expect me to continue to engage you in any future attempts at meaningful conversation.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-01-2010, 07:51 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But John was the last of the Gospels written, and it was written by a disciple of Jesus,
what was the name of the disciple again?

and evidence, please
Reply

CosmicPathos
10-01-2010, 07:54 AM
atheists and the their reasoning, or lack thereof. Pathetic. I am angry at evolution for giving them a cortex.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
what was the name of the disciple again?

and evidence, please
History and tradition:
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case named as the author of this Gospel. The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees. Even those who doubted the authenticity of the Apocalypse agreed that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, the authenticity of John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century.



The internal evidence:
Its author can be discerned from the contents. Judging by the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who knew the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He displays an accurate knowledge of the geographical and social conditions of Palestine. He must have enjoyed personal intercourse with the Savior and must even have belonged to the circle of his intimate friends. The Gospel shows the writer to have been an eyewitness of most of the events. He speaks of John nine times without giving him the title of "the Baptist", as the other Evangelists invariably do to distinguish him from the Apostle. All these indications point to the conclusion that the Apostle John must have been the author of the Fourth Gospel.
And, The Gospel of John never mentions John by name, referring to him as "the disciple that Jesus loved". This is understandable if John is the author, but would be hard to explain otherwise.



The testimony of those who personally knew the author:
Irenæus (d. about 202) is directly linked with Apostle John through his teacher Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of all four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.

Papias, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great writings an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-01-2010, 08:59 AM
So the lengthy essay below amounts to:
we don't know for sure who wrote gospel of john, let alone the other three older gospels.

I am still fascinated how christians base their whole life and salvation of hereafter based on books whose authors were unknown.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
History and tradition:
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case named as the author of this Gospel. The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees. Even those who doubted the authenticity of the Apocalypse agreed that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, the authenticity of John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century.



The internal evidence:
Its author can be discerned from the contents. Judging by the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who knew the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He displays an accurate knowledge of the geographical and social conditions of Palestine. He must have enjoyed personal intercourse with the Savior and must even have belonged to the circle of his intimate friends. The Gospel shows the writer to have been an eyewitness of most of the events. He speaks of John nine times without giving him the title of "the Baptist", as the other Evangelists invariably do to distinguish him from the Apostle. All these indications point to the conclusion that the Apostle John must have been the author of the Fourth Gospel.
And, The Gospel of John never mentions John by name, referring to him as "the disciple that Jesus loved". This is understandable if John is the author, but would be hard to explain otherwise.



The testimony of those who personally knew the author:
Irenæus (d. about 202) is directly linked with Apostle John through his teacher Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of all four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.

Papias, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great writings an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-01-2010, 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So the lengthy essay below amounts to:
we don't know for sure who wrote gospel of john, let alone the other three older gospels.

I am still fascinated how christians base their whole life and salvation of hereafter based on books whose authors were unknown.

Are you unable to read? We do know. History, tradition, internal evidence, and those who knew the author all agree: the evidence is that John wrote the Gospel of John.

What we don't know is who was whispering in Muhammad's ear. No wait, Muhammad told us. That's all the evidence we need.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-01-2010, 09:54 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Are you unable to read? We do know. History, tradition, internal evidence, and those who knew the author all agree: the evidence is that John wrote the Gospel of John.

What we don't know is who was whispering in Muhammad's ear. No wait, Muhammad told us. That's all the evidence we need.
The difference between these two is:

Did John actually say (or at least write) that he wrote the gospel of john?

We want proof, mister.

chain of transmissions..

records.

even bible scholars are not sure who wrote john, let alone other gospels.

the best they can do is guessing that it was john himself.
Reply

Hugo
10-01-2010, 01:43 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The criteria of testing what is divine has been afforded you numerous times before and it follows a very logical, concise fashion.. the same fashion was followed by many that lead a former christian like Dr. Gary Miller, or the former atheist Dr. Jeffrey lang amongst millions of others to Islam.. you ought to try it sometimes.. you know reading, comprehending and then posing questions!
You simply show ignorance here of how or what can be proved. Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. A Hypothesis is a reasonable proposal of an explanation for observations or a reasonable proposal of a solution to a problem. So my hypothesis is that the last word of God to mankind only contains new truths. I can do this test on the Qu'ran and since it does not contain new things ipso facto it is not from God. I can do this with any number of hypotheses and get the same conclusions.

The WHOLE point is that something is only amenable to proof IF we can find a way to reasonable test and that test can be applied to any similar artefact anywhere and everywhere.

So if my hypothesis is invalid then show it to be so but I can apply to ANY book and if it is a valid hypothesis it will show which books are from God and which are not.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
You simply show ignorance here of how or what can be proved.
You are not equipped to understand the science of that as we have demonstrated on multiple threads, ironically on ones you desired willingly to participate in the very matter of statistics!

Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. A Hypothesis is a reasonable proposal of an explanation for observations or a reasonable proposal of a solution to a problem. So my hypothesis is that the last word of God to mankind only contains new truths. I can do this test on the Qu'ran and since it does not contain new things ipso facto it is not from God. I can do this with any number of hypotheses and get the same conclusions.
'Observation' and 'physical experiment' aren't the only means by which to falsify or 'fail to falsify' a consistent possibility. You tighten the methodology in hopes everyone is equally under-educated and shares only in the premises you bring to the table..
or else how do you prove someone has a headache by 'observation' or 'experiment' and for once in your life you should be honest enough to come with a response that doesn't deflect away from the topic. I notice when the tough questions are asked you come up empty!

The WHOLE point is that something is only amenable to proof IF we can find a way to reasonable test and that test can be applied to any similar artefact anywhere and everywhere.
Reasonable tests have been supplied, you had no desire to expend the time applying said methodology, you're confined to the two means you proposed as a possibility to provide proof!
So if my hypothesis is invalid then show it to be so but I can apply to ANY book and if it is a valid hypothesis it will show which books are from God and which are not.
see above responses, and quit wasting everyone's time on B.S!

all the best
Reply

Muhaba
10-02-2010, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
You simply show ignorance here of how or what can be proved. Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. A Hypothesis is a reasonable proposal of an explanation for observations or a reasonable proposal of a solution to a problem. So my hypothesis is that the last word of God to mankind only contains new truths. I can do this test on the Qu'ran and since it does not contain new things ipso facto it is not from God. I can do this with any number of hypotheses and get the same conclusions.

The WHOLE point is that something is only amenable to proof IF we can find a way to reasonable test and that test can be applied to any similar artefact anywhere and everywhere.

So if my hypothesis is invalid then show it to be so but I can apply to ANY book and if it is a valid hypothesis it will show which books are from God and which are not.
Why should the last Book of God contain new facts? It's a book of guidance, not a science book.

Your hypothesis should be: the last Word of God is unchangeable, because being the last word, it should be impossible to alter it or else it would be useless and another book would be necessary. Since the Quraan hasn't been changed over 1400 years, and can not be changed ever, it proves that it is the last Word of God. And God says: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it. The Quraan, Chapter 15 (Al-Hijr) Verse 9.

Other hypothoses can be: the book of God will guide people to the correct way, The book of God will contain a practical law system, the book of God will not contain any contradictions, the book of God will not contain errors, the Book of God will not contain any cruel or unjust laws, the Book of God will be for all people, the Last Book of God can be equally applicable in all places and times - it will not go out of date. all these are true regarding the Quraan.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 03:33 PM
The last book of God, contains many things that aren't in the previous scriptures, the fact of the matter is, there is no pleasing a kaffir.
1- if things confirm what is in their books, they are copied
2- if things aren't in their book, they are imagined or untrue.

contrast also with atheists,

1- if it is a scientific phenomenon that wasn't readily known to the folks millenniums ago, then there is a logical explanation 'detail of the natural world' that muslims copied or learned by observation even if the microscope wasn't invented until a couple of centuries ago.
2- if something that can't be proven by any current scientific method, then it is fairy tales you know akin to pink elephants or whatever inane crap amuses them for a moment.

There is no point to cast pearls before swine in my opinion..

:w:
Reply

Muhaba
10-02-2010, 04:55 PM
That is soo true. That's why I usually don't get into discussion with them. You can't make a person listen if he doesn't want to.
Reply

Hugo
10-02-2010, 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You are not equipped to understand the science of that as we have demonstrated on multiple threads, ironically on ones you desired willingly to participate in the very matter of statistics! 'Observation' and 'physical experiment' aren't the only means by which to falsify or 'fail to falsify' a consistent possibility. You tighten the methodology in hopes everyone is equally under-educated and shares only in the premises you bring to the table.. or else how do you prove someone has a headache by 'observation' or 'experiment' and for once in your life you should be honest enough to come with a response that doesn't deflect away from the topic. I notice when the tough questions are asked you come up empty!
Reasonable tests have been supplied, you had no desire to expend the time applying said methodology, you're confined to the two means you proposed as a possibility to provide proof!
It seem to me that you are failing here because you have a very limited concept of what might be taken as an observation of experiment. If we take the case of 'headache' then one supposes there is always a physiological cause and therefore in principle one could construct a material test to confirm it if we knew of such a test. In your case it seem you are referring to diagnoses by criteria of some sort and indeed one might confirm that a person has a headache that way. But were you make a serious mistake is that confirmation of a headache is NOT the same as knowing its cause.

You say you have reliable criteria that show the Qu'ran to be the word of God but all they can ever do is confirm you have a Qu'ran with certain supposed qualities but they CANNOT confirm its cause, that is who wrote it. I gave you another reasonable criteria that show it is NOT the word of God but of course you cannot accept it but cannot show it to be unreliable either. You cannot accept any criteria unless it props up your own preconceived notion, you want the facts to fit the preconceptions, when they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions. Have you ever heard the famous aphorisms: If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of AND Researchers should always state the opinion on which their facts are based.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
The difference between these two is:

Did John actually say (or at least write) that he wrote the gospel of john?

We want proof, mister.

chain of transmissions..

records.

even bible scholars are not sure who wrote john, let alone other gospels.

the best they can do is guessing that it was john himself.
What better chain of transmission do you want than I've provided? Yes, John did tell his disciples (among them Polycarp) that he wrote the Gospel that today bears his name. Polycarp's disciples shared that information with his disciples (among them Irenaeus). And Irenaeus then wrote about these events. In Irenaeus' Epistle to Florinus he categorically declares "after the publication of the other Gospels John also wrote his, while he was dwelling in Ephesus."* How many Hadith of the Prophet have any better a chain of transmission to testify to their authenticity?

There were no doubters of his authorship until the "Age of Englightenment". Some of these same scholars (and I know that Bultman, Wrede, Schweitzer, Sanders are indeed recognized as legitimate scholars) doubt that Jesus was even a real historical person. How much credence do you really want to give to their doubts?

Among those who attest to the disciple John being the author of the Fourth Gospel we have: Polycarp, Irenaeus, Papias, Origen, Valentinius, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. These folks aren't slouches just because they aren't "modern". But it would not be fair to paint it as a contrast between ancient and modern scholarship. There are also current biblical scholars who fully support Johanine authorship.

Writing about those who argue against John being the gospel's author because he presents a unique Christological view when compared to the synoptics, W.F. Albright offers some wise counsel:
One of the strangest assumptions of critical New Testament scholars and theologians is that the mind of Jesus was so limited that any apparent contrast between John and the Synoptics must be due to differences between early Christian theologians. Every great thinker and personality is going to be interpreted different by different friends and hears who will select what seems most congenial or useful out of what they have seen and heard. From Socrates to the most recent men of eminence there are innumberable examples. The Christian might a fortiori suppose the same to be true of his Master

(source: The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, W.F. Albright, p. 171)
H.P.V. Nunn, another modern-day biblical scholar wonders about those so-call "thinkers" who simply dismiss Irenaeus' testimony in favor of their own concocted theories:
If the rest of the people in Asia knew perfectly well the John the Evangelist was not the Apostle and could have corrected the childish mistake of Irenaeus, had an opportunity been given them to do so, how was it that when Irenaeus, in his later life, promulgated his [supposed] unfounded statement that the Apostle wrote the Gospel everyone believed him both in the East and the West?

(source: the Authoriship of the Fourth Gospel, H.P.N. Nunn, p. 36)
So, just as you can find some scholars who doubt the disciple John to be the author of the Gospel bearing his name, there are also plenty of biblical scholars who assert that it was indeed John.




* - source: Introduction to the New Testament, Everett F. Harrison, Eerdmans Publishing, 1971, p. 219
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
It seem to me that you are failing here because you have a very limited concept of what might be taken as an observation of experiment.
It seems to me that the person who offers only two viable methods to falsify or fail falsify consistent possibilities is the one who has failed. You don't get to amend your meaning to include more as you fluster to explain your lack of education!
If we take the case of 'headache' then one supposes there is always a physiological cause and therefore in principle one could construct a material test to confirm it if we knew of such a test. In your case it seem you are referring to diagnoses by criteria of some sort and indeed one might confirm that a person has a headache that way. But were you make a serious mistake is that confirmation of a headache is NOT the same as knowing its cause.
Headaches aren't 'physiological' they are in fact pathological, so how about you work on that first before offering methodology?
You say you have reliable criteria that show the Qu'ran to be the word of God but all they can ever do is confirm you have a Qu'ran with certain supposed qualities but they CANNOT confirm its cause, that is who wrote it. I gave you another reasonable criteria that show it is NOT the word of God but of course you cannot accept it but cannot show it to be unreliable either. You cannot accept any criteria unless it props up your own preconceived notion, you want the facts to fit the preconceptions, when they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions. Have you ever heard the famous aphorisms: If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of AND Researchers should always state the opinion on which their facts are based.
That isn't at all what they do, if you'd follow them through and do some implementation, but I imagine that would require you to exercise some skills you haven't actually acquired, so what else are we left with pithy phrase? well obviously your all too frequent pithy phrases!

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I see so a man can have up to 4 wives and have sexual relations with his slave girls
You'd feel so much better in the west to live by God's laws than find a way around them that exempts you from your duties..

http://www.tv20detroit.com/entertain.../48782087.html

at least you'd give identity, inheritance and legality to the crap you do on the side, which by the very nature of man is instinctive.. or so tell us secular/atheist no religio people:
http://www.adulthoodwonderful.com/su...monogamous.htm

in fact Islam is the only religion that says to marry one if you can't be just.. let's contrast that with David's concubines upon his death bed and solely for his pleasure as per your bible.. do you have a desire to follow a religion at all or only the whimsical parts that deal with the death of god?

- you assert that this is the CORRECT way? The Qu'ran suggest that apostates shroud be killed -
The conditions for the death to apostates is clearly defined and I know you must have been offered a zillion article about it, but alas, we have no expectations that you read, treason is indeed punished by the death penalty even in the 'civilized west' have a look,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

and by the way so punished in your bible, do try to read it sometimes, or again, you'd prefer only the whimsical parts that deal with the death of God?
you assert this as CORRECT even if it was your own mother? The Qu'ran is littered with contradictions, every abrogated verse is one to start with. The Qu'ran contains errors and we can see because it never relates a Biblical story correctly. The Qu'ran has many unjust laws as I have shown --- do I need to go on?
We assert that Quran is correct and the unadulterated word of God, based on proofs, you have shown no contradictions, you often speak of them but haven't been able to sustain one.. further all the laws of the Quran are the laws that God intended knowing the nature of what he has created!

yeah pls do go on, for we enjoy board jesters!

all the best
Reply

Insaanah
10-02-2010, 06:14 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Can't you see how illogical it all is, Mohammed is the massager of God
I suppose if you believe in a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, then I guess you believe he needs a massager as well. It seems Christians will stop at nothing in their insult of God....

Can't you see how illogical all of the above is?

Peace.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by Insaanah

I suppose if you believe in a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, then I guess you believe he needs a massager as well. It seems Christians will stop at nothing in their insult of God....

Can't you see how illogical all of the above is?

Peace.

that guy is a hoot, and still no answers to the two statistics Q's on the MSR thread..if you dump enough crap on top, surely you'll drown the fundamental principles!

:w:
Reply

Hugo
10-02-2010, 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You'd feel so much better in the west to live by God's laws than find a way around them that exempts you from your duties..
http://www.tv20detroit.com/entertain.../48782087.html at least you'd give identity, inheritance and legality to the crap you do on the side, which by the very nature of man is instinctive.. or so tell us secular/atheist no religio people: http://www.adulthoodwonderful.com/su...monogamous.htm
How can having 4 wives be good and fair. For a start there are not enough women to go round and secondly it is absolutely obvious this law ONLY benefits (if that is the right word for such a degrading practice) those who are wealthy. If I go to a Christian wedding I see two people standing before God and a congregation making exactly the same vows to each other some of which are binding in law and some between them and God and they do it 'till death us do part'. If I look at Islamic wedding all I see is a contract and when I look at it I find there is a space for 4 names - now how can that be just and what can any woman who feels any value in herself think of that as a way to start? The distinguish Tunisian Lawyer Professor Mohamed Charfi described it as a shameful practice in these words: A [muslim] husband demands unfailing fidelity from his wife, any breach of this being punishable with death by stoning. But his own infidelity with one or other co-spouses [or slaves girls] is considered legitimate. In short, the man has jealous feelings that must be scrupulously respected, a heart that must never be wounded, an honour that must on no account be damaged. The woman is supposed to have NONE of these things.

Biblically as far as I can recall, there is not a single instance of multiple wives that had a good outcome and always there was trouble - my shock is that ANYONE especially a woman would regard the practice as just.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
How can having 4 wives be good and fair.
If you can't be good and fair then certainly don't have four wives.. having four wives, many would argue is better than having mistresses and ba stard children!

For a start there are not enough women to go round and secondly it it absolutely obvious this law ONLY benefits (if that is the right word for such a degrading practice) those who are wealthy.
Again, you purposefully misconstrue an allowance for an injunction. Certainly there are times when women outnumber the men and instead of prostitution, being an honored wife is better ( I reference you of course to the current situation in Iraq) thanks to your ilk!
If I go to a Christian wedding I see two people standing before God and a congregation making exactly the same vows to each other some of which are binging in law and some between then and God and they do it 'till death us do part'.
And? a man can go screw on the side? which in fact they do as statistics have shown!

If I look at Islamic wedding all I see is a contract and when I look at it I find there is a space for 4 names
have you ever been to an Islamic wedding?
- now how can that be just and what can any woman who feels any value in herself thing of that as a way to start?
How do you measure value? if you have two children do you value one less?
The distinguish Tunisian Lawyer Professor Mohamed Charfi described it as a shameful practice in these words: A [muslim] husband demands unfailing fidelity from his wife, any breach of this being punishable with death by stoning. But his own infidelity with one or other co-spouses [or slaves girls] is considered legitimate. In short, the man has jealous feelings that must be scrupulously respected, a heart that must never be wounded, an honour that must on no account be damaged. The woman is supposed to have NONE of these things.
Charfi's words are inconsequential as they draw much from emotionality rather than factuality. Indeed many abuse the system, however Islam also made an allowance of divorce and mo'akhar to the woman's choosing if she feels she entered unjustly into a relationship, and again, NOT AN INJUNCTION BUT AN ALLOWANCE!
Biblically as far as I can recall, there is not a single instance of multiple wives that had a good outcome and always there was trouble - my shock is that ANYONE especially a woman would regard the practice as just.
Well what can I say, your bible is fraught with nonsense, why do you follow it or think it is god inspired is beyond me but to each his own I suppose!

all the best
Reply

Hugo
10-02-2010, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Insaanah
I suppose if you believe in a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, then I guess you believe he needs a massager as well. It seems Christians will stop at nothing in their insult of God.... Can't you see how illogical all of the above is?
I take this as an admission that you regard both Christianity and Islam As ILLOGICAL?

By the way do you believe in the story about someone having their heart removed and washed with snow?
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I take this as an admission that you regard both Christianity and Islam As ILLOGICAL?
Where in Islam does it mention that men are gods for Islam to be equated with Christianity as illogical?
Reply

Hugo
10-02-2010, 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
that guy is a hoot, and still no answers to the two statistics Q's on the MSR thread..if you dump enough crap on top, surely you'll drown the fundamental principles!
Well if you want to check this allegation out go to the Medical Student Review thread and check it out. There are two questions there at post 115 and the person who set them as far as I know never offered any answer or relevant statistics - go and find out who that person was and then check what they did and what I did to help those who looked at those questions
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
By the way do you believe in the story about someone having their heart removed and washed with snow?
The story of having ones heart purified isn't a basic tenet of Islam, nor is ones salvation contingent upon believing, understanding or even being made aware of it. The piece concerned with salvation in Islam revolve around the five pillars of which the first three are the most important.. Now, let's contrast that with the piece one needs to believe in christianity to attain salvation, a group of theologians can't decipher it, and the more they dwell on it the more nonsensical it becomes.. If God wanted 'his religion' to be accessible to all, would he make the fundamental tenet that should salvage the masses such an absurdity?

certainly something to ponder while brushing your teeth tonight!

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well if you want to check this allegation out go to the Medical Student Review thread and check it out. There are two questions there at post 115 and the person who set them as far as I know never offered any answer or relevant statistics - go and find out who that person was and then check what they did and what I did to help those who looked at those questions
The post was meant for you to demonstrate your skills applying knowledge acquired to real life questions that students face, and it actually relevant to the topic because they are actually in keeping with well 'the medical student review' given they came straight out of a medical statistics book. Anyone can copy pages from books and stick them on a forum, your job was in fact to break it down so it is neither daunting, nor banal but easily accessible to those who find the topic a challenge!
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-02-2010, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
If God wanted 'his religion' to be accessible to all, would he make the fundamental tenet that should salvage the masses such an absurdity?
People seem to like to ask questions about why God didn't do this or do that. Yes, there are things I too wonder about,. But I suspect that we will find most of our questions to be nonsensical. For instance, one might ask, if God wanted "his religion" to be accessible to all, why would he give his final word in a language spoken by only a few? And for that matter, why did he wait till the time of Muhammad to guard his word, rather than guarding the original edition?
Reply

Hugo
10-02-2010, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The post was meant for you to demonstrate your skills applying knowledge acquired to real life questions that students face, and it actually relevant to the topic because they are actually in keeping with well 'the medical student review' given they came straight out of a medical statistics book. Anyone can copy pages from books and stick them on a forum, your job was in fact to break it down so it is neither daunting, nor banal but easily accessible to those who find the topic a challenge!
Well I again ASK anyone who cares to read my posts in the Medical Student Review and see if what was written there is just pages from a text book. If you look you will see that I almost NEVER do that but often state the reference and if I can I add a web ref to a reliable source since not everyone will have immediate access to any book I suggest. You might also care to look through the rest of the thread and see what others do and then you can come to an honest conclusion.
Reply

Hugo
10-02-2010, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The story of having ones heart purified isn't a basic tenet of Islam, nor is ones salvation contingent upon believing, understanding or even being made aware of it.
Yes I understood that but what I want to know is do you take it a a literal event in history?
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Yes I understood that but what I want to know is do you take it a a literal event bin history?
I believe everything in Islam in totality not just the parts I can prove!
have you not read the Quran, second chapter you'd not needed to have gone far in your reading to have a definition of what a Muslim is:

الم {1}
[Pickthal 2:1] Alif. Lam. Mim.
ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ {2}
[Pickthal 2:2] This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ {3}
[Pickthal 2:3] Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَبِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ {4}
[Pickthal 2:4] And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.
أُولَٰئِكَ عَلَىٰ هُدًى مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ ۖ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ {5}
[Pickthal 2:5] These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.


all the best
Reply

Hugo
10-03-2010, 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I believe everything in Islam in totality not just the parts I can prove! have you not read the Quran, second chapter you'd not needed to have gone far in your reading to have a definition of what a Muslim is:

Pickthal 2:1 Alif. Lam. Mim. This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them; And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.
Interesting post and I link it to another of yours where you speak about the pillars of Islam as being central. So is it enough to just take the pillars or do you have to accept everything? I can understand one holding on to the Qu'ran but personally I could never accept the hadith as anything more than background. The idea of prophets being perfect and infallible in everything they said or did is to me a recipe for oppressions because it destroys any critical thinking because we hear so often about cruel and unjust punishments toward anybody, including Muslims who differ.

I might cite the following Matthew 22:35-42 (NIV) and as you can see the focus is on God not the messenger and then outward into how we live our live.

35. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Is There a similar injunction in the Qu'ran?
Reply

Hugo
10-03-2010, 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by muhaba
Why should the last Book of God contain new facts? It's a book of guidance, not a science book.
But I can equally say 'why not' since all the guidance has been given already?
Your hypothesis should be: the last Word of God is unchangeable, because being the last word, it should be impossible to alter it or else it would be useless and another book would be necessary. Since the Quraan hasn't been changed over 1400 years, and can not be changed ever, it proves that it is the last Word of God. And God says: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it. The Quraan, Chapter 15 (Al-Hijr) Verse 9.
WHY should this be my hypothesis, why is mine any less valid that this one. If your hypothesis is true then ANY book that remains unchained must be from God, you cannot have special rules just for the Qu'ran. Logically I cannot see how you can show it to be unchained anyway for it was given orally to the prophet according to Islam so there is no record. [offensive comment removed]
Other hypothoses can be: the book of God will guide people to the correct way, The book of God will contain a practical law system, the book of God will not contain any contradictions, the book of God will not contain errors, the Book of God will not contain any cruel or unjust laws, the Book of God will be for all people, the Last Book of God can be equally applicable in all places and times - it will not go out of date. all these are true regarding the Quraan.
But cannot you see that all these end up amounting to opinions. Consider your claim that the Qu'ran is for all time then clearly that CANNOT be shown to be true because we do not know what we and others will know tomorrow. If we consider your claim that there are no contradiction or errors then I am unclear how you will show that and indeed there are dozens of books and website that list errors and contradictions in the Qu'ran - you may not agree of course but others will have an entirely different view.

The trouble with criteria is that they more often than not are designed to show what we want to see. So if I have a criteria that shows high poetical structure then that is all it shows it cannot show cause, how the structure got there, who wrote it and any suggestion it is from God is no more than speculation and you can believe it or not, its a matter of faith.

Consider, one often hears that the Qu'ran is untranslatable. So what if I suggest one criteria that it is from God that it must be easily translatable. Why would God send his last message in a language that cannot be translated thereby forcing the whole world to learn 6th century Arabic - why?
Reply

جوري
10-03-2010, 03:55 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Interesting post and I link it to another of yours where you speak about the pillars of Islam as being central. So is it enough to just take the pillars or do you have to accept everything? I can understand one holding on to the Qu'ran but personally I could never accept the hadith as anything more than background. The idea of prophets being perfect and infallible in everything they said or did is to me a recipe for oppressions because it destroys any critical thinking because we hear so often about cruel and unjust punishments toward anybody, including Muslims who differ.
The prophet once was met by a Bedouin who wasn't learned, and the Bedouin was seeking the prophet's advise on what he has to do to get to heaven, and the prophet PBUH told him to keep those basic tenets-- it is important in Islam to address people to the level of education, to speak to them and not above them. we can't for instance all be doctors and engineers, and scientists, but those who aren't those things should not be exempt from privilege simply because they know less. In this case the privilege is paradise.. by the way that bit about the Bedouin is a hadith though I can't cite it, imagine if we didn't have the sunnah how we'd carry out perfect Islamic law, a book makes the most sense when taught by a capable teacher, they don't merely drop from heaven upon the people!...
The only thing that destroys critical thinking are people like you.. for where is the critical thought in accepting a mangod, as opposed to Islam, where we are asked to ponder everything in creation which will ultimately lead to in depth analysis of all subjects, since all was explored by Islam, politics, economics, social structure, inventions, inheritance, mathematics, yes even fractals were inspired by Muslims...

I might cite the following Matthew 22:35-42 (NIV) and as you can see the focus is on God not the messenger and then outward into how we live our live.
was Jesus a prophet or a god? I recall grace seeker mentioning him to be both, I do believe you concentrate on him more than plenty. The prophet of Islam was our teacher not our god, so we reach god by learning the proper way of doing so rather than being astray like Christians and worshiping the messenger instead of pondering the message!


all the best
Reply

Muhaba
10-04-2010, 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
But I can equally say 'why not' since all the guidance has been given already?

WHY should this be my hypothesis, why is mine any less valid that this one. If your hypothesis is true then ANY book that remains unchained must be from God, you cannot have special rules just for the Qu'ran. Logically I cannot see how you can show it to be unchained anyway for it was given orally to the prophet according to Islam so there is no record. [offensive comment removed]
Are you saying that any book containing new facts is from God? So science books that tell us about new discoveries etc are all from God?

The Quraan is the only book that cannot be changed. Show me another book that is impossible to change? How come every arabic copy of the Quraan everywhere in the world is the same? How come over 1400 years the Quraan hasn't been changed and what we have today is the same as the still existing copies of the Quraan from the first century?

if the Quraan can't be changed and hasn't been changed over 1400 years, how can you believe that the first Quraan that was written was not the same as the one God revealed to Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? Are you saying that while God preserved what we have of the written Quraan, He didn't preserve what He originally revealed and it was changed before being written down or changed after being written but can no longer be changed? That's an absurd thing to believe.


But cannot you see that all these end up amounting to opinions. Consider your claim that the Qu'ran is for all time then clearly that CANNOT be shown to be true because we do not know what we and others will know tomorrow. If we consider your claim that there are no contradiction or errors then I am unclear how you will show that and indeed there are dozens of books and website that list errors and contradictions in the Qu'ran - you may not agree of course but others will have an entirely different view.

The trouble with criteria is that they more often than not are designed to show what we want to see. So if I have a criteria that shows high poetical structure then that is all it shows it cannot show cause, how the structure got there, who wrote it and any suggestion it is from God is no more than speculation and you can believe it or not, its a matter of faith.

Consider, one often hears that the Qu'ran is untranslatable. So what if I suggest one criteria that it is from God that it must be easily translatable. Why would God send his last message in a language that cannot be translated thereby forcing the whole world to learn 6th century Arabic - why?
[/quote]
who said that Quraan is untranslatable? there are translations of the Holy Quraan in many languages. however translations may be difficult to write. anything written in one language will lose its beauty when translated to another language.

Originally Posted by Hugo
The idea of prophets being perfect and infallible in everything they said or did is to me a recipe for oppressions because it destroys any critical thinking because we hear so often about cruel and unjust punishments toward anybody, including Muslims who differ.

I might cite the following Matthew 22:35-42 (NIV) and as you can see the focus is on God not the messenger and then outward into how we live our live.

35. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Is There a similar injunction in the Qu'ran?
Prophets were the best people. They tried their best to do what was right. That was their personality. But that didn't mean they always were able to do the best thing in any given situation. They were humans and their actions were based on human judgment, so sometimes they did something that wasn't best in that particular situation. in that case, God corrected them. For example, in several situations God corrected the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). One of them was when the Prophet (SAW) frowned when a blind man came to him for guidance, while the Prophet (SAW) was preaching to the chiefs of Makkah. See chapter 80 Al-Abasa (He Frowned) for the whole story. Prophets were infallable because they didn't do anything wrong on purpose.

There are many injunctions in the Quraan where we are told to Worship God and to care for the needy, etc. God even says in the Quraan not to transgress during the time of war, etc. If one has read the Quraan I can't see how they can be so blind to not notice all the awesome commandments. For example, God says in Surah Luqman:
And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents; in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and for two years was his weaning, (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to your parents; to Me is (your final) goal.

"But if they strive to make you join in worship with Me things of which you have no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to Me (in love), in the end the return of you all is to Me and I will tell you the Truth (and meaning) of all that you did." (Chapter 31: 14 - 15) and the commands in Surah Al-Isra (chapter 17) verses 23 - 39.
Reply

Hugo
10-10-2010, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by muhaba
Are you saying that any book containing new facts is from God? So science books that tell us about new discoveries etc are all from God?
Where to scientific fact originate if its not from God? However, what I was saying was that ANY hypothesis must be applicable to any book, we cannot have one that just apply to th Qu'ran or Bible because that presupposes (we have decoded the answer before asking the question) that answer. So if one says God would never send a book that contains errors then assuming we agree God exists we can use this supposition to test ANY book and I guess there are thousands of books that don't contain errors so they all must be from God. Even if there were no such books we cannot be sure there will never be.

The Quraan is the only book that cannot be changed. Show me another book that is impossible to change? How come every arabic copy of the Quraan everywhere in the world is the same? How come over 1400 years the Quraan hasn't been changed and what we have today is the same as the still existing copies of the Quraan from the first century?
I don't follow the logic here as one supposes that anyone could create extra verses or delete them and print a new Qu'ran? We have debated this question endlessly and it is simply in my view impossible to prove as there are no extant Qu'ran's from the time of your prophet

if the Quraan can't be changed and hasn't been changed over 1400 years, how can you believe that the first Quraan that was written was not the same as the one God revealed to Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? Are you saying that while God preserved what we have of the written Quraan, He didn't preserve what He originally revealed and it was changed before being written down or changed after being written but can no longer be changed? That's an absurd thing to believe.
Well you whole line supposes that God exists and that simply cannot be proved one way or the other. To any rational person what is absurd here is that you believe a book right down to the last dot and stroke never varied - how can this be true and all you do is invoke God and tell us about what he might and might not do. If God was so careful to preserve the Qu'ran why was he so lax about the preserving the earlier scriptures?

who said that Quraan is untranslatable? there are translations of the Holy Quraan in many languages. however translations may be difficult to write. anything written in one language will lose its beauty when translated to another language.
It is a common Muslim theme, what is wrong say with saying Muslims prayers in English or German or whatever; will God not understand them, will he reject them? Any book my have beauty but what matter is the message it contains and surely that can be conveyed in any language else it would seem to me that God made a bad choice with Arabic?

Prophets were infallable because they didn't do anything wrong on purpose.
This to be seems like a 'get out of Jail free card' and its implication is that as long as when I look back on a wrong I can say it was not done on purpose then its ok? This to me sound totally unconvincing.
Reply

Muhaba
10-11-2010, 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Where to scientific fact originate if its not from God? However, what I was saying was that ANY hypothesis must be applicable to any book, we cannot have one that just apply to th Qu'ran or Bible because that presupposes (we have decoded the answer before asking the question) that answer. So if one says God would never send a book that contains errors then assuming we agree God exists we can use this supposition to test ANY book and I guess there are thousands of books that don't contain errors so they all must be from God. Even if there were no such books we cannot be sure there will never be.
but did their authors claim they were from God?

I don't follow the logic here as one supposes that anyone could create extra verses or delete them and print a new Qu'ran? We have debated this question endlessly and it is simply in my view impossible to prove as there are no extant Qu'ran's from the time of your prophet
show me a Quraan where extra verses were added.

Well you whole line supposes that God exists and that simply cannot be proved one way or the other. To any rational person what is absurd here is that you believe a book right down to the last dot and stroke never varied - how can this be true and all you do is invoke God and tell us about what he might and might not do. If God was so careful to preserve the Qu'ran why was he so lax about the preserving the earlier scriptures?
are you a christian or an athiest?
God didn't preserve the other Holy Books because 1. He gave mankind the chance to do what they liked and if they wanted to mess up other Holy Books they were able to and will have to answer to God on teh Day of Judgment. 2. He had the plan to send many Prophets with Books so when one Book was changed or lost, God sent another - A great mercy of God. But when He no longer planned to send any more Prophets, He preserved the final Holy Book which will not be changed till the Day of Judgment. In the past, God sent several Prophets to different areas but Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was sent to the whole world and the Quraan is for the whole world. since we now have the printing press, internet, etc many copies of the Quraan can be printed and easily distributed all over the world so more than one prophet/Holy Book wasn't necessary.

It is a common Muslim theme, what is wrong say with saying Muslims prayers in English or German or whatever; will God not understand them, will he reject them? Any book my have beauty but what matter is the message it contains and surely that can be conveyed in any language else it would seem to me that God made a bad choice with Arabic?
what does that have to do with a book being translatable or not? rules are rules. a person should pray in Arabic. The Quraan can be translated into other languages just as well as any language can be translated into another and many people have become muslims just by reading the translation of the Quraan.
This to be seems like a 'get out of Jail free card' and its implication is that as long as when I look back on a wrong I can say it was not done on purpose then its ok? This to me sound totally unconvincing.
Uh Prophets didnn't do anything that would've landed them in jail. Please just read the Holy Quraan with an open mind and you will see. In Chapter 2 Allah says that the Jews are cursed becuase they killed Prophets without a just cause. Just think, God doesn't say that they are cursed because they killed Prophets but that they killed prophets without a just cause. shows how Just God is.
Reply

Hugo
10-12-2010, 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by muhaba
but did their authors claim they were from God?
Yes many authors have claimed they wrote what was from God, Brigham Young for example. You can go on adding extra conditions or qualifications but all that eventually does is practically prove your contention wrong. If there is a message from God in any book then it's the message that is important not the messenger; do you not agree? Do you not see that you may well be convinced say that the Qu'ran is from God but I can be equally convinced it is not and yet we both have the exactly the same information - typically Muslims then go on to say that I am not a sincere seeker but I then say you are blind and so we go round in circles. That is why for me faith is an entirely personal matter and not a matter of proof positive because none exist - is that how you see it?
God didn't preserve the other Holy Books because 1. He gave mankind the chance to do what they liked and if they wanted to mess up other Holy Books they were able to and will have to answer to God on the Day of Judgement. 2. He had the plan to send many Prophets with Books so when one Book was changed or lost, God sent another - A great mercy of God. But when He no longer planned to send any more Prophets, He preserved the final Holy Book which will not be changed till the Day of Judgment. In the past, God sent several Prophets to different areas but Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was sent to the whole world and the Quraan is for the whole world. since we now have the printing press, internet, etc many copies of the Quraan can be printed and easily distributed all over the world so more than one prophet/Holy Book wasn't necessary
Can you explain where the dogma outlined in item 1 and 2 comes from? From my point of view the earlier books are still with us and they too will not change so what is your point? The Bible also has been printed and distributed all over the world in 1,000s of languages so all those who get it can read it and understand it unlike the Qu'ran where that is not the case. The trouble with the arguments you deploy is that I can use exactly the same ones about other books and then you deploy a few more and we end up on a merry go round with you invoking what God will do or might do or did and there is no reason logically why I have to accept that what you say is right is there?

A person should pray in Arabic.
But why? Will God turn me away otherwise, not accept my prayers yet he would accept them if I say them in Arabic without understanding the words myself?

Please just read the Holy Quraan with an open mind and you will see.
Is that how you see it, those that don't agree have closed minds?

In Chapter 2 Allah says that the Jews are cursed becuase they killed Prophets without a just cause. Just think, God doesn't say that they are cursed because they killed Prophets but that they killed prophets without a just cause. shows how Just God is.
I cannot make logical sense of this, first you tell me prophets are sinless but also imply that they can be justly killed.
Reply

IAmZamzam
10-12-2010, 08:21 PM
I can't vote since I don't see, "Because Richard Dawkins barely ever seems not to have his higher brain functions surpassing those of cheese whiz" as a poll option. Perhaps you should add that.
Reply

CosmicPathos
10-12-2010, 08:40 PM
what is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a nut-job crack-headed self-humiliating fool? the difference is the lack of any difference.
Reply

Hugo
10-12-2010, 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I can't vote since I don't see, "Because Richard Dawkins barely ever seems not to have his higher brain functions surpassing those of cheese whiz" as a poll option. Perhaps you should add that.
Dawkin's is a distinguished professor at Oxford University and you don't get to such a position by being a 'cheese whiz' so what you say here is preposterous. One does not have to insult Dawkins because you don't agree with him and as you know the very worse thing one can do is underestimate ones opponents. ?
Reply

IAmZamzam
10-12-2010, 09:24 PM
I'm not going to sit here and dignify a fallacious appeal to scholastic achievement so blatant and silly as to be unworthy of my time. If respected institutions never let drooling idiots graduate, George W. Bush wouldn't be from Yale. Pick a fight with someone else. I fell for your routine before and I'm not going to do so again. I do not call Dawkins a moron because I disagree with him: I disagree with him because he is a moron. If you can by some means contact Dawkins and get him to debate me in person, making him into a real opponent, bring it on, but otherwise leave me alone.
Reply

Hugo
10-12-2010, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I'm not going to sit here and dignify a fallacious appeal to scholastic achievement so blatant and silly as to be unworthy of my time. If respected institutions never let drooling idiots graduate, George W. Bush wouldn't be from Yale. Pick a fight with someone else. I fell for your routine before and I'm not going to do so again. I do not call Dawkins a moron because I disagree with him: I disagree with him because he is a moron. If you can by some means contact Dawkins and get him to debate me in person, making him into a real opponent, bring it on, but otherwise leave me alone.
Well tell us for it would I think be very useful how one assess any individual's competence to hold an opinion? Would it be the Socratic one: "If I have any authority it is based on the certain knowledge that I know nothing" or perhaps Nasim Talib with his "Epistemic Arrogance: literally, our hubris concerning the limits of our knowledge" or Francis Bacon "The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but it is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true".
Reply

Muhaba
10-12-2010, 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Yes many authors have claimed they wrote what was from God, Brigham Young for example. You can go on adding extra conditions or qualifications but all that eventually does is practically prove your contention wrong. If there is a message from God in any book then it's the message that is important not the messenger; do you not agree? Do you not see that you may well be convinced say that the Qu'ran is from God but I can be equally convinced it is not and yet we both have the exactly the same information - typically Muslims then go on to say that I am not a sincere seeker but I then say you are blind and so we go round in circles. That is why for me faith is an entirely personal matter and not a matter of proof positive because none exist - is that how you see it?

Can you explain where the dogma outlined in item 1 and 2 comes from? From my point of view the earlier books are still with us and they too will not change so what is your point? The Bible also has been printed and distributed all over the world in 1,000s of languages so all those who get it can read it and understand it unlike the Qu'ran where that is not the case. The trouble with the arguments you deploy is that I can use exactly the same ones about other books and then you deploy a few more and we end up on a merry go round with you invoking what God will do or might do or did and there is no reason logically why I have to accept that what you say is right is there?


But why? Will God turn me away otherwise, not accept my prayers yet he would accept them if I say them in Arabic without understanding the words myself?


Is that how you see it, those that don't agree have closed minds?


I cannot make logical sense of this, first you tell me prophets are sinless but also imply that they can be justly killed.
It's obvious you don't come here to learn. I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.
Reply

Zafran
10-12-2010, 11:30 PM
The bible has more then one version that christians themselves cannot agree on. One has 66 books and the other 73. End of story. If there is another Quran I'll like to see it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-12-2010, 11:36 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
If there is another Quran I'll like to see it.
I understand that while every group of Muslims has a certain given set of writings that they consider to be their scriptures, that different groups of Muslims accept one set of writings and another group of Muslims accept a different group of writings. Is this true?
Reply

Zafran
10-13-2010, 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I understand that while every group of Muslims has a certain given set of writings that they consider to be their scriptures, that different groups of Muslims accept one set of writings and another group of Muslims accept a different group of writings. Is this true?
All muslims agree on what the Quran is and what it contains - the same cannot be said for christians authoritive scrpture - bible - Where after the reformation one group decided to take some books out of it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
All muslims agree on what the Quran is and what it contains - the same cannot be said for christians authoritive scrpture - bible - Where after the reformation one group decided to take some books out of it.
Which doesn't answer my question. Do all Muslims agree with one another as to what is and is not considered to be accepted as scripture?
Reply

IAmZamzam
10-13-2010, 12:12 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well tell us for it would I think be very useful how one assess any individual's competence to hold an opinion? Would it be the Socratic one: "If I have any authority it is based on the certain knowledge that I know nothing" or perhaps Nasim Talib with his "Epistemic Arrogance: literally, our hubris concerning the limits of our knowledge" or Francis Bacon "The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but it is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true"
By whether that individual acts like a moron, as I thought I had made clear. I told you before that I'm not going to indulge your pretensions any more. You seem bent on disbelieving me.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I understand that while every group of Muslims has a certain given set of writings that they consider to be their scriptures, that different groups of Muslims accept one set of writings and another group of Muslims accept a different group of writings. Is this true?
Can you be more specific, GS?

You are not talking about christian theology here, so no need to be so vague.

Also, is it true GS that they are currently thousands of bible versions, which differ in contents and meanings?
(as opposed to the Qur'an which has no versions)
Reply

Zafran
10-13-2010, 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Which doesn't answer my question. Do all Muslims agree with one another as to what is and is not considered to be accepted as scripture?
If we're talking about the Quran - then 100% muslims accpet it as scripture. With christianty thats not the case with the 73 and 66 book difference after the reformation.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 04:24 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Can you be more specific, GS?

You are not talking about christian theology here, so no need to be so vague.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was being vague. As you said, I wasn't talking about Christian theology. I was talking about what it is that Muslims accept as scripture. Either all Muslims accept the exact same scriptures or they don't. The only way that question would be vague is if you are vague as to what your scriptures actually are.


Originally Posted by Zafran
If we're talking about the Quran - then 100% muslims accpet it as scripture. With christianty thats not the case with the 73 and 66 book difference after the reformation.
I'm talking about the totality of what Muslims consider scripture. Do all Muslims accept only the Qur'an as their scriptures? Don't some of them, but not all of them, accept other things such as the Hadith as scripture as well?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 04:53 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Also, is it true GS that they are currently thousands of bible versions, which differ in contents and meanings?
(as opposed to the Qur'an which has no versions)
Given that there are hundreds of different languages and often multiple different attempts to produce the best and most accurate translation into each language, and the definition of a version is the result of a particular production of a given translation I should find it surprising if there were not just thousands, but tens of thousands of different versions. The Qur'an has no verisions because you don't recognize the translations of the Qur'an as being the Qur'an, while we do recognize a translation as being the Bible even if it isn't in the original language any longer.

How many different translations of the Qur'an are there?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Either all Muslims accept the exact same scriptures or they don't.
all muslims accept the Qur'an as our scripture. Sio that's the exact same scripture.



Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm talking about the totality of what Muslims consider scripture. Do all Muslims accept only the Qur'an as their scriptures? Don't some of them, but not all of them, accept other things such as the Hadith as scripture as well
I don;t know what you mean as scripture.
I dont want to be dragged into words play with you again. You christians seem very good in twisting words and their meanings, maybe necessary because christian creed and theology cannot be expressed in simple words.

We muslims believe in the Qur'an as our guidance and the pure speech of Allah.
And hadith is narrations concerning words and deeds of the prophet SAW.

I understand that you christians don't have the words of gods.
You only have the writings of some unknown people as your scripture.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Given that there are hundreds of different languages and often multiple different attempts to produce the best and most accurate translation into each language, and the definition of a version is the result of a particular production of a given translation I should find it surprising if there were not just thousands, but tens of thousands of different versions.
I am very surprised that a PASTOR like you does not even know the fact there are so many bible versions is not JUST the results of translations, re-translations, and re-re-translations but also due to the fact that some bible versions contain 66 books, some 73 books, some 81 books, etc.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not calling you a liar (just in case you get offended and report me), I am only attributing it to either your lack of general knowledge about bible, or maybe simply due to forgetfulness.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
How many different translations of the Qur'an are there?
I don't know how many translations of the Quran there are, but I know one thing for certain: there is only one qur'an in the world and it is the same qur'an that the prophet SAW taught us.

By the way, I know that you christians don't have the original bible (the oldest existing bible, codex sinaiticus is from around 350 AD, and it is not even the original, as no one know for sure what language the bible was written onb: koine greek? aramaic? hebrew?), so I am just pointing the fact that despite all the retranslations efforts, you christians will never know if what you have in the bible(s) now is the same as what was originally written.
Reply

Woodrow
10-13-2010, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was being vague. As you said, I wasn't talking about Christian theology. I was talking about what it is that Muslims accept as scripture. Either all Muslims accept the exact same scriptures or they don't. The only way that question would be vague is if you are vague as to what your scriptures actually are.




I'm talking about the totality of what Muslims consider scripture. Do all Muslims accept only the Qur'an as their scriptures? Don't some of them, but not all of them, accept other things such as the Hadith as scripture as well?
Peace Gene,

While most of us accept the Ahadith as being truth and what needs to be followed, they are not scripture in the Christian concept. We do not believe them to be the direct word of Allaah(swt) rather they are verified observations and quotes made by those closest to Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). They give us an account of how he lived the Qur'an. Because he was the one closest to the Qur'an we feel that he is the best example of how we should live as Muslims.

Yes we do have Muslims who reject the Ahadith (Ahadith is the plural of Hadith). Most of us can not understand how they can correctly follow the Qur'an if they do not believe they are required to follow the Authenticate and reliable Ahadith. The Qur'an states we are to follow the teachings of Muhammad(PBUH). The Ahadith are our source for that.

Among the possible 1/2 million books of Ahadith only 4 are accepted as having been found to be fully verified and reliable. But those verified as authenticate do contain many thousands of hadith, which need to be used as guidance in learning how Islam is to be followed. That does not mean the others are false, it means they have not been fully verified, there is a possibility some are in error. Therefore we can not use them as teaching guides. They are preserved because there is a possibility one day some will be verified by the finding of proof of continuity to the Prophet(PBUH) those that are found to be in error are still retained as an understanding of how some unverified practices came to be, among other reasons.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Peace Gene,

While most of us accept the Ahadith as being truth and what needs to be followed, they are not scripture in the Christian concept. We do not believe them to be the direct word of Allaah(swt) rather they are verified observations and quotes made by those closest to Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). They give us an account of how he lived the Qur'an. Because he was the one closest to the Qur'an we feel that he is the best example of how we should live as Muslims.
Woodrow, it appears that you have a mistaken idea of the Christian concept of scripture. It does NOT have to be the direct words of God to be considered scripture. Perhpas Muslims don't use the term "scripture" to refer to their holy writings. But you do have writings that are considered the authoritative source and guide for the practice of one's faith. Is it only the Qur'an that is God-ordained for that purpose in Islam? I thought that you (personally, I'm speaking) accepted the Ahadith as well?

Maybe I should start a new thread to explore this concept?
Reply

Zafran
10-13-2010, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Woodrow, it appears that you have a mistaken idea of the Christian concept of scripture. It does NOT have to be the direct words of God to be considered scripture. Perhpas Muslims don't use the term "scripture" to refer to their holy writings. But you do have writings that are considered the authoritative source and guide for the practice of one's faith. Is it only the Qur'an that is God-ordained for that purpose in Islam? I thought that you (personally, I'm speaking) accepted the Ahadith as well?

Maybe I should start a new thread to explore this concept?
Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God - there is a dispute that occured in the 16th (reformation) century which ended up one group actually taking books out of it and rejecting them being part of the bible - so we have a 66 book and 73 book difference - any claim that the bible has not been changed is clearly wrong as christians cannot even agree on how many books there should be in the bible. 1000 years after christ one group decided that bible should have 66 books and the other christians for over 1000 years got it wrong. The same cannot be said for the Quran where 100% of the muslims accept it. Even with Muslim disputes nobody ever decided to change the Quran or take things out of it or add things to it - especially not after 1000 years of consensus.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Perhpas Muslims don't use the term "scripture" to refer to their holy writings
We only consider holy if it's from God, hence we don't take ahadith as "holy".

Unlike christians who consider writings by unknown men as holy.

so we differ.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
so we have a 66 book and 73 book difference
The bible used by some orthodox christians have 81 books.

There are other variations too, and each group claims they have the "right" bible.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 04:31 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I am very surprised that a PASTOR like you does not even know the fact there are so many bible versions is not JUST the results of translations, re-translations, and re-re-translations but also due to the fact that some bible versions contain 66 books, some 73 books, some 81 books, etc.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not calling you a liar (just in case you get offended and report me), I am only attributing it to either your lack of general knowledge about bible, or maybe simply due to forgetfulness.
Or not believing that this is what you are referring to when mentioning "thousands". There are indeed different groups of Christians that accept different sets of books as being authoritative. But the number of different accepted canons does NOT number in the thousands, but only a handful. So, if you aren't referring to multiple translations and re-translations, what are you referring to which leads you to conclude that there are "currently thousands of Bible versions"?



By the way, I know that you christians don't have the original bible (the oldest existing bible, codex sinaiticus is from around 350 AD, and it is not even the original, as no one know for sure what language the bible was written onb: koine greek? aramaic? hebrew?), so I am just pointing the fact that despite all the retranslations efforts, you christians will never know if what you have in the bible(s) now is the same as what was originally written.
There are several issues in this part of your post. I'll only touch on a few.

no one know for sure what language the bible was written
Define "to know"? I don't "know" that Muhammad spoke Arabic because I wasn't there. But I say that I know he spoke Arabic because I accept it as true based on the integrity of the information that I do have. In that same way we do in fact know what language most books of the Bible were written in. The only book over which I have ever heard any serious questions raised is Matthew. The Old Testament was written predominately in Hebrew, with portions of Daniel and Ezra written in Aramaic. With regard to the New Testament, there is a split verdict as to whether Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Greek, the oldest copies of it today are available only in Greek. The rest of the New Testament was most certainly written in Greek, even as a few phrases of Aramaic survive in the Greek text.

you christians don't have the original bible
"Original" bible. You do realize that there was never an original bible. The Bible was not written as a book. It is a library of books. There was an original Matthew. And there was an original Letter to the Hebrews. And there was an original Maccabbes. But the closest to an "original" Bible would have been the first time all of these disparate documents were grouped together and bound into one volume. So, even if we had all the originally penned autographs (something that Islam doesn't have either, since Muhammad couldn't write), we still couldn't have an original Bible the invention of the codex in the late 2nd century AD. In other words, the accusation that we don't have an original Bible, while true, is a spurious one, having less to do with our ability to recreate the original text of the various books than you seem to imagine.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
The bible used by some orthodox christians have 81 books.

There are other variations too, and each group claims they have the "right" bible.
The "other variations" part is true. Wikpedia has a really easy way to see this in a nice graph they have produced: Wiki article "Biblical canon".

But as far as "each group claims they have the 'right' bible", you're thinking in Islamic terms again. Actually, for the Christian, the different lists of canonical books is not a claim to being "right" as much as it is providing information to those who seek to receive God's guidance as to what writings are considered authoritative places to look for it. You'll note the the Ethopian Church considers the canon to still be open, meaning that God might yet reveal something new to us that we would need to be aware of and use.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
We only consider holy if it's from God, hence we don't take ahadith as "holy".

Unlike christians who consider writings by unknown men as holy.

so we differ.
We also have different definitions of the term "holy" apparently. In the Christian understanding of the term something doesn't have to be from God to be holy. All Christians are called to live holy lives, meaning lives that are set apart for God's purposes. That process of being set apart by or for God is the Christian understanding of the term "holy". Are not the ahadith something that are used to help the Muslim live a holy life? I thought this was their major function in Islamic society today?
Reply

Atlast
10-13-2010, 04:58 PM
Hello all, I am new to the forums.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2010, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Atlast
Hello all, I am new to the forums.
Hello, and welcome.

You picked a wierd thread to make your first post in. But you were probably drawn here by Richard Dawkins name in the title. We need to respect that, but seem to have drifted far from the OP. So, that this thread may return to a discussion of Richard Dawkins, I'm going to continue this other conversation on a new thread: "What Are The Scriptures Of Islam?"


Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 05:32 PM
As I expected, GS is playing with words again.
With christianity, it does seem not possible to get to the issues in straightforward and logical manner.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Or not believing that this is what you are referring to when mentioning "thousands". There are indeed different groups of Christians that accept different sets of books as being authoritative
So, which one of those bible is the most authorotative one?
Are all bible versions the same?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't "know" that Muhammad spoke Arabic because I wasn't there. But I say that I know he spoke Arabic because I accept it as true based on the integrity of the information that I do have. In that same way we do in fact know what language most books of the Bible were written in.
the difference is, we certainly know who prophet Muhammad SAW was, but no one knows who the authors of the bible.
Do you, GS?
because plenty of bible scholars for the past more than thousand years certainly have not identified who they were.
And if you don't know who they were (and by the way, guessing is not good enough), how can you be certain what language(s) they wrote.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
With regard to the New Testament, there is a split verdict as to whether Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Greek, the oldest copies of it today are available only in Greek. The rest of the New Testament was most certainly written in Greek, even as a few phrases of Aramaic survive in the Greek text.
I am noting how you chose to use the adjective "most certainly" to denote that there is a degree of uncertainty.
Do you know that until now there is no unanimous decision among bible scholars for the past more than thousand years as to what language the NT was written in?
And do you know that the oldest surviving bible is codex sinaiticus?



Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
"Original" bible. You do realize that there was never an original bible. The Bible was not written as a book. It is a library of books. There was an original Matthew. And there was an original Letter to the Hebrews. And there was an original Maccabbes. But the closest to an "original" Bible would have been the first time all of these disparate documents were grouped together and bound into one volume
Oh you know what we mean when we say "orginal bible". stop playing with words.
Ok, I will rephrase. None of the original books of the bible survived today.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
something that Islam doesn't have either, since Muhammad couldn't write
I am amazed at your persistence in trying to paint something which is not true about islam, although you surely know the history of quran and the prophet SAW.
The prophet SAW did not wirte but he asked his sahaba to write and Usman ra compiled. On top of that, many sahaba memorized it by heart during the life of the prophet SAW. And we still have in existence today quran from the 1st hijrah century.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But as far as "each group claims they have the 'right' bible", you're thinking in Islamic terms again. Actually, for the Christian, the different lists of canonical books is not a claim to being "right" as much as it is providing information to those who seek to receive God's guidance as to what writings are considered authoritative places to look for it. You'll note the the Ethopian Church considers the canon to still be open, meaning that God might yet reveal something new to us that we would need to be aware of and use.
It seems you have the view that all bible versions are equal and can be used. Is this view also shared by majority chrtistians?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-13-2010, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Are not the ahadith something that are used to help the Muslim live a holy life? I thought this was their major function in Islamic society today?
We use the ahadith to live our live as close as possible to that of prophet Muhammad SAW, the best example for mankind.
Reply

Hugo
10-15-2010, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
It seems you have the view that all bible versions are equal and can be used. Is this view also shared by majority chrtistians?
It perhaps is splitting hairs but it depends what you mean by equal here. Different translations and different versions of the same translation are used with different ends. For example, one might use one for devotional reading which does not contain foot notes and references where as if you were doing detailed study those would be helpful. So no one would use say the translation called the Message for study because of its free nature, no one would use the Amplified version for reading in church because it inserts notes into the text to help the reader. The whole point is that one is trying to understand what the text is saying and one uses the appropriate tool or tools (commentaries, Greek Lexicons etc). Even for the Qu'ran in Arabic one cannot assume that every reader understands perfectly every single word and meaning because of course it is not modern Arabic but Arabic as used in the 7th century and Qu'ran translations themselves abound with foot notes and references (well the best ones do).

For the Christian and the Jew there are central ideas so they don't focus on every jot and tittle but want to see what God has to say. It may help you to see what this means if I recall a a story about the very famous Rabbi Hillel who lived around the time of Jesus. There used to be two great rabbis, Hillel and Shamai. Shamai was very strict and literal in his interpretations of the Torah, whereas Hillel was a lot more lenient and easy-going. They each had hundreds of followers and students who would regularly get into heated arguments. One day a man came to Rabbi Shamai and asked him "teach me the whole Torah on one leg" (meaning, teach it to me quickly, in the time I could stand to be on one leg). Shamai became very angry and had his students chase the man out of the house.

So the man went to Rabbi Hillel and asked him "teach me the whole Torah on one leg". Hillel looked at him curiously, and then thought for a long time. Eventually he took a piece of paper an wrote on it "love your fellow like yourself". He gave this note to the man and said "this is the whole Torah on one leg" the rest is commentary no go and read the commentary.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-16-2010, 07:15 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
It perhaps is splitting hairs but it depends what you mean by equal here. Different translations and different versions of the same translation are used with different ends. For example, one might use one for devotional reading which does not contain foot notes and references where as if you were doing detailed study those would be helpful. So no one would use say the translation called the Message for study because of its free nature, no one would use the Amplified version for reading in church because it inserts notes into the text to help the reader. The whole point is that one is trying to understand what the text is saying and one uses the appropriate tool or tools (commentaries, Greek Lexicons etc).
I see. Thanks for the confirmation.
So according to you, all christians are allowed to use all bibles, it's just a matter of which bible to use for which purpose.

Because many times I get different answers from christians, let me confirm again:

According to your explanation above, the Catholic church allows all catholics to use KJV?

And does your church (as you list your location as south of england, I assume you are anglican) also use New World Translation?:

Just a yes or no a would be sufficient, please.

It is pretty hard to decipher from your ramblings whether you mean yes or no actually.
Reply

Hugo
10-16-2010, 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I see. Thanks for the confirmation. So according to you, all christians are allowed to use all bibles, it's just a matter of which bible to use for which purpose. Because many times I get different answers from christians, let me confirm again: According to your explanation above, the Catholic church allows all catholics to use KJV? And does your church (as you list your location as south of england, I assume you are anglican) also use New World Translation?: Just a yes or no a would be sufficient, please. It is pretty hard to decipher from your ramblings whether you mean yes or no actually.
Sorry about my ramblings but I will now be as clear as I can, the answer is yes, certainly, absolutely correct, it is indisputably and unequivocally true that any Christian or for that matter anyone at all in a society where freedom of thought and expression is valued can go into any book shop and buy and read any Bible translation or even a Ancient Greek one. More that that they can also by a Bible in almost any language from Sanskrit to Kreyol. Would you not agree that God's message transcends any language and he cannot be limited by any language. Thus if a person decides for Christianity today they can read the scriptures in their own language today also - that is perhaps the miracle of the Bible in that is translates and is wonderful in any language. I myself comes from a very small nation (about 3M people) with a language that is an isolate (belongs to no known language family) and when the Bible is read at home it sounds magnificent and beautiful and some of my fellow citizens will say "if there is a language of Heaven then we have it". The various major churches may recommend for practical purposes a particular Bible but I have never heard any one forbid others and even if they did it has no force in law or personal accountability

Peace an blessings on you
Reply

Woodrow
10-16-2010, 10:55 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Sorry about my ramblings but I will now be as clear as I can, the answer is yes, certainly, absolutely correct, it is indisputably and unequivocally true that any Christian or for that matter anyone at all in a society where freedom of thought and expression is valued can go into any book shop and buy and read any Bible translation or even a Ancient Greek one. More that that they can also by a Bible in almost any language from Sanskrit to Kreyol. Would you not agree that God's message transcends any language and he cannot be limited by any language. Thus if a person decides for Christianity today they can read the scriptures in their own language today also - that is perhaps the miracle of the Bible in that is translates and is wonderful in any language. I myself comes from a very small nation (about 3M people) with a language that is an isolate (belongs to no known language family) and when the Bible is read at home it sounds magnificent and beautiful and some of my fellow citizens will say "if there is a language of Heaven then we have it". The various major churches may recommend for practical purposes a particular Bible but I have never heard any one forbid others and even if they did it has no force in law or personal accountability

Peace an blessings on you
In my early life as a Catholic we were pretty much discouraged from reading the Bible without the guidance of a Priest and if we did so we had to use the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims. It was considered quite sinful if (Heaven Forbid) we read the KJV or any other "Protestant" Bible.It may not have been forbidden by US law but it sure awakened the wrath of the Parish Priest.
Reply

Hugo
10-16-2010, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
In my early life as a Catholic we were pretty much discouraged from reading the Bible without the guidance of a Priest and if we did so we had to use the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims. It was considered quite sinful if (Heaven Forbid) we read the KJV or any other "Protestant" Bible.It may not have been forbidden by US law but it sure awakened the wrath of the Parish Priest.
Don't want to embarrass you but how long ago was this and where? What you say was certainly true just before Martin Luther's time and for quite a while afterwards but I have not seen that kind of thing for a long long time though the church may have a preferred Bible for use in their services for obvious reasons. In a way to me what you describe is not unlike the insistence on reading the Qu'ran in Arabic - do you see it like that?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-16-2010, 02:30 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Sorry about my ramblings but I will now be as clear as I can, the answer is yes, certainly, absolutely correct, it is indisputably and unequivocally true that any Christian or for that matter anyone at all in a society where freedom of thought and expression is valued can go into any book shop and buy and read any Bible translation or even a Ancient Greek one. More that that they can also by a Bible in almost any language from Sanskrit to Kreyol..... etc etc..
I think I need to be more specific when discussing things with you.
I did not mean whether christians are allowed to buy any bible and read them.

Ok, here's Im trying to be more specific:
Are new world translations bible allowed to be used in official services in catholic churches?
Reply

Hugo
10-18-2010, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I think I need to be more specific when discussing things with you. I did not mean whether christians are allowed to buy any bible and read them. Ok, here's Im trying to be more specific: Are new world translations bible allowed to be used in official services in catholic churches?
As far as I know the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible are the most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay–Rheims is often the Bible of choice of English-speaking Traditionalist Catholics, it being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts by the efforts of Jerome (345–420), whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent.

The only difference here is that Catholics accept the Old Testament Apocrypha although as far as I can remember I have never head any of its books read or referred to in a church service. None of the NT apocrypha is accepted.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2010, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
The only difference here is that Catholics accept the Old Testament Apocrypha although as far as I can remember I have never head any of its books read or referred to in a church service.
I have, and in protestant churches even, not just Catholic churches.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-19-2010, 03:04 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
As far as I know the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible are the most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay–Rheims is often the Bible of choice of English-speaking Traditionalist Catholics, it being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts by the efforts of Jerome (345–420), whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent.

The only difference here is that Catholics accept the Old Testament Apocrypha although as far as I can remember I have never head any of its books read or referred to in a church service. None of the NT apocrypha is accepted.

Woww... you DO have the talent of making really long and winded replies without actually answering the question. I don't know if that's admirable, though.

I did not ask what bibles the catholic church is using, and I am sure you know that.

let me ask you again:

Does the catholic church allow its priests to use the New World Translation bible in the services of the catholic church?

(I assume the answer is yes, since you and grace seeker have said on record here that all bibles are the same and can be used by any christian, but I am just making sure)
Reply

Hugo
10-19-2010, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I have, and in protestant churches even, not just Catholic churches.
Interesting, can you give us a bit more information, was it read from the lecture as a normal scripture reading, were they preached on etc?
Reply

Hugo
10-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Woww... you DO have the talent of making really long and winded replies without actually answering the question. I don't know if that's admirable, though. I did not ask what bibles the catholic church is using, and I am sure you know that. let me ask you again: Does the catholic church allow its priests to use the New World Translation bible in the services of the catholic church? (I assume the answer is yes, since you and grace seeker have said on record here that all bibles are the same and can be used by any christian, but I am just making sure)
Is it really necessary to snipe like this, my reply was 141 words and your further question was 104 words. You must know I guess that the New World Translation was published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961 and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses - if you want to learn more I suggest you go to Wikipedia which also contains a short critical review and a large number of other references including some by distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholars. But as I have said before there is nothing to stop anyone buying a copy if they so wish. Whether it would be forbidden for use in a Catholic church I cannot say and all one can do is consider its qualities as a translation and whether shall we say bias has entered the text just as you would do if you looked at a translation of the Qu'ran.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2010, 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
(I assume the answer is yes, since you and grace seeker have said on record here that all bibles are the same and can be used by any christian, but I am just making sure)
That misrepresents what I have said.

I don't know whether that is because you did not understand my previous comments or have intentionally obfiscated it, but I'll not clarify here as this thread is about Richard Dawkins and NOT about the Bible. I was wrong to participte as I did in getting it off topic. I've repented of that and only responded this time because your comments misrepresent what I said and I would not want others to be mislead by such a comment.


Originally Posted by Hugo
Interesting, can you give us a bit more information, was it read from the lecture as a normal scripture reading, were they preached on etc?
Not read as the lection for the day, but read from as setting part of the context for the sermon.


As I said to naidamar, I think I have been abusing this thread with off topic conversations for far too long. So, if you wish more information PM me.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2010, 02:52 PM
---deleted---
Reply

Ramadhan
10-20-2010, 03:54 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Is it really necessary to snipe like this, my reply was 141 words and your further question was 104 words. You must know I guess that the New World Translation was published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961 and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses - if you want to learn more I suggest you go to Wikipedia which also contains a short critical review and a large number of other references including some by distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholars. But as I have said before there is nothing to stop anyone buying a copy if they so wish. Whether it would be forbidden for use in a Catholic church I cannot say and all one can do is consider its qualities as a translation and whether shall we say bias has entered the text just as you would do if you looked at a translation of the Qu'ran.
Thanks.

This just confirms that what you try to convince others (every bibles are the same) is not the same with what you actually believe (not all bibles are the same).
Reply

Ramadhan
10-20-2010, 03:55 AM
double post.

deleted.
Reply

Hugo
10-20-2010, 05:15 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Thanks. This just confirms that what you try to convince others (every bibles are the same) is not the same with what you actually believe (not all bibles are the same).
If we try to convince others of anything it is that the message is always the same and focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. But if you pick up any two Bible and locate the same verse one gets the same message, indeed when I look up the same verse in German or Welsh or Arabic I get the same message. Would not this be true for translations of the Qu'ran?

The point seems to me that everyone needs help with the Qu'ran because it is written in 7th century Arabic so it would be no good using a modern Arabic dictionary you would have to use Lexicons which give word meanings and examples that were contemporary to its creation - of which there are many in both English and Arabic so one has to dig out the meaning it will not necessarily be obvious because shades of meaning will almost certainly have changed over time - is this not true?

Some other question which I would value your view on? Can the message of Islam only be carried in Arabic? Does God only speak 4th Century Arabic, is it the language of Heaven? Is God only able to hear prayers in Arabic?
Reply

جوري
10-20-2010, 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
The point seems to me that everyone needs help with the Qu'ran because it is written in 7th century Arabic so it would be no good using a modern Arabic dictionary you would have to use Lexicons which give word meanings and examples that were contemporary to its creation - of which there are many in both English and Arabic so one has to dig out the meaning it will not necessarily be obvious because shades of meaning will almost certainly have changed over time - is this not true?

what is the difference in your mind between '7th c' Arabic and modern Arabic, perhaps you can expound on that?

The message of Islam is transcendent and non-convoluted as evinced by the number of non-Arabic speaking Muslims to those in whom Arabic is a mother tongue.

By the way what is the message of Christianity? I was speaking with a copt last week and he commented on how protestants are heretics and didn't want me to get him started on Catholics .. that seems to go against the idea of unity which you so love to evoke!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
10-21-2010, 04:03 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
If we try to convince others of anything it is that the message is always the same and focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. But if you pick up any two Bible and locate the same verse one gets the same message, indeed when I look up the same verse in German or Welsh or Arabic I get the same message
You talk one thing, but reality says another.
Is your cognitive dissonance (caused by trying to believe trinity) so bad that you so want to believe something which is not true?

You say all bibles are the same and can be used by any christians, and when I asked if the catholic church allows the use of New World Translation bible, you cannot answer that, and still have not answered until now.

You say all christians get the same message, and yet christians are extremely fragmented even over fundamental messages, eg: protestants believe jesus is divine, and yet jehovah witness say jesus is not divine. catholics believe in mary and saints, and yet protestants say it is totally against jesus teaching.

Maybe you want to convince yourself that all christians believe in the same thing, but the reality is a soundingly NO.

Originally Posted by Hugo
The point seems to me that everyone needs help with the Qu'ran because it is written in 7th century Arabic
The Qur'an was revealed in arabia in the 7th century.
or did you expect that the qur'an was already printed in the 21st century english when it was revealed?
There are now numerous translations and tafseers for the Qur'an to help people to understand, but we do still have the original form as was revealed, as Allah SWT himself in the Qur'an says that He safeguard the Qur'an from corruption, and even orientalists and enemies of islam cannot do nothing but agree that the Qur'an has not changed.

In contrast, the "orginals" of NT do not exist. With the exception of Paul, the authors of other NT books are unknown.
Funnily enough, in the OT jesus was conversing in greek, while speaking in aramaic or hebrew would be far more likely.


Originally Posted by Hugo
Can the message of Islam only be carried in Arabic? Does God only speak 4th Century Arabic, is it the language of Heaven?
Although the message of islam is for the whole of mankind, the Qur'an was revealed to prophet Muhammad SAW (who was unlettered) in 7th century arabia.
Do you expect that the message conveyed in greek? latin?
Just like christians today who, in folly effort to justify bible, insist in saying that jesus spoke and taught in greek?

Originally Posted by Hugo
Is God only able to hear prayers in Arabic?
You know that it is not true, and since no question is ever stupid, then the idiot must be the one who ask the question.
By the way, I make my dua (prayers/supplications) in bahasa Indonesia if that interests you.
Reply

Trumble
10-21-2010, 09:49 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Funnily enough, in the OT jesus was conversing in greek, while speaking in aramaic or hebrew would be far more likely.
I'm not aware of the NT (which I assume you mean) stating anywhere what language Jesus taught in.. although certainly aramaic seems the most lost likely. I'm not sure what is so funny, though.. the reason the NT was written in Greek is because it was the lingua franca of it's day, not to mention probably the first language of certainly the later authors. It simply makes sense that the books of the NT were written in the language that would enable the maximum number of people to read and understand them. Unlike the Qur'an, they do not claim to be the direct word of God.

Although the message of islam is for the whole of mankind, the Qur'an was revealed to prophet Muhammad SAW (who was unlettered) in 7th century arabia.
Do you expect that the message conveyed in greek? latin?
The question does rather come to mind that if that message was for the whole of mankind why it was not revealed to a rather more substantial proportion of them at that time? Would not simultaneous revelations in say, Latin, Chinese and Sanskrit have spread that message considerably more rapidly than waiting hundreds of years for translations which could never be totally 'authentic' anyway?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-22-2010, 04:08 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm not aware of the NT (which I assume you mean) stating anywhere what language Jesus taught in.. although certainly aramaic seems the most lost likely. I'm not sure what is so funny, though.. the reason the NT was written in Greek is because it was the lingua franca of it's day, not to mention probably the first language of certainly the later authors. It simply makes sense that the books of the NT were written in the language that would enable the maximum number of people to read and understand them.
For ordinary books like Harry Potter, maybe it does not matter what language it is in, but for books who claim to be divine in its origin (christians claim all bible authors are inspired by god), and for books whose claims hold serious matter of heaven and hell, it is unquestionably important to know exactly what Jesus said.
Translations never captured the exact meanings of the original words.

For you who does not believe in the existence of god, maybe this is trivial, but for those who believe in god and afterlife, it is the most important thing in life because it determines your fate after you die.

Originally Posted by Trumble
The question does rather come to mind that if that message was for the whole of mankind why it was not revealed to a rather more substantial proportion of them at that time?
Are you saying that God should have sent multiple messengers at the same time?

Actually, muslims believe that Allah SWT sent thousands of prophets throughout human history to lead their respective people/nations towards to straight path and tawheed (oneness of god), and prophet Muhammad SAW is the last prophet and messenger.
I actually have an opinion that buddha was one of the prophets, who unfortunately, made into a demigod long after his death by buddhists.
the same applies to jesus and christianity.
Reply

Trumble
10-22-2010, 08:06 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
For ordinary books like Harry Potter, maybe it does not matter what language it is in, but for books who claim to be divine in its origin (christians claim all bible authors are inspired by god), and for books whose claims hold serious matter of heaven and hell, it is unquestionably important to know exactly what Jesus said.
That rather depends on what the exact meanings were. I agree with you regarding the Qur'an, as it is claimed to be the direct word of God, and hence essential that the original words in the original language be preserved. If the Bible authors were merely 'inspired', however, surely the language is irrelevant, indeed the Christian could argue they were inspired by God to produce the best translation possible preserving the precise meaning. To mean that would seem more than sufficient, Jesus himself taught in simple parables to the 'common' people; anything theologically controversial came rather later. Lastly, of course, the fact that Christianity is still here as the worlds largest religion suggests that 'unquestionably important', even if true, is a very long way from 'essential'.

Are you saying that God should have sent multiple messengers at the same time?

Actually, muslims believe that Allah SWT sent thousands of prophets throughout human history to lead their respective people/nations towards to straight path and tawheed (oneness of god), and prophet Muhammad SAW is the last prophet and messenger.
I actually have an opinion that buddha was one of the prophets, who unfortunately, made into a demigod long after his death by buddhists.
the same applies to jesus and christianity.
I'm saying God should have done anything, but I am querying possible reasons an obviously more effective route of spreading such an important message was not taken.

Regarding the Buddha, he could only be considered a 'Prophet' according to the following definition;

A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
His teachings are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of the omniscient and omnipotent God of whom, I assume, you think he might have been a prophet. Such an interpretation can only be made while accepting the existence of the historical figure while totally rejecting every record and subsequent interpretation of his teachings. While I'll happily admit that we certainly don't have those word for word, I can see no possible theological or historical justification for doing so. To be honest, the roots of such an idea seem to me to be far more likely some attempt to 'help' Buddhists to convert to Islam than a serious scholarly suggestion.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-22-2010, 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
That rather depends on what the exact meanings were. I agree with you regarding the Qur'an, as it is claimed to be the direct word of God, and hence essential that the original words in the original language be preserved. If the Bible authors were merely 'inspired', however, surely the language is irrelevant, indeed the Christian could argue they were inspired by God to produce the best translation possible preserving the precise meaning. To mean that would seem more than sufficient, Jesus himself taught in simple parables to the 'common' people; anything theologically controversial came rather later. Lastly, of course, the fact that Christianity is still here as the worlds largest religion suggests that 'unquestionably important', even if true, is a very long way from 'essential'.
It depends on what is term as christians.
There are literally thousands of christianity branches who denounce other as not being christians. You ask a catholic, and they will tell you that a southern baptist is not a christian. You ask a jehovah witness and they will tell you that an anglican is not a christian.
The differences between those denominations are more than just trivial, and they are the direct result of thousands of bible versions and translations who differ in contents and meanings, and having NO ORIGINALS to compare with.

This is no laughing matter, because the faith(s) determine your fate in after life.
a jehovah witness will say that an eastern orthodox will not be saved and vice versa.



Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm saying God should have done anything, but I am querying possible reasons an obviously more effective route of spreading such an important message was not taken.
You can query and dispute God as much as you want after you die, which might be a little bit too late for you.

Originally Posted by Trumble
His teachings are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of the omniscient and omnipotent God of whom, I assume, you think he might have been a prophet. Such an interpretation can only be made while accepting the existence of the historical figure while totally rejecting every record and subsequent interpretation of his teachings. While I'll happily admit that we certainly don't have those word for word, I can see no possible theological or historical justification for doing so
It is interesting to note the contradiction in your statement. You admit there is no authentic records of Buddha's original teachings and yet you are readily reject that he might have been a prophet and messenger of God.

Originally Posted by Trumble
To be honest, the roots of such an idea seem to me to be far more likely some attempt to 'help' Buddhists to convert to Islam than a serious scholarly suggestion.
You are wrong.
according to a hadiths sahih, Allah has sent 124,000 (if im not mistaken) messengers and prophets to lead their own respective nations/people towards the straight path.
Not all muslims share the opinion that Buddha was a prophet, and this is actually the first time I am telling a buddhist about my opinion that Buddha was a prophet.
I certainly has no desire to "convert" you to Islam.
You have been here long enough, and if you are here only to debate and argue without learning one bit about Islam after more than four years, then it is not my job nor any other muslims' to show you the straight path.
Reply

Trumble
10-22-2010, 12:41 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
You ask a catholic, and they will tell you that a southern baptist is not a christian. You ask a jehovah witness and they will tell you that an anglican is not a christian.
The differences between those denominations are more than just trivial, and they are the direct result of thousands of bible versions and translations who differ in contents and meanings, and having NO ORIGINALS to compare with.
I'm not so sure they wouldn't call each other Christians, although obviously particularly the Catholic/Protestant divide has been both broad and on occasion extremely bloody. Their core beliefs, though are the same and undoubtably distinctly 'Christian', compared to all other religions. I'd suggest having the originals is no guarantee either; what of the Sunni and Shia split? Again, much blood has been been spilled but while a few would claim the others are not muslims, the majority would accept that they are. I'm not at all sure that the part about 'thousands of Bible versions and translations that differ in context and meanings' is true either. Are you able to identify any differences in fundamental beliefs between the principle Christian divisions that depend upon different content of the Bible 'versions' (translations are not in themselves 'versions', any more than those of the Qur'an are) they consider acceptable?

This is no laughing matter, because the faith(s) determine your fate in after life.
a jehovah witness will say that an eastern orthodox will not be saved and vice versa.
They may well, but no muslims will say neither will be saved (whatever that means). One or the other might be right.. who knows? The unchanged nature in itself of the Qur'an makes it no more or less convincing IMHO. We have lots of literature from well before the 7th century that is universally accepted as 'unchanged' as far all significant content is concerned. On the subject of what happens after death, Plato's Phaedo springs to mind; some have suggested that if Socrates/Plato had presented much of that content as religion rather than philosophy it would probably still be around in that form to this day!

It is interesting to note the contradiction in your statement. You admit there is no authentic records of Buddha's original teachings and yet you are readily reject that he might have been a prophet and messenger of God.
There is no 'contradiction' as just because we do not have what the Buddha said word for word there is no reason to assume or even surmise what he actually said was something completely different and contradictory to what Buddhists have believed he said for over two millennia. Buddhism is completely incompatible with any of the Abrahamic religions from the root upwards. I would reject the idea that the Buddha was a prophet of God for much the same reason I reject that he was a space alien or that he was a time traveller from the distant future, not because I can logically disprove any of those things but simply because there is no evidence whatsoever they are true.

A claim such as yours would be seen as bizarre in relation to something like the works of Plato, Aristotle or even Homer from either side of the same period. All are being 'interpreted' to this very day, just as Buddhist scripture is and the Qur'an is but in all cases there is no serious reason to assume the fundamentals of those works are any different from what people over the centuries have always believed them to be.

Allah has sent 124,000 (if im not mistaken) messengers and prophets to lead their own respective nations/people towards the straight path.
In which case we must assume that the vast majority have been spectacularly unsuccessful, surely? Why were 124,000 needed but before a supposed 'final' revelation?

Not all muslims share the opinion that Buddha was a prophet, and this is actually the first time I am telling a buddhist about my opinion that Buddha was a prophet.
I certainly has no desire to "convert" you to Islam.
Sorry, I think I was unclear on that. The suggestion that the Buddha, not mention assorted other religious figures, may have been one of these prophets is not original to yourself and I merely gave my thoughts on where such beliefs may have originated, in the absencxe of any scholarly basis.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-22-2010, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm not so sure they wouldn't call each other Christians, although obviously particularly the Catholic/Protestant divide has been both broad and on occasion extremely bloody. Their core beliefs, though are the same and undoubtably distinctly 'Christian', compared to all other religions. I'd suggest having the originals is no guarantee either; what of the Sunni and Shia split? Again, much blood has been been spilled but while a few would claim the others are not muslims, the majority would accept that they are. I'm not at all sure that the part about 'thousands of Bible versions and translations that differ in context and meanings' is true either. Are you able to identify any differences in fundamental beliefs between the principle Christian divisions that depend upon different content of the Bible 'versions' (translations are not in themselves 'versions', any more than those of the Qur'an are) they consider acceptable?
As I have demonstrated earlier in this thread, even the hypocrite like Hugo could not do anything but acknowledge that catholic church would never in million years use new translation bible; if the differences were trivial, wouldn't every church allow the use of each other bible versions?
As for sunni and shia, both use the same qur'an.
you go to tehran, they recite exactly the same qur'an as those in makkah.

Originally Posted by Trumble
There is no 'contradiction' as just because we do not have what the Buddha said word for word there is no reason to assume or even surmise what he actually said was something completely different and contradictory to what Buddhists have believed he said for over two millennia. Buddhism is completely incompatible with any of the Abrahamic religions from the root upwards. I would reject the idea that the Buddha was a prophet of God for much the same reason I reject that he was a space alien or that he was a time traveller from the distant future, not because I can logically disprove any of those things but simply because there is no evidence whatsoever they are true.
Using your line of thinking, you cannot fault christians for saying that jesus is god, because they also claim that their scriptures say so, despite no existing original teachings, which is exactly the same situation as you and buddha.

Originally Posted by Trumble
In which case we must assume that the vast majority have been spectacularly unsuccessful, surely? Why were 124,000 needed but before a supposed 'final' revelation?
the prophets were sent only to convey the message and to lead by example. They are not responsible for decisions made by individuals whether to follow in the straight path or to stray and follow their whims and desires.
Humans are not robots, and humans are given intelligence and free will.
eg. none of us here can force you to follow Islam, although we certainly have some of the very knowledgeable muslims, and you have been here for more than four years.
you have been given everything by god: opportunity to learn islam, intelligence to accept truth, unbelievable Islamic knowledge, and yet you have the freewill to accept or reject Islam, and so far you have been rejecting.



Originally Posted by Trumble
Sorry, I think I was unclear on that. The suggestion that the Buddha, not mention assorted other religious figures, may have been one of these prophets is not original to yourself and I merely gave my thoughts on where such beliefs may have originated, in the absencxe of any scholarly basis.
I am sure it is not orginals to myself and I am sure many muslims have thought about it, but I have yet to read/heard any scholars of Islam officially saying that Buddha was one of the prophets of God.
For me, it is my own conclusion based on my limited knowledge of Islam
Reply

Trumble
10-22-2010, 06:10 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
As I have demonstrated earlier in this thread, even the hypocrite like Hugo could not do anything but acknowledge that catholic church would never in million years use new translation bible; if the differences were trivial, wouldn't every church allow the use of each other bible versions?
The differences are not trivial, but that does not make them fundamental to what constitutes being a Christian. I'm not even sure that any of the major Christian groups only 'allow' some Bibles to read, rather than just prefering particular versions; maybe one of our Christian posters could clarify that.

As for sunni and shia, both use the same qur'an.
you go to tehran, they recite exactly the same qur'an as those in makkah.
Exactly my point. Even if the fundamental scripture is common, and acknowledged as unchanged, it is no guarantee that different groups/sects will not evolve.

Using your line of thinking, you cannot fault christians for saying that jesus is god, because they also claim that their scriptures say so, despite no existing original teachings, which is exactly the same situation as you and buddha.
It's not up to me to fault Christians for believing anything. But, just as with the case with Buddhism, I find it unlikely almost to the point of impossibility that meaning could have been fundamentally misunderstood for so long. I think it's up to those who claim otherwise to produce convincing evidence, rather than Christians or Buddhists to justify believing what they do.

the prophets were sent only to convey the message and to lead by example. They are not responsible for decisions made by individuals whether to follow in the straight path or to stray and follow their whims and desires.
Humans are not robots, and humans are given intelligence and free will.
Other than the obvious, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, etc, how much evidence is there that any of these 144,000 conveyed any message? There are plenty of historical figures who led by example of good deeds, of all religions and none, but are we to assume Christian saints and Buddhist sages as well as their Islamic equivalents are all such 'prophets' who were fundamentally misunderstood?

you have been given everything by god: opportunity to learn islam, intelligence to accept truth, unbelievable Islamic knowledge, and yet you have the freewill to accept or reject Islam, and so far you have been rejecting.
I am pleased you have avoided the not infrequent error here of accusing atheist posters of 'rejecting God'!

I am sure it is not orginals to myself and I am sure many muslims have thought about it, but I have yet to read/heard any scholars of Islam officially saying that Buddha was one of the prophets of God.
For me, it is my own conclusion based on my limited knowledge of Islam
With respect, I suggest it is a limited knowledge of Buddhism rather than of Islam that is relevant here.
Reply

FollowerOfChrist
11-20-2010, 02:21 AM
Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.
Reply

جوري
11-20-2010, 02:39 AM
Originally Posted by FollowerOfChrist
Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.

His 'beliefs' are as irrelevant as yours. When you speak of 'Logic' beliefs don't play part and when they do, then there is really no room for reasoned judgment .. what will it come down to? whose beliefs rebuts whose? -- whatever beliefs dawkins hold I am pretty sure they don't include the death of god or that a god at all exists. If we follow your book, any rational reader wouldn't conclude that Jesus (p) is a god let alone god crucified and that is by your records alone. You can only take his side because you are a hypocrite.. Hypocrites often comb through things hold beliefs that they don't profess or subscribe to simply to foster an agenda. It is no wonder that Christianity is in such a deplorable state universally with all that maximum effort at evangelizing and character assassinating on the side..

I truly pity you!

all the best
Reply

Zafran
11-20-2010, 02:52 AM
Originally Posted by FollowerOfChrist
Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.
so you believe the Messiah was killed? I thought nobody can kill the messiah?
Reply

Saad17
11-20-2010, 03:35 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
so you believe the Messiah was killed? I thought nobody can kill the messiah?
Don't even go there because the answer is simple that the Messiah HAD TO DIE for your sins and then GOD resurrected him 3 days after Messiah's prophesied death etc etc.


As for the topic I would say that its pointless to address Dawkins with theistic arguments , only Quran can knock senses into him which he never read, he only interview Muslims who don't read the Quran themselves so either tell him to go get a Quran and read it before you he goes all anti-Islamic because since the Theory of Evolution was a great product of Science, Dawkins is convinced that faith in science alone is enough rather than faith in God. Beside most atheists I have seen are smart enough to reach the Creator themselves unless they choose otherwise which is their loss because awakening common sense comes first than belief in God because your imam depends on how much you understand the Creator.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-23-2010, 05:53 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
so you believe the Messiah was killed? I thought nobody can kill the messiah?
Where did you get that idea? That the Messiah was crucified and died on a cross is so fundamental to Christian beliefs, and I know you are familiar with them in other contexts, that for you to raise this question here makes you sound like a troll. I think Saad gives good advice in this instance:

Originally Posted by Saad17
Don't even go there because the answer is simple that the Messiah HAD TO DIE for your sins and then GOD resurrected him 3 days after Messiah's prophesied death etc etc.


As for the topic I would say that its pointless to address Dawkins with theistic arguments. ... Most atheists I have seen are smart enough to reach the Creator themselves unless they choose otherwise which is their loss because awakening common sense comes first than belief in God because your imam depends on how much you understand the Creator.
Reply

Saad17
11-24-2010, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by FollowerOfChrist
Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.
However as for you. As an atheist Richard Dawkins believe there is no god so Christ's death is pointless and not to mention he said once in his lecture that there isn't enough historical evidence for Prophet Jesus (AS) so there is a possibility he thinks that Jesus (AS) and the crucifixion are fiction.
Reply

TheRationalizer
12-22-2010, 02:35 PM
If you wrote to Richard Dawkins to ask him these questions he probably didn't reply for 2 reasons.

1: He gets lots of emails from complete strangers so is very selective about which ones he spends time responding to.
2: He suspects (as I do) that you don't want the answers to the questions, you just think they are questions which will destroy his stance. Seeing that he most likely disagrees with that opinion (as do I) and that he suspects you probably won't list he probably saw no point.

If you want to ask him a question you could try attending one of his talks, he usually does a Q&A at the end.

I can answer these questions if you wish, but I certainly don't claim to speak for Mr Dawkins.
Reply

Thinker
12-22-2010, 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf
Questions posted on Aug 18, 2009 on Richard Dawkins.net, still not answered by Richard Dawkins:
S1:
What is the real objective of the human life?
S2:
Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?
S3:
Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?
S4:
Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?
S5:
Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?
Aristotle:

All men by nature desire to know (understand).

Man cannot expect to understand an answer to a question without understanding the problems in answering that question.


Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf
S6: The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?
That statement shows an astounding degree of niaivity, ignorance or brainwashing; what level of education did you attain - Madrassa level 10?
Reply

Saad17
12-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Richard Dawkins would say:

"I don't know and I don't care."


Simple as that.
Reply

جوري
12-22-2010, 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
That statement shows an astounding degree of niaivity, ignorance or brainwashing; what level of education did you attain - Madrassa level 10?

Let's hear your brand of enlightenment.. so far the articles you've shared and your opinion have shown an equal indoctrination albeit from the other side of the spectrum.. perhaps when you too stop quoting dead philosophers to counteract other passed on philosophers could you hope to achieve some level of credibility!
or where did you attain your education bel-beit level 3?

all the best
Reply

Thinker
12-30-2010, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Let's hear your brand of enlightenment.. so far the articles you've shared and your opinion have shown an equal indoctrination albeit from the other side of the spectrum.. perhaps when you too stop quoting dead philosophers to counteract other passed on philosophers could you hope to achieve some level of credibility!
or where did you attain your education bel-beit level 3?
all the best
On which point do you want me to ‘enlighten’ you? Taking aboard your agreed observation on the level of the posters ‘indoctrination,’ I’ll presume you don’t need enlightening on the ludicrous statement he made at S6?

On the question he posed of Dawkins which I would summaries as “Prove there is no God” I submitted two observations made by Aristotle (and generally accepted as correct).

The first observation, ‘All men by nature desire to know (understand)’ describes how it is within the nature of man to want to know how and why and the biggest question asked by all men throught all of the history of man is who are we, where did we come from and where did our world come from. And, every group in every part of the globe has come up with an answer for that question albeit a different answer and every group believes that their answer(s) are correct and everybody elses are incorrect. What we can say is that they we know that they cannot all be correct and we know that they could all be incorrect. We can also say that because we don’t know or cannot prove the answer today does not mean that we will never know AND we can also say that there were many things that we did not know and could not prove that we now do know and can prove and that trend is likely to continue. In conclusion, because men are driven to find an answer and are in discomfort until they have an answer doesn’t mean that the answer is correct.

The next observation, ‘Man cannot expect to understand an answer to a question without understanding the problems in answering that question’ again an undeniably correct observation can be used to show how it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God because there are so many things we do not (yet) know. And that the more difficult the problems in answering the question make any answer more likely to be incorrect. And we know that over the centuries man, in his ignorance, has ascribed to God certain events (e.g. thunder etc etc) which we now understand and can explain and know that it is not God expressing his anger but a natural phenomina conforming to the known laws of science. It follows then that neither you, I or Dawkins know or can prove whether there is or is not a God but to take that as proof that there is a God is a leap of faith – but then isn’t that what it it comes down to faith?

That’s how difficult it is to prove the existence of God. All that said, I can understand how and why some people have decided to believe that there is a God. What I can’t get my head around is how you can then believe that this perfect entity, creator of all that is, knower of all that is, really cares about which way you stand when you are praying or whether your hair is covered or whether you grow a beard etc., etc; to believe that (IMHO) is just unbelieveable.
Reply

Zafran
12-30-2010, 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Where did you get that idea? That the Messiah was crucified and died on a cross is so fundamental to Christian beliefs, and I know you are familiar with them in other contexts, that for you to raise this question here makes you sound like a troll. I think Saad gives good advice in this instance:
I didnt see this anyway
Its valid as anything - your basically claiming that God was KILLED on the cross - the all living actaully can be killed - christians argue that he GAVE his life but you actually think (like follower who I was replying to) that he was killed intresting - seems to me you christains cant make your mind up on such an important thing.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-30-2010, 02:52 PM
Thinker, I love your post above ^^, especially your analysis that in the end we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and how it comes down to faith. I presume you would carry that out to mean that even the athiest is expressing an unproven belief as well, albiet a belief that that there is no God to believe in.

With one point I do take some exception:
Originally Posted by Thinker
And we know that over the centuries man, in his ignorance, has ascribed to God certain events (e.g. thunder etc etc) which we now understand and can explain and know that it is not God expressing his anger but a natural phenomina conforming to the known laws of science.
Now, I agree that humankind has in the past ascribed these sorts of events to God perhaps because we have not understood their natural causes and how they conform to the laws of science. But I suggest that even understanding them from the standpoint of science would not preclude that we can no longer also understand them as being the result of God's sovereign acts. Indeed, one of the problems that all religions must face is to answer the question of why (given a belief in the sovereignty of God) do bad things happen if God is intrinsically good? Some religions have answered by saying that God is not necessarily good. Others that God has a greater good in mind in a tragic situation than what the human mind perceives or can understand. But science answering the question as to the cause of thunder, lightening, earthquakes, floods and tornados and people accepting science's answer does automatically mean that humans have now displaced God from being the cause of these events. Thus is was that, despite scientific knowledge as to how hurricanes form and are moved by steering winds, some suggested that Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans was a judgment of an angry God against sin.

So, the exception that I take is just as you indicated that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, it isn't just because there are things that we do not know. Even knowledge of how things work does not answer the question of why things are the way that they are. The ascribing of purpose to what science may call random events is an element of epistemological faith that science is not capable of addressing.
Reply

جوري
12-30-2010, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
On which point do you want me to ‘enlighten’ you? Taking aboard your agreed observation on the level of the posters ‘indoctrination,’ I’ll presume you don’t need enlightening on the ludicrous statement he made at S6?
But I do.. It is always amusing and virtually appealing to read your analyses!
On the question he posed of Dawkins which I would summaries as “Prove there is no God” I submitted two observations made by Aristotle (and generally accepted as correct).
many things are generally accepted as correct! Aren't you here to disprove that what is generally accepted by us as 'correct' is in fact nothing more than indoctrination? Yet you do it using a statement generally accepted as correct? A hypocrite or simply obtuse?
The first observation, ‘All men by nature desire to know (understand)’ describes how it is within the nature of man to want to know how and why and the biggest question asked by all men throught all of the history of man is who are we, where did we come from and where did our world come from. And, every group in every part of the globe has come up with an answer for that question albeit a different answer and every group believes that their answer(s) are correct and everybody elses are incorrect.
that in fact isn't the Islamic position, perhaps it is yours and it is apparent not only from your caustic and biting sarcasm your total insolence when addressing other members but your unrelenting pomposity which you use undoubtedly to inflate your otherwise henpecked ego into thinking you're correct, thoughtful and 'not indoctrinated' The islamic position is that everything has a little bit of truth in it. It isn't a matter or right or wrong rather what is most correct and in concert with all fields and offers a response that is satisfactory both to the heart and mind!
What we can say is that they we know that they cannot all be correct and we know that they could all be incorrect. We can also say that because we don’t know or cannot prove the answer today does not mean that we will never know AND we can also say that there were many things that we did not know and could not prove that we now do know and can prove and that trend is likely to continue. In conclusion, because men are driven to find an answer and are in discomfort until they have an answer doesn’t mean that the answer is correct.
Stating the fact but not living by it unfortunately!
The next observation, ‘Man cannot expect to understand an answer to a question without understanding the problems in answering that question’ again an undeniably correct observation can be used to show how it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God because there are so many things we do not (yet) know. And that the more difficult the problems in answering the question make any answer more likely to be incorrect. And we know that over the centuries man, in his ignorance, has ascribed to God certain events (e.g. thunder etc etc) which we now understand and can explain and know that it is not God expressing his anger but a natural phenomina conforming to the known laws of science. It follows then that neither you, I or Dawkins know or can prove whether there is or is not a God but to take that as proof that there is a God is a leap of faith – but then isn’t that what it it comes down to faith?
Who is behind any 'natural phenomenon'? Natural in and of itself is an imaginary line or standard by which things are measured or compared, you observe something repeatedly then you render it 'Natural' if we're all born cyclops then that would be rendered 'Natural' as to why we actually have two eyes, you have no clue, it is just 'Natural' Science can answer the how but not the why.. you know the process by which clouds are formed and rains fall but the whys and wherefores you have no clue of. You have no idea if a tsunami is in fact God's wrath, you may know the alleged natural phenomenon that contributed to the formation of one but never if a people were in fact chosen to suffer in its path because it is God's will and wrath!
Where Dawkins stops giving answers religion and spirituality picks up and it is a drive in all of us, that some simply fill with hedonistic pleasures while pointing out to others the error of their ways!
you can't prove that there is a God, you can't disprove God, however what you are incapable of doing is offering an explanation to the world we live in without resorting yourself to some absurd fairy tales yet have the galls to mock those who say they do?!
That’s how difficult it is to prove the existence of God. All that said, I can understand how and why some people have decided to believe that there is a God. What I can’t get my head around is how you can then believe that this perfect entity, creator of all that is, knower of all that is, really cares about which way you stand when you are praying or whether your hair is covered or whether you grow a beard etc., etc; to believe that (IMHO) is just unbelieveable.
I can't help you there and I doubt that anyone can.. it is an issue you'll have to figure out on your own private time.. In general I wouldn't concern myself with finite details of any religion when I can't even prove to myself that the world is created and not a mere chance encounter.. you've alot to take care of starting with a point of origin and moving things in a positive direction to yield zillions of biochemical, physiological, genetic variations, aesthetics, seasons, elements, species, higher reticular function, why bananas and oranges have rinds and don't come pre-peeled before you concern yourself of whether God wants people to cover up or walk around naked!
Also as a general rule, if your family is good and naked then why concern yourself with those who aren't good and naked? That is the actual conundrum really, you present yourself as a perverse sociopath!

all the best
Reply

Thinker
12-30-2010, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by lïlÿ
you can't prove that there is a God, you can't disprove God, however what you are incapable of doing is offering an explanation to the world we live in without resorting yourself to some absurd fairy tales yet have the galls to mock those who say they do?!
Absurd fairy tales – really that’s not very nice (apart from being totally inaccurate).

Indeed, as I stated I can not prove or disprove the existence of God but I can prove that if there is a God, that God does not conform to the description you have for the Allah described by Islam.
Reply

جوري
12-30-2010, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
Absurd fairy tales – really that’s not very nice (apart from being totally inaccurate).
Please go on and prove me wrong.. share with us your version of the truth!

Indeed, as I stated I can not prove or disprove the existence of God but I can prove that if there is a God, that God does not conform to the description you have for the Allah described by Islam.
Go ahead prove it then.. put your money where your mouth is!
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-30-2010, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
Absurd fairy tales - really that's not very nice (apart from being totally inaccurate).
How nice of you too!

When our signs are recited to [the unbeliever], he says, "Fairy-tales of the ancients!" No indeed; but that they were earning has rusted upon their hearts. (Koran 83:13-14, Arberry)
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!