|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Qur'an attacks validity of Bible
Muslims here repeatedly assert that the Bible was changed. In what ways was the Bible changed? The Torah is the same as the Old Testament, so that hasn't changed in 2000 years. How has the New Testament been changed? The differences that the Qur'an describe do not exist in any early Christian scripture, not even from among the majority that were destroyed, so there is no evidence of change in that regard, other than the Qur'an's unsubstantiated claim.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Muslims here repeatedly assert that the Bible was changed. In what ways was the Bible changed? The Torah is the same as the Old Testament, so that hasn't changed in 2000 years. How has the New Testament been changed? The differences that the Qur'an describe do not exist in any early Christian scripture, not even from among the majority that were destroyed, so there is no evidence of change in that regard, other than the Qur'an's unsubstantiated claim. |
first of all Christains belive Jesus to be Allah's Son while He is NOT !!!!!
why dont you guyz thing logically ...... can't you see.. Jesus was the most pious person of His time..... and if we believed Him to be the Son of God.... we may also think that He is the Son of God and what He does is very hard or maybe impossible for us....... hence we would just ward off our religion..... but if we know tha Jesus is not the son of God and is just a normal human being like us.... we can then know that if He, a human, can do it, so we can too.....
Get the idea !!!!
| salman_500 wrote: |
|
why dont you guyz thing logically ...... can't you see.. Jesus was the most pious person of His time..... and if we believed Him to be the Son of God.... we may also think that He is the Son of God and what He does is very hard or maybe impossible for us....... hence we would just ward off our religion..... but if we know tha Jesus is not the son of God and is just a normal human being like us.... we can then know that if He, a human, can do it, so we can too..... |
Ok, so you believe Jesus existed, thats obvious. But for clarifaction, you believe the words he spoke about how to live right, but attribute everything that says Jesus was divine to someone changing the story at some point. Am I understanding that correctly?
ok lets put it this way god (allah) has no son this is mentioned is muslim teachings and the Quran ok as i have mentioned before about god haveing a son that means god was a child one's so jesus has a grandfater also .................. would some one answer my question about if jesus is son of god (witch his not) and if he was hung (witch islam also contredicets{thats beside the point}) why oh why will the son of god say oh god oh god why not oh father oh father is this not logic also puel had said that jesus spoke to him but puel was a cristan hunter the hunted the followers of jesus and kill them
There is no God. So, if anybody claims that he is son or prophet of God, then He is fake.
no god wat the hell there is more then one mirical to proove that there is a god
| nam_siddharth wrote: |
| There is no God. So, if anybody claims that he is son or prophet of God, then He is fake. |
if you believe there is no God....then im afraid to tell you there is no religion for you.... coz even your Hinduism.... people believe that above all of your MAN MADE gods there is one head God who watches over them.... so if you believe there is no GOd... it means you have no religion.... and if you have no religion..... you have no right to claim that there is no GOD ..... get it ....so now just stay put and don't come up with stupid, nonsense, meaningless, childish excuses that disrespect our religion....ISLAM !!!!!
GET IT !!!!!!
| salman_500 wrote: | ||
if you believe there is no God....then im afraid to tell you there is no religion for you.... coz even your Hinduism.... people believe that above all of your MAN MADE gods there is one head God who watches over them.... so if you believe there is no GOd... it means you have no religion.... and if you have no religion..... you have no right to claim that there is no GOD ..... get it ....so now just stay put and don't come up with stupid, nonsense, meaningless, childish excuses that disrespect our religion....ISLAM !!!!! GET IT !!!!!! |
If you can have right to say, that non-believers are going to hell, non-belivers have right to show you mirror. You stupid unlogical people have no right to preach people.
| Quote: |
| If you can have right to say, that non-believers are going to hell, non-belivers have right to show you mirror. You stupid unlogical people have no right to preach people. |
hay hay hay dont start that shit sersly both ways hay sersly ok u blive no god go for ur life but hay search the truth instad of dieing with no point of life
This has gotten totally off track, no one has ever addressed the original question. How was the Bible altered?
The text of the bible has been tweaked and changed dozens and dozens of times over the millenia, although whether or not the changes cause any change to the message is, of course, debated.
But what is not debated is that the text itself has evolved. For starters, the text of the Torah has most certainly changed, because the Hebrew it is written in now didn't exist back when the Torah was first documented to exist. In particular, there were no vowels - they didn't come around till the 6th century CE. Those were added later, along with other Hebrew vocalization marks.
Of course, the text itself has been translated and retranslated so many times it's hard to believe that there has been absolultely no semantic drift. Hebrew to Aramaic (when the Isrealites mostly lost the knowledge of the Hebrew language during the Babylonian exile) to Greek (due to Alexander, leading to the Septuagint), etc., with a healthy smattering of other languages mixed in. And, of course, modern translations, such as the various English and Arabic versions (either of which the Muslims where you may be referring to).
And there are literally dozens and dozens of versions of the bible, all differing slightly. The Masoretic Text is the standard Jewish version, and the most common source for the Christian versions of the old testament. The Septuagint has been found to be closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thus more likely "correct" (I believe the Roman Catholic Church uses the Masoretic Text as the basis for their old testament, but the Septuagint is used as the final word when trying to solve conflicts), and there are loads of changes there - Esther got an extra 6 verses, if I recall.
Then there are the new testament versions, such as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Despite its youth, there are still many variations in the new testament. Most famously, Mark 16:9-20 are not in all versions, for example. But there are other differences, like John 20:14 and John 7:53 to 8:11.
I don't know of any serious biblical scholar who would dare claim with a straight face that the bible hasn't been altered - repeatedly - throughout the ages. However, not everyone agrees on whether or not the alterations to the text represent an alteration to the message.
But what is not debated is that the text itself has evolved. For starters, the text of the Torah has most certainly changed, because the Hebrew it is written in now didn't exist back when the Torah was first documented to exist. In particular, there were no vowels - they didn't come around till the 6th century CE. Those were added later, along with other Hebrew vocalization marks.
Of course, the text itself has been translated and retranslated so many times it's hard to believe that there has been absolultely no semantic drift. Hebrew to Aramaic (when the Isrealites mostly lost the knowledge of the Hebrew language during the Babylonian exile) to Greek (due to Alexander, leading to the Septuagint), etc., with a healthy smattering of other languages mixed in. And, of course, modern translations, such as the various English and Arabic versions (either of which the Muslims where you may be referring to).
And there are literally dozens and dozens of versions of the bible, all differing slightly. The Masoretic Text is the standard Jewish version, and the most common source for the Christian versions of the old testament. The Septuagint has been found to be closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thus more likely "correct" (I believe the Roman Catholic Church uses the Masoretic Text as the basis for their old testament, but the Septuagint is used as the final word when trying to solve conflicts), and there are loads of changes there - Esther got an extra 6 verses, if I recall.
Then there are the new testament versions, such as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Despite its youth, there are still many variations in the new testament. Most famously, Mark 16:9-20 are not in all versions, for example. But there are other differences, like John 20:14 and John 7:53 to 8:11.
I don't know of any serious biblical scholar who would dare claim with a straight face that the bible hasn't been altered - repeatedly - throughout the ages. However, not everyone agrees on whether or not the alterations to the text represent an alteration to the message.
Those are excellent points, there is a large trail of evidence on alterations to the Bible, so where is the evidence that any early Christians believed as the Muslims do and that this was later altered to something else?
The Muslims assert that the Bible was altered to add the resurrection and that Jesus was the son of God. Where is the evidence of these alterations? If it is true then there should be evidence of this among early Christian writings.
The Muslims assert that the Bible was altered to add the resurrection and that Jesus was the son of God. Where is the evidence of these alterations? If it is true then there should be evidence of this among early Christian writings.
Wow, shouting. >_<
Er, anyway, the problem with determining exactly what early Christians believed is that the history books were almost universally written (or copied) by later Christians, and there is evidence that they fudged historical records to bring them more in line with their perceptions how the early days of Christianity "should" have gone. For example, the nature - and even the existence - of the actual historical Jesus is very much in question, and if that part can't even be pinned down, the details of early days of the church are very much up in the air.
The account of the early days of Christianity given in Acts is questionable at best - given that it directly contradicts Paul's writings in both fact and tone. Notably, Paul's letters indicate that there were already several Christian sects in existence when he wrote them. In fact, in 2 Corinthians 11, he goes to town on their asses, implying that they're just out to get money, among other things. If Paul started the bulk of these churches - with the help of Peter and James - surely they couldn't have gone that corrupt that quickly. How quickly did all of these false prophets spreading information about "another Jesus" spring up? How could Christianity have become so splintered so quickly? Especially if there were actual writings of what Jesus actually said floating around?
The best answer is: there weren't. It is generally accepted in biblical research that the gospels were written late, starting with Mark around 70CE. Paul's writings had been around for decades by that point. It's worth mentioning that Paul's writings never quote Jesus directly, or mention anything he actually did. If you accept the theory that there was no actual Jesus then the reason for this is obvious, but even if you believe there was an actual historical Jesus, then it's not unreasonable to believe that Paul got his instructions and the tale of Jesus' life verbally from Jesus and/or his disciples, and went from there. That's why he never actually quoted Jesus or alluded to facts of his life - because they weren't widely known at the time because the gospels had not been written yet. Instead, when Paul wanted to back up a point, he turned to the old testament.
So now, what's the scenario I have just constructed? Basically, in early first century CE by some cause information started to spread by word of mouth of a new prophet named Jesus. There may have been an actual Jesus, or there may not have. Regardless, in the early first century, Christian sects started to pop up all over the Middle East and the Roman Empire, spread by word of mouth. Then along came Paul, possibly after having met Jesus personally (as Acts claims), or possibly simply by seeing him in visions (as Paul says). Paul started preaching his particular brand of Christianity, and railing against the others. But, not having any concrete text describing Jesus or his acts and teachings to lend support to his beliefs, Paul chose to quote the old testament to lend support and authority to his arguments.
Then, later, Mark, the first of the gospels, actually gets written and starts getting passed around. AND (and this is key), the part where Jesus comes back to life isn't added yet (that's Mark 16:9-20, which, as I mentioned earlier, is famously missing from some of the old manuscripts). Dust off your bible and look at Mark 16. Up to verse 8 tells of how "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" came to put stuff on Jesus' body and found the tomb opened and "a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment" inside, who told them that Jesus was "risen", and "not here", but that his disciples would "see" him in Galilee. Now, just left like that, it could be argued that Jesus wasn't actually walking around after he had allegedly died, but that he had been risen metaphorically, or possibly ascended like Elijah, and the disciples would "see" him in visions.
In fact, the most widely accepted order for the authorhip is Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and notably, the details of what happened after the tomb was found empty grow with each one. Another interesting thing to note is that it's John that first introduces the concept of Jesus actually being God.
So now, put yourself in the shoes of non-Christians back in those early days, watching the growth of this new religion. You may or may not have known of an actual prophet named Jesus or Isa, but regardless, you have heard of some of his teachings, and they sound cool to you. Then, things start growing bigger. Suddenly there's this guy Paul writing that someone named Jesus - maybe or maybe not the same guy - was the son of God, and he died and was resurrected. But you dismiss it because Paul writes that he's getting this stuff from visions, so it's probably not the same guy. Shortly after that there's this detailed account of the guy's life floating around called the "gospel" according to Mark, describing miracles and such. And now, there's no doubt that this guy you've heard talk of is the same guy Paul mentioned - the son of God. You're a little skeptical, but whatever - claims of people doing miracles are common, and if he actually did miracles, that doesn't necessarily make him the son of God, just another prophet. Then more gospels appear - and more and more unbelieveable additions to the myth are made. But you stopped paying attention long ago. To you, Jesus/Isa was a prophet, nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, from that point of view, the Muslim claim is plausible - although, I wouldn't say the bible was altered so much as the story was altered while it was being added to the bible (although, yes, in some cases, such as the end of Mark, the bible was actually altered). The evidence is in the order of the writings, and an assumption of non-written oral transmission of the story before the writings - starting with tales of a new prophet telling of a new covenant with God, then Paul's visions of the son of God dying for our sins, then the gospels saying that the son of God was flesh and blood with each successive version of the story getting more and more fantastic (from a non-Christian point of view, of course). Given that timeline, it's not hard to see how early Muslims could accept early versions of Jesus - before he became the son of God, and before he died for our sins and was resurrected - and rejected the later versions, then turned around and claimed that Christians were changing the story.
Er, anyway, the problem with determining exactly what early Christians believed is that the history books were almost universally written (or copied) by later Christians, and there is evidence that they fudged historical records to bring them more in line with their perceptions how the early days of Christianity "should" have gone. For example, the nature - and even the existence - of the actual historical Jesus is very much in question, and if that part can't even be pinned down, the details of early days of the church are very much up in the air.
The account of the early days of Christianity given in Acts is questionable at best - given that it directly contradicts Paul's writings in both fact and tone. Notably, Paul's letters indicate that there were already several Christian sects in existence when he wrote them. In fact, in 2 Corinthians 11, he goes to town on their asses, implying that they're just out to get money, among other things. If Paul started the bulk of these churches - with the help of Peter and James - surely they couldn't have gone that corrupt that quickly. How quickly did all of these false prophets spreading information about "another Jesus" spring up? How could Christianity have become so splintered so quickly? Especially if there were actual writings of what Jesus actually said floating around?
The best answer is: there weren't. It is generally accepted in biblical research that the gospels were written late, starting with Mark around 70CE. Paul's writings had been around for decades by that point. It's worth mentioning that Paul's writings never quote Jesus directly, or mention anything he actually did. If you accept the theory that there was no actual Jesus then the reason for this is obvious, but even if you believe there was an actual historical Jesus, then it's not unreasonable to believe that Paul got his instructions and the tale of Jesus' life verbally from Jesus and/or his disciples, and went from there. That's why he never actually quoted Jesus or alluded to facts of his life - because they weren't widely known at the time because the gospels had not been written yet. Instead, when Paul wanted to back up a point, he turned to the old testament.
So now, what's the scenario I have just constructed? Basically, in early first century CE by some cause information started to spread by word of mouth of a new prophet named Jesus. There may have been an actual Jesus, or there may not have. Regardless, in the early first century, Christian sects started to pop up all over the Middle East and the Roman Empire, spread by word of mouth. Then along came Paul, possibly after having met Jesus personally (as Acts claims), or possibly simply by seeing him in visions (as Paul says). Paul started preaching his particular brand of Christianity, and railing against the others. But, not having any concrete text describing Jesus or his acts and teachings to lend support to his beliefs, Paul chose to quote the old testament to lend support and authority to his arguments.
Then, later, Mark, the first of the gospels, actually gets written and starts getting passed around. AND (and this is key), the part where Jesus comes back to life isn't added yet (that's Mark 16:9-20, which, as I mentioned earlier, is famously missing from some of the old manuscripts). Dust off your bible and look at Mark 16. Up to verse 8 tells of how "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" came to put stuff on Jesus' body and found the tomb opened and "a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment" inside, who told them that Jesus was "risen", and "not here", but that his disciples would "see" him in Galilee. Now, just left like that, it could be argued that Jesus wasn't actually walking around after he had allegedly died, but that he had been risen metaphorically, or possibly ascended like Elijah, and the disciples would "see" him in visions.
In fact, the most widely accepted order for the authorhip is Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and notably, the details of what happened after the tomb was found empty grow with each one. Another interesting thing to note is that it's John that first introduces the concept of Jesus actually being God.
So now, put yourself in the shoes of non-Christians back in those early days, watching the growth of this new religion. You may or may not have known of an actual prophet named Jesus or Isa, but regardless, you have heard of some of his teachings, and they sound cool to you. Then, things start growing bigger. Suddenly there's this guy Paul writing that someone named Jesus - maybe or maybe not the same guy - was the son of God, and he died and was resurrected. But you dismiss it because Paul writes that he's getting this stuff from visions, so it's probably not the same guy. Shortly after that there's this detailed account of the guy's life floating around called the "gospel" according to Mark, describing miracles and such. And now, there's no doubt that this guy you've heard talk of is the same guy Paul mentioned - the son of God. You're a little skeptical, but whatever - claims of people doing miracles are common, and if he actually did miracles, that doesn't necessarily make him the son of God, just another prophet. Then more gospels appear - and more and more unbelieveable additions to the myth are made. But you stopped paying attention long ago. To you, Jesus/Isa was a prophet, nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, from that point of view, the Muslim claim is plausible - although, I wouldn't say the bible was altered so much as the story was altered while it was being added to the bible (although, yes, in some cases, such as the end of Mark, the bible was actually altered). The evidence is in the order of the writings, and an assumption of non-written oral transmission of the story before the writings - starting with tales of a new prophet telling of a new covenant with God, then Paul's visions of the son of God dying for our sins, then the gospels saying that the son of God was flesh and blood with each successive version of the story getting more and more fantastic (from a non-Christian point of view, of course). Given that timeline, it's not hard to see how early Muslims could accept early versions of Jesus - before he became the son of God, and before he died for our sins and was resurrected - and rejected the later versions, then turned around and claimed that Christians were changing the story.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Given that timeline, it's not hard to see how early Muslims could accept early versions of Jesus - before he became the son of God, and before he died for our sins and was resurrected - and rejected the later versions, then turned around and claimed that Christians were changing the story. |
Their reasoning isn't even remotely like that.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
Their reasoning isn't even remotely like that. |
Who cares what their rationalization for it is? You've already pointed out that, taken literally, their claims don't add up - the new testament hasn't been significantly altered. I just offered an alternative theory that more closely fits the facts. You want to take their claims as literal fact even when you have evidence that they're not completely true? Why? Why not assume their claims aren't entirely true and try to find a theory that agrees with them as much as possible while still being supported by the facts?
By the time Islam had actually come around, the bible as we know it had existed for at least 400 years. There would have been no need for Christian redaction by that point - by that point Christianity was already well-established and secure, after being the one and only official religion of Rome and so on. And, of course, there is no evidence of it changing after that point (or for four centuries before even). So, logically, if any change had been made, it must have been made long before.
In fact, the only time any changing could have happened would have been in the first century - the very earliest days of Christianity. Thus we should look for any evidence of alteration (or anything resembling alteration) then. Which is what I did. Islam accepts Jesus as prophet while generally rejecting the crucifixion (or even any earthly death) and the idea that he was the son of God. The theory that I offered explains how this idea could come about given the timeline of the earliest Christian writings.
And why are you shouting?
hay u want an answer to ur Question go to an islamic book store and ask for ahmad dedad his debats will provide more then enophe info
| death_dealer wrote: |
| ok lets put it this way god (allah) has no son this is mentioned is muslim teachings and the Quran ok as i have mentioned before about god haveing a son that means god was a child one's so jesus has a grandfater also .................. would some one answer my question about if jesus is son of god (witch his not) and if he was hung (witch islam also contredicets{thats beside the point}) why oh why will the son of god say oh god oh god why not oh father oh father is this not logic |
That is logic. God is still God, even for His son. That's why Jesus spoke to Him in both ways. There are many places in Bible, where Jesus calls God his father. A few examples:
Matthew 10:32-33 (New International Version)
32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."
Matthew 11:27 (New International Version)
27"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Mark 14:36 (New International Version)
36"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."
| Quote: |
| also puel had said that jesus spoke to him but puel was a cristan hunter the hunted the followers of jesus and kill them |
I've spent some time trying to guess what you mean. Are you talking about Paul? What's the problem here?
PS.Try ending sentences with dots, cause your post is a bit messy
.
| Indi wrote: |
| So now, what's the scenario I have just constructed? Basically, in early first century CE by some cause information started to spread by word of mouth of a new prophet named Jesus. There may have been an actual Jesus, or there may not have. |
OK, but tell me what would be the cause if Jesus did not historically exist? Do you think that those people were just willing to be killed for making up stories about Jesus? (being a Christian in the first two centuries involved a huge risk of being killed.) Everything you write is completely logical, but I still don't know what would be the cause of it. BTW. There are some historical non-christian Roman documents, some of them written even in the first century, that mention that Jesus did exist, died on a cross, and His followers consider Him as God. If you want, I can search for the exact titles and quotes.
| Indi wrote: |
| Then along came Paul, possibly after having met Jesus personally (as Acts claims), or possibly simply by seeing him in visions (as Paul says). Paul started preaching his particular brand of Christianity, and railing against the others. But, not having any concrete text describing Jesus or his acts and teachings to lend support to his beliefs, Paul chose to quote the old testament to lend support and authority to his arguments. |
The christians living in the first years after Christ didn't have to write down any concrete texts, as they had the testimony of those who knew Him personally. Only after christianity had spread around the Roman empire, there was a need of written gospels, as there weren't enough disciples to visit all of the places.
With Paul it's just another story, he couldn't have met Jesus personally when He was still on earth (as Paul got known about christians much later), but as Acts claim, he saw Jesus in the form of "light from heaven". However, he did not rail against the other christians. Everything he did or said was based on the disciples. The only difference is that his mission was just to teach pagans, when the disciples taught rather the Jewish people, that's the cause of some differences in their attitude on some matters, but this doesn't mean that Paul was against the disciples.
And Paul was not the only one who sent letters. There are also a few letters from other disciples (James, Peter, John and Juda), that were written before the Gospels. Peter in his first letter writes exactly: "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you," (1 Peter 1:3-4, New Internet Version). So the preachers taught that Jesus has resurrected before the gospel of Mark was written, it couldn't have been made up later.
the reference you put in are from the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, as you specified... meaning that the changes that were made some few decades back are already there...
in Chrisitianity... there are many different sects just like they are in Islam... but the difference between Muslim and Chrisitian sects are that Muslim still folow the same religion with the same belief... but there style of doing it is different... but in Christianity....the sects have religion of theire own....
like one sect believes Jesus was the Son of God.... another believes He was not and another with somthin else..... these are completetly religions of their own.... that is why, Chrisitianity was replaced by Islam....
in Chrisitianity... there are many different sects just like they are in Islam... but the difference between Muslim and Chrisitian sects are that Muslim still folow the same religion with the same belief... but there style of doing it is different... but in Christianity....the sects have religion of theire own....
like one sect believes Jesus was the Son of God.... another believes He was not and another with somthin else..... these are completetly religions of their own.... that is why, Chrisitianity was replaced by Islam....
| salman_500 wrote: |
| the reference you put in are from the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, as you specified... meaning that the changes that were made some few decades back are already there... |
Not exactly. It was just a new translation of the Bible, written to be understood by everyone who lives these days, using a modern simple language. I could quote King's James Bible from XVII century, or even the original scripts written in hebrew and greek, but what for?
| Quote: |
| in Chrisitianity... there are many different sects just like they are in Islam... but the difference between Muslim and Chrisitian sects are that Muslim still folow the same religion with the same belief... but there style of doing it is different... but in Christianity....the sects have religion of theire own....
like one sect believes Jesus was the Son of God.... another believes He was not and another with somthin else..... these are completetly religions of their own.... that is why, Chrisitianity was replaced by Islam.... |
Well, there's a difference between Christian Churches and Christian sects. The first ones (eg. the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants) may differ in many matters of belief, but all of them claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Christian sects are those who don't believe this (eg. Jehova Witnesses).
| the_mariska wrote: | ||
Not exactly. It was just a new translation of the Bible, written to be understood by everyone who lives these days, using a modern simple language. I could quote King's James Bible from XVII century, or even the original scripts written in hebrew and greek, but what for? |
new explanation of the Bible which was already CHANGED a few DECADES ago.....
| Quote: | ||
Well, there's a difference between Christian Churches and Christian sects. The first ones (eg. the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants) may differ in many matters of belief, but all of them claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Christian sects are those who don't believe this (eg. Jehova Witnesses). |
well i dunno about churches... but we are talking about sects....... well you see your religion os so much disturbed that you even have different types of Churches while we Muslim have the Mosques which deliver the same message all around the world..... that Allah is ONE and He has NO SON..
| Quote: |
| I've spent some time trying to guess what you mean. Are you talking about Paul? What's the problem here? |
yes i am
P.S sowi bout the poor spelling
P.S.S we all have weaknesses
anyway back to the topic at hand as mentioned muslims all spread the message of 1 lord no father no son. Yes, you can quote me millions of verses that will mention what you say the same way I can mention meny verses from th Qur'an, witch you will just reject like what i have done why sould I belive in the "modern day" bibile when there are more then one deffince in it. You see the Qur'an is the same all around the world if you do your research you will cearly see that all muslims read the same Qur'an no diffrence all muslims the the Qur'an throught the arabic scripter also every Muslim with knowlage about the religion will tell you when you read the Qur'an it is only possible to recite in arabic reading the Qur'an in any other language is not reading the Qur'an there for not the Qur'an only translation of it there for anyother languge used to recite the Qur'an in muslim preyer is wrong.
| salman_500 wrote: |
|
new explanation of the Bible which was already CHANGED a few DECADES ago..... |
When do you think it was changed exactly, and what were the changes like? The Catholic Church has not changed their interpretation of the Bible, they have only changed the way our religion celebrations are held (eg. introducing native languages instead of latin, to make people understand the things happening around them), but the explanation of Bible still remains the same.
| death_dealer wrote: |
| witch you will just reject like what i have done why sould I belive in the "modern day" bibile when there are more then one deffince in it.
|
That is the topic that this thread was dedicated too, and yet you guys haven't been able to produced a single example. What differences? There were no early Christian writings denying the resurrection or that Jesus is son of God. Your only evidence that the Bible is corrupt is that the Qur’an says so, which is actually compelling evidence that the Qur’an was corrupt from its inception.
| death_dealer wrote: |
| You see the Qur'an is the same all around the world if you do your research you will cearly see that all muslims read the same Qur'an no diffrence
|
And if you do the same you’ll discover to your shock that all around the world Christians and Jews read the same Bible, there are no differences. Muslims just robotically believe whatever the Qur’an says without ever doing any research.
| salman_500 wrote: |
| well i dunno about churches... but we are talking about sects....... well you see your religion os so much disturbed that you even have different types of Churches while we Muslim have the Mosques which deliver the same message all around the world.....
|
Is that why Sunnis keep blowing up Shiite shrines, because they are all the same?
| salman_500 wrote: |
| that Allah is ONE and He has NO SON..
|
Whether or not it is true or what it means is irrelevant to the subject of Biblical changes. Where is you first shred of evidence that the Bible was changed in this regard?
Hindus say the same thing, the Avatars are incarnations of God. How come the Qur’an doesn’t rile at them the way it riles at Jesus?
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| And if you do the same you’ll discover to your shock that all around the world Christians and Jews read the same Bible, there are no differences. Muslims just robotically believe whatever the Qur’an says without ever doing any research. |
Yo moron, STOP USING SIZE 18.
Apart from that, you are showing, some, err... bias? Just a bit.
As far as the "no differences" thing. There are technically different translations, ect, of the bible, from the King James ed, on. So no, there are definite differences, just if by virtue of translation conflicts.
And "Muslims robotically believe"? Wow, really now. Thank the heavens the Muslims have someone to speak for each and every one of them and what they think. Truly, there is no better person to make a sweeping generalization than some half-wit who uses a huge font just to make his posts look important. The content certainly isn't doing the job of that.
Do you actually know anything about the subject at hand?
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Do you actually know anything about the subject at hand? |
Do you?
Spoiler: The answer is "No".
Most morons are just jerks with opinions, but you don't even have that!
I know this is off topic here, but I am noticing something here that is exeplified by mike1reynolds behavior, and his tactics.
I often visit Pagan chat areas like Yahoo. Every once and a while we get the Chistian Fundies in that believe they have a "witness" for us that will save our "Hell-bound" souls.
The most annoying and ones that fail miserably everytime are those that start out sounding reasonable and friendly then gradually bit by bit the text starts getting bigger and bigger (since it's not all capitals it isn't yelling and only got bigger because obviously if you don't agree with them then you must be visually impared and not understanding them), and the hatred and venom starts spilling out the edges. Now I don't believe that this is one person using diffent identities.
To me this has the earmarks of an organized FUND-A-MENTAList evangeloical training program. Something like "How to Effectively Witness On the Internet" by Rev. I. P. Freely or some such. Someone who's advice is, "If you aint winnin there harts, minds, and souls; then be annoying. Insist their counter arguments mean nothing because you have the real truth and do it really, really big so there is no mistake that God granted you bigger fonts because your right."
Sorry, about being off topic. It's just something I realized and was curious about, and the only way to exercise that curiousity was to point out this behavior when and where I see it and ask if anyone else has knowledge of this phenominon because I've been seeing it a lot.
I often visit Pagan chat areas like Yahoo. Every once and a while we get the Chistian Fundies in that believe they have a "witness" for us that will save our "Hell-bound" souls.
The most annoying and ones that fail miserably everytime are those that start out sounding reasonable and friendly then gradually bit by bit the text starts getting bigger and bigger (since it's not all capitals it isn't yelling and only got bigger because obviously if you don't agree with them then you must be visually impared and not understanding them), and the hatred and venom starts spilling out the edges. Now I don't believe that this is one person using diffent identities.
To me this has the earmarks of an organized FUND-A-MENTAList evangeloical training program. Something like "How to Effectively Witness On the Internet" by Rev. I. P. Freely or some such. Someone who's advice is, "If you aint winnin there harts, minds, and souls; then be annoying. Insist their counter arguments mean nothing because you have the real truth and do it really, really big so there is no mistake that God granted you bigger fonts because your right."
Sorry, about being off topic. It's just something I realized and was curious about, and the only way to exercise that curiousity was to point out this behavior when and where I see it and ask if anyone else has knowledge of this phenominon because I've been seeing it a lot.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am neither Christian nor conservative. I’ve never voted Republican in my life and I embrace virtually every religion and shamanistic tradition except Islam. The only reason that I’m referring to the Bible at all is because the Muslims refer to the Bible in a manner that constitutes religious bigotry. Fundamentalist Christians are the ones usually arguing for religious bigotry. If you support Muslims religious bigotry than you are far closer to the fundamentalist religious point of view than I am.
| Quote: |
| Sorry to disappoint you, but I am neither Christian nor conservative. I’ve never voted Republican in my life and I embrace virtually every religion and shamanistic tradition except Islam. The only reason that I’m referring to the Bible at all is because the Muslims refer to the Bible in a manner that constitutes religious bigotry. Fundamentalist Christians are the ones usually arguing for religious bigotry. If you support Muslims religious bigotry than you are far closer to the fundamentalist religious point of view than I am. |
hand over the proof lad, mate or what ever
Proof of what, the entire paragraph?
| Quote: |
| The only reason that I’m referring to the Bible at all is because the Muslims refer to the Bible in a manner that constitutes religious bigotry |
you proof of the quran being EVIL or whatever l
you see i have directed you to a person (on many occasions) that is cappable of answering your questions and reasoning x10000000000 better then i will ever be able you want proof go to an islamic book store or even search it on the net look for muslim vs cristan debates by Ahmad Dedad if you can find the hole debat watch it. You might be very intrested in them seeing the way you are over the internet
P.S i realy dont care if you vote republican or not
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Sorry to disappoint you, but I am neither Christian nor conservative. I’ve never voted Republican in my life and I embrace virtually every religion and shamanistic tradition except Islam. The only reason that I’m referring to the Bible at all is because the Muslims refer to the Bible in a manner that constitutes religious bigotry. Fundamentalist Christians are the ones usually arguing for religious bigotry. If you support Muslims religious bigotry than you are far closer to the fundamentalist religious point of view than I am. |
I believe that if you go back and re-read your posts, just pretending for a second that you don't know the person making those posts, I think you might know where I'm coming from when I say you sound very much like some kind of rabid fundy.
This may sound ironic, or whatever, but the one thing I have trouble tolerating is intolerance. I know that it's a tough habbit to kick and I often catch myself using some unfair generalizations from time to time. I had a lot of respect for you when I first encountered your posting, but really there is something about Islam that really sets you on edge and watching you cast aspersions on Islam as a whole and totally loosing it the way you have been doing has made me loose a lot of respect. I really think you need to step back and take a deep breath and reconcider your stance.
I for one refuse to believe that the teachings of the Quaran are totally evil. Islam has it's roots in the God of Abraham just like Judism and Christianity. I refuse to believe that of the millions of Moslems in the world that all or even the majority are evil. I think that in many ways that really count that we all have far more in common then we have differences.
If we all could learn to live together on these vast common grounds rather then pointing out the few differences that seperate us we just might have a better world.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Most morons are just jerks with opinions, but you don't even have that! |
Oh I have an opinion alright, mainly that your posts smell of uneducated bias and rubbish. Making generalizations that are unsupported, like you have, is not the sign of great intelligence. They aren't really offensive per se, just amusing that you flaunt your own bigotry so readily, and with such zealotry.
This thread has gone downhill, and pretty quick. At first, it was rather interesting... then started the unnecessary size 18 text, which was not only annoying, but also seemed like mike1reynolds was losing it.
After some time, a personal cheap-shot contest started between Lord Kuat and mike1reynolds. A couple more bad posts, and this thread really is going to get locked for becoming useless.
After some time, a personal cheap-shot contest started between Lord Kuat and mike1reynolds. A couple more bad posts, and this thread really is going to get locked for becoming useless.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I refuse to believe that of the millions of Moslems in the world that all or even the majority are evil.
|
Oh good grief, where does this come from? I have never said anything of the sort. What I’ve said is that the Qur’an encourages religious bigotry. Sufis are quite profound and their expression of Islam is not at all bigoted, but that is the smallest sect. Most sects make all sorts of crazy assertions about the West and Israel that sound like conspiracy theories because they are very ready to believe anything negative about infidels.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I believe that if you go back and re-read your posts, just pretending for a second that you don't know the person making those posts, I think you might know where I'm coming from when I say you sound very much like some kind of rabid fundy. |
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| This may sound ironic, or whatever, but the one thing I have trouble tolerating is intolerance.
|
Your point of view is more intolerant than mine, I do not impugn Mohammed’s sanity.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I know that it's a tough habbit to kick and I often catch myself using some unfair generalizations from time to time.
|
I think that Mohammed was an amazing man and that lightly implying his insanity is indeed an unfair generalization. To compare me to a fundy is positively an oxymoron.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I had a lot of respect for you when I first encountered your posting, but really there is something about Islam that really sets you on edge and watching you cast aspersions on Islam as a whole and totally loosing it the way you have been doing has made me loose a lot of respect. I really think you need to step back and take a deep breath and reconcider your stance.
|
I’m ready to reconsider any and every point. No one has offered any criticisms to my points other than exactly the kind of board generalizations that you refer to as being a product of intolerance.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I for one refuse to believe that the teachings of the Quaran are totally evil. Islam has it's roots in the God of Abraham just like Judism and Christianity.
|
That is because you assume that Muslims are wrong about the source of the Qur’an and that it really came from a dark recess of an insane mind that thought that it was hearing voices. If you have any respect for Mohammed as a person then you accept that he was in fact approached by an entity which claimed to be an archangel. That leaves only two option, either it was or it wasn’t an angel. If you have respect for Mohammed then there is no room for anything in between, either the Qur’an is all good or all evil.
| tidruG wrote: |
| This thread has gone downhill, and pretty quick. At first, it was rather interesting... then started the unnecessary size 18 text, which was not only annoying, but also seemed like mike1reynolds was losing it.
|
The messages were so short that they still had blank vertical space and would only have had more blank space in a smaller font. It started with my praising Indi’s analysis of influences on the Bible. That sounded like I was loosing it?
| tidruG wrote: |
| After some time, a personal cheap-shot contest started between Lord Kuat and mike1reynolds. A couple more bad posts, and this thread really is going to get locked for becoming useless.
|
The thread has barely been on topic all along. The only person to really address the topic was Mariska.
| death_dealer wrote: |
| you proof of the quran being EVIL or whatever l
|
You are turning common sense on its head. If one hears voices claiming to be an angel, the burden of proof is on this claim. The burden of proof is not on disproving that the voices are angelic, because it is illogical to automatically assume there is no possible deception. However, if you believe that Mohammed was sane then it is easy to prove that Qur’an must either be totally good or totally evil.
There is no such thing as absolute proof outside of mathematics. What I have done is present a long series of moral problems with the content of the Qur’an, such as the promotion of religious bigotry. This is evidence against the author being angelic. You have addressed none of those moral problems, so my arguments against the Qur’an having an angelic source remain unanswered. You simply ask for the evidence again, but I’ve repeated it a number of times now.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
Oh good grief, where does this come from? I have never said anything of the sort. What I’ve said is that the Qur’an encourages religious bigotry. Sufis are quite profound and their expression of Islam is not at all bigoted, but that is the smallest sect. Most sects make all sorts of crazy assertions about the West and Israel that sound like conspiracy theories because they are very ready to believe anything negative about infidels. |
Mike what you have been doing is making some rather broad and sweeping statements about both Moslems and the Qu'ran that when applied to Moslems and the Qu'ran as a whole are simply not true. Maybe just like in the Bible there are a few statements about keeping to your own, but just like in the Bible there are statements also peace, tolerance, and mercy. I've known plenty of Moslems, not only from the middle east but from the United States, Great Britan, Africa, and Indonesia. There will always be a few butt heads mixed in but for the large part I've found these men and women to be good people who share a middle ground with me. They are folks I would be proud to call friend and neighbor and would gladly break bread with them. By the way why is this part of my post way out of context with the others?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
|
I'm really not sure where you came up with that from the above quote. It is not an analogy. I was asking you to please look at your qwn words and see how seemed to have really lost control of yourself. This sudden shift into an unreasonable accusation and putting words in my mouth is further proof. I know you have studied eastern religion. Surely you are aware of the concept of karma. You really aren't doing your karma any good by continuing in this vein.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
Your point of view is more intolerant than mine, I do not impugn Mohammed’s sanity. |
I was going to erase this part because I had already addessed you putting words in my mouth but it kinda emphesizes how far you dodge around the issues and further dammage your karma.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
I think that Mohammed was an amazing man and that lightly implying his insanity is indeed an unfair generalization. To compare me to a fundy is positively an oxymoron. |
Again trying to say I said something I didn't, and making yourself look good by comparison. Adding this to your rants, and generalizations about Islam does indeed look like the general intolerance found in fundimentalism and your use of fundimentalist tactics does not make you look less like one.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
I’m ready to reconsider any and every point. No one has offered any criticisms to my points other than exactly the kind of board generalizations that you refer to as being a product of intolerance.
That is because you assume that Muslims are wrong about the source of the Qur’an and that it really came from a dark recess of an insane mind that thought that it was hearing voices. If you have any respect for Mohammed as a person then you accept that he was in fact approached by an entity which claimed to be an archangel. That leaves only two option, either it was or it wasn’t an angel. If you have respect for Mohammed then there is no room for anything in between, either the Qur’an is all good or all evil. |
Running short on time now let me just concude that just because my religion is not based in the God of Abraham that I concider any religion based so to be totally wrong. Every religion has it's good points and bad points. Every religion has it's good followers and bad followers. It's up to the individuals of each religion to try to be the best people that they can be. Hopefully along the way they can also learn to help others if they will allow themselves to be helped. Casting aside bad leadership, and helping point the way to a more enlightened view. If your earlier postings didn't give some indication that you possessed a dgree of enlightenment I would have written you off. Since I have respect for you I'm taking the time to ask you to realise your mistakes and rise above them to reach your fullest potential.
If you are trying to make a posive point out of the negativity you're projecting then let me say that while that tactic may seem dramatic it is rarely successful because once you make people angry they rarely pay serious attention to you. I tried once to make a point about how people can take a small grain of truth and turn it into a terrible lie by broadly proclaiming that Christians practice ritual canabalism I had turned the beautiful, spiritual ritual of Communion into something sordid and ugly. However by the time I made my point everyone (not just the Christians) was so angry with me that my point became totally lost on them. If you are attempting something like this, it may be way past the time to make your real point.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: | ||||
Mike what you have been doing is making some rather broad and sweeping statements about both Moslems and the Qu'ran that when applied to Moslems and the Qu'ran as a whole are simply not true. |
You are still changing my measured statements into fanatical absolutist statements. You’ve constructed a fanatical straw man and called it fanatical. I have never said that all Muslims are religious bigots, I have only said that the Qur’an encourages religious bigotry.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| Maybe just like in the Bible there are a few statements about keeping to your own, but just like in the Bible there are statements also peace, tolerance, and mercy.
|
No, it has tons of statements riling against Christians and Jews and about how their scriptures are corrupt and the majority of them are going to Hell.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I've known plenty of Moslems, not only from the middle east but from the United States, Great Britan, Africa, and Indonesia. There will always be a few butt heads mixed in but for the large part I've found these men and women to be good people who share a middle ground with me. They are folks I would be proud to call friend and neighbor and would gladly break bread with them. By the way why is this part of my post way out of context with the others?
|
Your accusation that I’ve made statements about all Muslims. The Qur’an is not a single Muslim. Muslims who focus on the life and character of Mohammed, especially like the Sufi mystics, are very profound and penetrating. Muslims who focus on the Qur’an are much more intolerant and fundamentalist.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I'm really not sure where you came up with that from the above quote. It is not an analogy. I was asking you to please look at your qwn words and see how seemed to have really lost control of yourself. This sudden shift into an unreasonable accusation and putting words in my mouth is further proof. I know you have studied eastern religion. Surely you are aware of the concept of karma. You really aren't doing your karma any good by continuing in this vein.
|
I can’t tell whether you are accusing me of putting words in your mouth or complaining that I have pointed out how you are putting words into my mouth. You have put words into my mouth, falsely applying my statements about the Qur’an to the character of all Muslims. I have not put words into your mouth, if you reject that Mohammed was approached by an entity that must be either good or evil, then the only alternative left is that he was mentally deluded or a charlatan.
Muslims are very sensitive to this issue, they are quick to assume that one is accusing Mohammed of being a “faker” and it is very hard to get a Muslim off of the topic of Mohammed’s moral and personal credibility. That is because the majority of doubt about Islam comes in the form of disbelief in Mohammed’s abilities, honesty or sanity. I am not putting words into your mouth anymore than Muslims do, and in this regard it is somewhat logical because that is the most likely source of disbelief in Islam, and you are not a believer. Even if it is completely untrue, which I think is unlikely, it still isn’t a wild eyed conspiracy theory, it is the most likely possibility statistically.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: | ||||
I was going to erase this part because I had already addessed you putting words in my mouth but it kinda emphesizes how far you dodge around the issues and further dammage your karma. |
You simply haven’t thought out your position in full detail. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion is not putting words into your mouth.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| Adding this to your rants, and generalizations about Islam does indeed look like the general intolerance found in fundimentalism and your use of fundimentalist tactics does not make you look less like one.
|
You haven’t addressed a single specific criticism, you just paint them all with a blanket brush that is essentially ad hominem. You are guilty as charged, this is hypocrisy. The language in the Qur’an is very clear on certain issues, and most Christians and Jews are going to Hell. You can’t address this incontrovertible fact because it blows your whole argument.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| Running short on time now let me just concude that just because my religion is not based in the God of Abraham that I concider any religion based so to be totally wrong. Every religion has it's good points and bad points. Every religion has it's good followers and bad followers. It's up to the individuals of each religion to try to be the best people that they can be. Hopefully along the way they can also learn to help others if they will allow themselves to be helped. Casting aside bad leadership, and helping point the way to a more enlightened view.
|
That is only possible if you believe that Mohammed was a fake or deluded. If you believe that he really was approached by an entity then the Qur’an is either entirely good or entirely evil. The only alternative left is that you must believe that Mohammed was either a fake or deluded. If not, then account for your reasons for disbelief?
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| If your earlier postings didn't give some indication that you possessed a dgree of enlightenment I would have written you off. Since I have respect for you I'm taking the time to ask you to realise your mistakes and rise above them to reach your fullest potential.
|
There is no mistake, it is not possible to construct a synthesis of Islam with any other religion. The Qur’an explicitly precludes this possibility in numerous ways. All other religions can be combined into a synthesis, but Islam will allow no place for itself in such a synthesis, it excludes itself. My whole interest in religion and spirituality is to create a synthesis. Finding a religion that so blatantly refuses to respect the spiritual authority of any other religion is a clear warning single that something is wrong. No other religion does this in scripture, only the Qur’an rejects all other religions. How do you define religios bigotry?
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| If you are attempting something like this, it may be way past the time to make your real point. |
| Quote: |
| death_dealer wrote:
you proof of the quran being EVIL or whatever l You are turning common sense on its head. If one hears voices claiming to be an angel, the burden of proof is on this claim. The burden of proof is not on disproving that the voices are angelic, because it is illogical to automatically assume there is no possible deception. However, if you believe that Mohammed was sane then it is easy to prove that Qur’an must either be totally good or totally evil. There is no such thing as absolute proof outside of mathematics. What I have done is present a long series of moral problems with the content of the Qur’an, such as the promotion of religious bigotry. This is evidence against the author being angelic. You have addressed none of those moral problems, so my arguments against the Qur’an having an angelic source remain unanswered. You simply ask for the evidence again, but I’ve repeated it a number of times now. |
yet you have still not proven anything
1:Quran was sent in parts over the 23 or so yrs
2:Quran was always sent by angel gabrial there for the prophet would recognise him if he was a devil
3:look for story of isra and marage
4:^^^ this is only revilation not from gabrial but god (just like moses spoke to god so did mohammad)
5: there is no logic the quran the quran what it is a holy book that has that stuff for a reason once again!!!! I have challenged you more the 1 time yet have not prooven anything
look i say this as simple words
you try using your ..........hear comes 18.............BIG words and make it sound like logic when its not you are puraly just speaking makeing your self look smart when truth be said you are realy speaking from the news
also when you said it took you four years to get throught
LOL
what then it sould be a since to get the info i have requested more then 1 time
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| The messages were so short that they still had blank vertical space and would only have had more blank space in a smaller font. |
Have you not seen that happening in a lot of posts?
Surely, if you're smart enough to talk about religion, analyze and present what appear to be logical arguments, then you're smart enough to know that size 18 text looks like you are shouting... or you are highly excited.
| Indi, after your big-text reply to his first post in this thread wrote: |
| Wow, shouting. >_< |
As seen here
And your reply to this, I quote:
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
Their reasoning isn't even remotely like that. |
And this post of yours looks to me like it's long enough to fill the blank white space beneath the written matter even if it was written at a normal size. And the content makes it appear as if you really did get excited there.
| Quote: |
| The thread has barely been on topic all along. The only person to really address the topic was Mariska. |
A thread doesn't necessarily have to be 100% bang on topic for every post. The human mind makes connections with past personal experiences whenever we encounter something that triggers a thought process. We debate with ourselves the relevance of this particular experience/thought/opinion with respect to the post in question, and based on the debate, we either add it to our post or not. The discussion was broadly on-topic or thereabouts until your little spat started.
Please don't think of me as a stupid bot-like moderator acting solely on the words of other members. I have a solid reason and basis for my actions, and I weigh very carefully what I write when I'm writing as a Moderator, as I did the last time in this thread.
Wow, it is very interesting from a therapist point of view what happened in this thread. Not that I am a therapist, but alas.
A few words from my humble point of view:
- we should not kick down michael's way of replying if we do the same but in a more decent way (eg. by replying strictly correct, this makes us place ourselves 'higher' then the other person we attack but basically the same type of anger speaks out of it).
- already ages full of wise men and women have judged the contents of both the bible and the quran. Both are composed using material that changed during the ages. But it is ignorant to think that they were composed falsely by a few people to state their way of how the bible or the quran should be, even more if you use modern science to prove the contents 'wrong'. You were not there, scientist were not there, fundamentalists were not there. The contents have always been shaped by people and even the wisests people have preferences, but that doesn't take away the authority scripture has on human destiny and God's love for the people of this world he created.
- mike1reynolds made strange statements, off topic as well
- Lord Kuat attacks people with stating that they are dumb as if he knows
something...?
- Tex_Arcana has a problem with fanatic christians that speak out on the internet and probably elsewhere. This is another topic indead.
- people have huge ego's. Proof: this thread.
7Pound7
A few words from my humble point of view:
- we should not kick down michael's way of replying if we do the same but in a more decent way (eg. by replying strictly correct, this makes us place ourselves 'higher' then the other person we attack but basically the same type of anger speaks out of it).
- already ages full of wise men and women have judged the contents of both the bible and the quran. Both are composed using material that changed during the ages. But it is ignorant to think that they were composed falsely by a few people to state their way of how the bible or the quran should be, even more if you use modern science to prove the contents 'wrong'. You were not there, scientist were not there, fundamentalists were not there. The contents have always been shaped by people and even the wisests people have preferences, but that doesn't take away the authority scripture has on human destiny and God's love for the people of this world he created.
- mike1reynolds made strange statements, off topic as well
- Lord Kuat attacks people with stating that they are dumb as if he knows
something...?
- Tex_Arcana has a problem with fanatic christians that speak out on the internet and probably elsewhere. This is another topic indead.
- people have huge ego's. Proof: this thread.
7Pound7
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Sorry to disappoint you, but I am neither Christian nor conservative. I’ve never voted Republican in my life and I embrace virtually every religion and shamanistic tradition except Islam. The only reason that I’m referring to the Bible at all is because the Muslims refer to the Bible in a manner that constitutes religious bigotry. Fundamentalist Christians are the ones usually arguing for religious bigotry. If you support Muslims religious bigotry than you are far closer to the fundamentalist religious point of view than I am. |
Mike, thanks for dropping the large font. No offense meant, but it really makes your posts seem fanatical and most people tend to dismiss fanatics as nutjobs.
And maybe I missed something, but Tex seemed to be pointing out a pattern he saw that was similar to what you were doing. Not accusing you of any position or association. Just remarking on a style of 'discussion'.
As a side issue, how in the world do you "embrace" all religions except Islam? I would understand that to mean you believe in satanism, christianity, wicca, etc. Did you mean to say you aren't upset with other religions?
 |