|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Which religion / belief system the greates appeal to you?
If you were to chose, which religion, belief, system, moral system, etc has the greates appeal to you (and why).
Just wondering....
I suppose some religious people will argue, that this is not something that one is supposed to chose, but I'll post it anyways.
Be open and tolerant!
Just wondering....
I suppose some religious people will argue, that this is not something that one is supposed to chose, but I'll post it anyways.
Be open and tolerant!
Islam. Even though I was born into it, I have researched (in large quantities) other religions and belief systems, and thankfully Islam makes the most sense to me (followed by Judaism and Christianity since those are the other two religions you can say I "follow").
Atheism. Fear thy self. Religion can help people follow rules because of the fear of god. Why don't we fear our conscience? These days organized religion is becoming a problem leading to communal riots, terrorism etc.. and that's what makes me sick of religion. More over coming to the belief of God, I prefer believing in things we can see and sense, things which have an explanation....
Buddhism. Things which appeal to me is that there is no god and people can achieve the happiness by improving themselves and changing their personality and behaviour towards other people by abandoning bad acts (harming other people) and negative feelings (destructive attitude brought about by anger, ignorance and attachment).
Very attractive is fact that many people consider Buddhism as the set of teachings how to live and philosophy rather than religion.
Very attractive is fact that many people consider Buddhism as the set of teachings how to live and philosophy rather than religion.
Atheism and it's not really a belief system.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Atheism and it's not really a belief system. |
you could say it's a way of life. You reject the existence of god or any superior beiing and live according to this principle.
athough, it does not provide any moral / ethical guidelines after which one should live.
| sunpascal wrote: | ||
you could say it's a way of life. You reject the existence of god or any superior beiing and live according to this principle. athough, it does not provide any moral / ethical guidelines after which one should live. |
I do not. I lack belief in a god or superior being. I do not reject the existence of one, I simply see no solid evidence/proof that gives good reason to believe there is one. It's not the same as saying a higher force doesn't exist. To claim that would be wrong. No one knows 100% either way.
Atheism is the lack of belief, therefore, it's not a belief. I live according to what I was raised to be right and wrong. I live according to what is harmful to other people, and organisms in general. Religion is not synonymous with morality/ethics. I would have to say I have extremely good morals without the aid of religion (not to sound egotistical)...and arguably better morals than many of the religious people I've come into contact with.
| liljp617 wrote: |
|
I do not. I lack belief in a god or superior being. I do not reject the existence of one, I simply see no solid evidence/proof that gives good reason to believe there is one. It's not the same as saying a higher force doesn't exist. To claim that would be wrong. No one knows 100% either way. |
Then you are an agnostic, not (only) an atheist.
Most if not all religions provide moral guidelines (i.e. you shall not kill) . Atheism does not.
| liljp617 wrote: |
|
I would have to say I have extremely good morals |
Don't get me wrong: Religion can provide moral guidelines, but of course that doesn't mean that someone who isn't religious doesn't have morals! Further more, I would claim that an atheist doesn't need a religion for moral guidance.
| liljp617 wrote: |
|
Atheism is the lack of belief, therefore, it's not a belief. |
I think you mean "faith". Atheism certainly is a lack of faith in god. Still, you can believe that there is no god.
| sunpascal wrote: | ||||||
Then you are an agnostic, not (only) an atheist. Most if not all religions provide moral guidelines (i.e. you shall not kill) . Atheism does not.
Don't get me wrong: Religion can provide moral guidelines, but of course that doesn't mean that someone who isn't religious doesn't have morals! Further more, I would claim that an atheist doesn't need a religion for moral guidance.
I think you mean "faith". Atheism certainly is a lack of faith in god. Still, you can believe that there is no god. |
We've gone through this a number of times on these forums in the past
I'll simply quote Bikerman from another thread on the subject.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The disinctions are, I think, pretty well defined.
Deist- One who believes that there is a God(s) but that God(s) do not intervene in the universe. ie God(s) set the rules and then retired. Theist - One who believes that there is a God(s) and that God(s) do intevene in the universe. Agnostic - One who thinks that the existence of God(s) cannot be proved or disproved. Atheist - One who does not believe in God(s) |
I proclaim myself to be an atheist. I do not believe in a god. But pretty much any rational atheist will not go to the extremes of saying it's impossible for gods to exist. I would say the majority recognize the idea that declaring with 100% certainty a god doesn't exist is equal to that of saying with 100% certainty a god does exist. And most atheists don't wish to be put on that playing field. That doesn't make all of those atheists agnostic, however. Atheists typically take the stance that they don't believe in a god and currently, there isn't any valid reason to believe a god exists...but they don't declare gods can't exist. They're still atheists.
I guess you could make the argument I'm an agnostic atheist if you really wanted to, but I do not put faith in any gods, and I currently don't see a reason to believe one exists (understand that I'm not saying one can't exist). I think that labels me an atheist.
Of those religions listed, I suppose I would have been Buddhist/Atheist. I think the discussion of whether "god" exist is insignificant. And my morals are my own, based on some fair share of thought.
So in general, as an Atheist you pretty much do as you like, since there is no system in it what so ever. And with Buddhism you got the traditions and philosophy, as well as a system which I dislike the most.
I guess I simply do not like organized religion. Which again would make it very difficult for me to make my decision in this matter...
So in general, as an Atheist you pretty much do as you like, since there is no system in it what so ever. And with Buddhism you got the traditions and philosophy, as well as a system which I dislike the most.
I guess I simply do not like organized religion. Which again would make it very difficult for me to make my decision in this matter...
Atheism, I won't believe in anything without a proof. My parents and people around me have tried to convince me but no one has ever came up with any proof at all.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Atheism, I won't believe in anything without a proof. My parents and people around me have tried to convince me but no one has ever came up with any proof at all. |
Thats good because if proof is ever found, the universe may cease to exist as it is and it will be replaced with something even more confusing and illogical. Some say this has already happened.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Atheism, I won't believe in anything without a proof. My parents and people around me have tried to convince me but no one has ever came up with any proof at all. |
lol well that's not vague at all
I vote on Christianty because i'm Christianty. A good explain lol. But i belief in something of it but not everthing.
atheism is not a religion nor a belief system
"If atheism is just another religion then NOT COLLECTING STAMPS is just another hobby, ABSTINENCE is just another sexual position and BALD is just another hair color."
(quoted from another forum)
"If atheism is just another religion then NOT COLLECTING STAMPS is just another hobby, ABSTINENCE is just another sexual position and BALD is just another hair color."
(quoted from another forum)
Why not just look at it like the option: "None of the religions or belief systems appeals me", but much shorter 
I know what atheism is, an I'm an atheist myself. I know it's a wrong usage of the word but I think we should be able to say that we don't think any of them sound good. You could call it something different but the option should still be there.
I know what atheism is, an I'm an atheist myself. I know it's a wrong usage of the word but I think we should be able to say that we don't think any of them sound good. You could call it something different but the option should still be there.
catscratches, are you saying that there is a possibility that you will join a religion or belief system if it appeals you?
if you're an atheist,
"None of the religions or belief systems appeals me"
is weak a statement, it should be:
"the concept of GOD is not real even it is appealing or not"
if you're an atheist,
"None of the religions or belief systems appeals me"
is weak a statement, it should be:
"the concept of GOD is not real even it is appealing or not"
Christianity least appeals to me. God who died for us (who's running the show, if He's dead?), but didn't actually die cos He's god (hence He didn't die for us)? I never understood that. I don't think anyone else did.
When the Bible first came down it had nothing about Jesus being the son of God.
Jesus even denied it; after corruptions and fabrications were added in by power-hungry priests at the time, well a lot got changed.
The Quran (which I believe more than my own mother) says that Jesus was, like other prophets, an ordinary man (not divine) who was given the ability to perform certain miracles given to him by God (ie. raising the dead, talking as an infant, curing leprosy, etc.).
The modern-day Christianity has, sorry to say, become a sub-polytheist religion. What is a trinity believer? One that believes that THREE beings make up the ONE God.
If God is one, why does he need Gabriel and Jesus to be one? This indirectly makes trinity-believers polytheists (believers of more than one God, such as Hindus).
Kneeling before the cross? Praying to the cross? Wouldn't that be called idol-worshiping? Yes.
In Islam nothing of this sort happens; relics are not allowed. The only thing that might even be called close to a "relic" is the sacred black stone on the Kaba, which has been on the Kaba since even before the time of Abraham (Ibrahim).
What does a relic do? Think of the Holy Shroud of Turn, which supposedly bears the image of Christ. People pray to it. Can a cloth with a ripple in it from touching a man's face do for you what God can? No.
Relics can't do anything for you! They just cause greed, hatred, and killing! Does anyone have any idea about how much killing, wars, nations breaking alliances, greed, and dirty-play has happened because of one piece of cloth that, even though it has been Carbon 14 dated to the 13th century, people think Jesus was buried in?! Take a look!
We Muslims have, in museums, clothes belonging to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), do we worship them? No. They are pieces of cloth that touched the skin of a man given miracles from God. We even know of his grave, I've visited it, but no one will be praying to it.
What makes praying to a cloth that, in reality, isn't bearing Christ's face (he was raised up before he died, if you trust an unchanged source) or a cross any different than praying to a statue of Vishnu or Syn? Nothing, really.
In Islam, we don't use anything to represent God (Allah) (besides maybe the Kaba, which represents the house of God, which was built on command from God). Nothing can represent Him; do you really think a human can make something out of his/her own hands that can be an image of God? No! God can make us, we can't make an image God.
How can Christianity be called a monotheistic religion when they also worship Jesus? When they believe Jesus will be deciding who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven? It's God who will do that!
Jesus, like Moses and Abraham and Job and Adam and Noah and countless other prophets, was a human, non-divine man given miracles from God, and he never claimed to be the son of God!
Jesus even denied it; after corruptions and fabrications were added in by power-hungry priests at the time, well a lot got changed.
The Quran (which I believe more than my own mother) says that Jesus was, like other prophets, an ordinary man (not divine) who was given the ability to perform certain miracles given to him by God (ie. raising the dead, talking as an infant, curing leprosy, etc.).
The modern-day Christianity has, sorry to say, become a sub-polytheist religion. What is a trinity believer? One that believes that THREE beings make up the ONE God.
If God is one, why does he need Gabriel and Jesus to be one? This indirectly makes trinity-believers polytheists (believers of more than one God, such as Hindus).
Kneeling before the cross? Praying to the cross? Wouldn't that be called idol-worshiping? Yes.
In Islam nothing of this sort happens; relics are not allowed. The only thing that might even be called close to a "relic" is the sacred black stone on the Kaba, which has been on the Kaba since even before the time of Abraham (Ibrahim).
What does a relic do? Think of the Holy Shroud of Turn, which supposedly bears the image of Christ. People pray to it. Can a cloth with a ripple in it from touching a man's face do for you what God can? No.
Relics can't do anything for you! They just cause greed, hatred, and killing! Does anyone have any idea about how much killing, wars, nations breaking alliances, greed, and dirty-play has happened because of one piece of cloth that, even though it has been Carbon 14 dated to the 13th century, people think Jesus was buried in?! Take a look!
We Muslims have, in museums, clothes belonging to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), do we worship them? No. They are pieces of cloth that touched the skin of a man given miracles from God. We even know of his grave, I've visited it, but no one will be praying to it.
What makes praying to a cloth that, in reality, isn't bearing Christ's face (he was raised up before he died, if you trust an unchanged source) or a cross any different than praying to a statue of Vishnu or Syn? Nothing, really.
In Islam, we don't use anything to represent God (Allah) (besides maybe the Kaba, which represents the house of God, which was built on command from God). Nothing can represent Him; do you really think a human can make something out of his/her own hands that can be an image of God? No! God can make us, we can't make an image God.
How can Christianity be called a monotheistic religion when they also worship Jesus? When they believe Jesus will be deciding who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven? It's God who will do that!
Jesus, like Moses and Abraham and Job and Adam and Noah and countless other prophets, was a human, non-divine man given miracles from God, and he never claimed to be the son of God!
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| When the Bible first came down it had nothing about Jesus being the son of God. |
The New Testament is specifically Christian so it is hardly surprising that it holds Jesus to be divine - since that is the whole point of the religion.
The Quran is a later version of scripture which includes elements from both the Tanakh and the New Testament and weaves a new tale, supposedly revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammed.
Why was there need for Jesus and his New Testament? After all, what Moses told his people was perfectly correct.
It's what the people did after that. They changed the book; corrupted it. There is no longer a "real" version of the Old Testament, there are always a few differences between one Old Testament and the other.
What Jesus and his book told the people was also perfectly correct...until what people did to it. They changed and corrupted it. After all, doesn't the SON OF GOD sound a lot more exciting than THE MAN SPREADING GOD'S WORD? Wouldn't you want to follow the SON OF GOD? Well, the SON OF GOD doesn't exist.
So, now that Christianity was corrupted, the Quran and Muhammed were sent.
Funny how the Quran is still the same.
Both of my neighbours (left and right) are Christian. I'm sure that if I go to one of their houses and ask for their copy of the Bible, and then walk to the other and ask for their copy of the Bible, I'll see a great many differences.
As for the polytheism remark I gave, well, God says that nothing can be compared to him and that God is One alone. Then how can Jesus be the son of God? That would make him comparable to God.
You can't say "my country only has one symbol of royalty, the king" if you also claim there is a prince, for that makes two symbols of royalty.
It's what the people did after that. They changed the book; corrupted it. There is no longer a "real" version of the Old Testament, there are always a few differences between one Old Testament and the other.
What Jesus and his book told the people was also perfectly correct...until what people did to it. They changed and corrupted it. After all, doesn't the SON OF GOD sound a lot more exciting than THE MAN SPREADING GOD'S WORD? Wouldn't you want to follow the SON OF GOD? Well, the SON OF GOD doesn't exist.
So, now that Christianity was corrupted, the Quran and Muhammed were sent.
Funny how the Quran is still the same.
Both of my neighbours (left and right) are Christian. I'm sure that if I go to one of their houses and ask for their copy of the Bible, and then walk to the other and ask for their copy of the Bible, I'll see a great many differences.
As for the polytheism remark I gave, well, God says that nothing can be compared to him and that God is One alone. Then how can Jesus be the son of God? That would make him comparable to God.
You can't say "my country only has one symbol of royalty, the king" if you also claim there is a prince, for that makes two symbols of royalty.
Well if the OT was correct then why do we need the Quran? Why not just become a Jew and stick to the original scripture?
No, that's not really true. The Tanakh is probably pretty much as written. There are major differences in versions of the NT, for sure.
I don't really find it surprising that the Arabs wanted their own version of Abrahamic religion - many countries or peoples do. In England we have our own version - the Church of England. In the US they have their own version - The Mormons. The Arabs constructed their own version - Islam. It seems a common theme that different countries/peoples like to place themselves at the heart of the religious mythology and find their own way to do it.
As an outside observer I find it slightly amusing, but not really surprising.
| Quote: |
| It's what the people did after that. They changed the book; corrupted it. There is no longer a "real" version of the Old Testament, there are always a few differences between one Old Testament and the other. |
I don't really find it surprising that the Arabs wanted their own version of Abrahamic religion - many countries or peoples do. In England we have our own version - the Church of England. In the US they have their own version - The Mormons. The Arabs constructed their own version - Islam. It seems a common theme that different countries/peoples like to place themselves at the heart of the religious mythology and find their own way to do it.
As an outside observer I find it slightly amusing, but not really surprising.
Besides differences in the OT, the coming of the Messiah was already prophecised (sp?) in the OT.
The Pope is the only person with access (and his right hand man, whatever his title is called...you know, the guy from Angels and Demons) to the ORIGINAL Bible, in its unchanged form.
Why doesn't he release it? I can answer that; the coming of Muhammad is prophecised (bare with my spelling) in it, because Jesus was "ended" before the mission was fully complete. My "end" to Jesus is him being raised up by God before crucification.
He told his people that another prophet would be coming. Well, when the church wanted CHRISTIANITY to be the IT religion, it took out any traces that Christianity isn't the final religion.
Anywhere in the OT or NT saying that this book will never change? That it's a "read-only-file"? No. Were they changed? Yes.
The Quran says, many many times, THIS BOOK WILL NOT CHANGE. God (I won't say Allah just for the sake of linguistic misunderstandings) has said that he has "locked" the Quran and that it won't change. I can pick up a Quran from the bookshelf twenty feet away from me and compare it to a seventh century Quran, and it will be the exact same scripture, per letter.
And that would be where? Buried 500 feet below the ground in some field in Israel?
If I wanted the original Islamic scripture I have to take the tremendous journey of venturing over to my living room, twenty feet away.
BTW the original Islamic scripture also happens to be the THE Islamic scripture.
If you hand me a copy of the OT how do you plan to prove to me that it is the original? I can take my 21st century copy of the Quran and compare it to a 7th century copy of the Quran and it'll be the same exact thing.
Last edited by HalfBloodPrince on Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
The Pope is the only person with access (and his right hand man, whatever his title is called...you know, the guy from Angels and Demons
) to the ORIGINAL Bible, in its unchanged form.
Why doesn't he release it? I can answer that; the coming of Muhammad is prophecised (bare with my spelling) in it, because Jesus was "ended" before the mission was fully complete. My "end" to Jesus is him being raised up by God before crucification.
He told his people that another prophet would be coming. Well, when the church wanted CHRISTIANITY to be the IT religion, it took out any traces that Christianity isn't the final religion.
Anywhere in the OT or NT saying that this book will never change? That it's a "read-only-file"? No. Were they changed? Yes.
The Quran says, many many times, THIS BOOK WILL NOT CHANGE. God (I won't say Allah just for the sake of linguistic misunderstandings) has said that he has "locked" the Quran and that it won't change. I can pick up a Quran from the bookshelf twenty feet away from me and compare it to a seventh century Quran, and it will be the exact same scripture, per letter.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well if the OT was correct then why do we need the Quran? Why not just become a Jew and stick to the original scripture? |
And that would be where? Buried 500 feet below the ground in some field in Israel?
If I wanted the original Islamic scripture I have to take the tremendous journey of venturing over to my living room, twenty feet away.
BTW the original Islamic scripture also happens to be the THE Islamic scripture.
If you hand me a copy of the OT how do you plan to prove to me that it is the original? I can take my 21st century copy of the Quran and compare it to a 7th century copy of the Quran and it'll be the same exact thing.
Last edited by HalfBloodPrince on Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Besides differences in the OT, the coming of the Messiah was already prophecised (sp?) in the OT. |
| Quote: |
| The Pope is the only person with access (and his right hand man, whatever his title is called...you know, the guy from Angels and Demons ) to the ORIGINAL Bible, in its unchanged form. |
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/scribeswritingoldtestament.php
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
By Bible I mean NT. Also check the update I made in prev. post.
So you say there are no original OT's left. Then how do I follow original Judaism?
If every copy of the Quran on Earth were to disappear today, within the week it'd be back. Why? Because, as I said, the Quran is the one book on Earth God has let the human brain be able to fully, per syllable, memorize. I have friends, modern ones yes, to whom I can say "what was sura (chapter) 6 verse 5 about?" they'll think a bit and they'll tell me.
If every copy of the Quran on Earth were to disappear today, within the week it'd be back. Why? Because, as I said, the Quran is the one book on Earth God has let the human brain be able to fully, per syllable, memorize. I have friends, modern ones yes, to whom I can say "what was sura (chapter) 6 verse 5 about?" they'll think a bit and they'll tell me.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| By Bible I mean NT. Also check the update I made in prev. post. |
But the NT is not the bible is it? The fact remains that there are no surviving copies of the original OT in existence and neither were there when the Quran was written. Since the Quran relies heavily on the OT then any inaccuracies in copies of the Tanakh are bound to be reflected in the Quran.
Are you forgetting that the Quran is straight from God's mouth? Not a revised version of OT or NT.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Are you forgetting that the Quran is straight from God's mouth? Not a revised version of OT or NT. |
Well that just comes down to your personal beliefs...and I'm not getting into a God debate. I need to sleep.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| When the Bible first came down it had nothing about Jesus being the son of God.
Jesus even denied it; after corruptions and fabrications were added in by power-hungry priests at the time, well a lot got changed. |
True, more or less. And true, more or less.
It is a fallacy to believe the Christianity has "pure" origins. In reality, it is a religion cobbled together from dozens of cults. Some of those cults said Jesus was divine, some said he was not. Some said Mary (Magdalene) was divine, some said John (the baptist) was, and so on. You can see evidence of this plain as day in the current version of the New Testament. Both Peter and Paul in their letters write that all of the other cults were wrong and theirs was right. If there was only one source for Christianity... this doesn't seem very likely to have happened.
When the New Testament was formally canonized, the church leaders deliberately and systematically selected texts that supported the idea of a divine Jesus, and rejected any that suggested he was human. But... there are still clues that slipped by, if you look closely. Some texts that were widely accepted - for example, Shepard of Hermas - were tossed out because they didn't fit the bill.
And yes, in some of the texts, Jesus did deny being explicitly divine. (Again, remember that there were dozens of Jesus cults at the time, some saying he was divine. Those who thought that was wrong wrote their texts to explicitly deny the claim.)
The only problem is this "when it first came down" idea. It never "first came down". It was slapped together by fitting together the texts and beliefs of dozens of cults - including some that don't quite mesh well (which lead to some of the contradictions found in the New Testament - for example, is salvation possible by faith alone? some books say yes, some say no). Unlike Islam, Christianity did not start in one place, under one person or group. The first formal canonization of Christianity was hundreds of years after these cults, and it put together (as best as they could) what all these cults had.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Kneeling before the cross? Praying to the cross? Wouldn't that be called idol-worshiping? Yes.
In Islam nothing of this sort happens; relics are not allowed. The only thing that might even be called close to a "relic" is the sacred black stone on the Kaba, which has been on the Kaba since even before the time of Abraham (Ibrahim). |
Bullshit.
Christians do not "pray to the cross". They pray to Jesus (or God, or Mary, depending). No one prays to the cross, and it is a blatant lie to claim they do. The cross is an image representing Jesus, nothing more. It is no more or less sacred than the image of Muhammad or a copy of the Qur'an.
Yeah, you read that right. i am calling your bluff. If Islam has nothing sacred, then take your copy of the Qur'an, go to the bathroom, and wipe your ass with its pages. If you can't do that, try to tell me again that Islam has no sacred "relics".
You don't pray to the Qur'an, and Christians don't pray to the cross - but both are holy icons, or sacred images or relics, whatever you want to call them.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What does a relic do? Think of the Holy Shroud of Turn, which supposedly bears the image of Christ. People pray to it. Can a cloth with a ripple in it from touching a man's face do for you what God can? No. |
There are not that many Christians who believe the Shroud of Turin is real. You are judging the majority based on the actions and beliefs of a very small minority. Would you like me to do the same for Islam? Because it won't be pretty.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Relics can't do anything for you! They just cause greed, hatred, and killing! |
How true.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Why was there need for Jesus and his New Testament? After all, what Moses told his people was perfectly correct. |
Including all the stuff about slavery, of course. Right?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What Jesus and his book told the people was also perfectly correct...until what people did to it. They changed and corrupted it. |
That is highly debatable, and inconsistent with what we know about history. If Jesus was real, then what what he "told the people" was apparently different depending on who he told it to. Because by the middle of the first century, there were already dozens of Jesus cults.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Funny how the Quran is still the same. |
What is funny is that you should know better.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| No, that's not really true. The Tanakh is probably pretty much as written. There are major differences in versions of the NT, for sure. |
False. The Tanakh is every bit as sketchy as the New Testament... and the Qur'an.
It is widely held today that the Tanakh was finally canonized after the destruction of the temple in ~70 CE. You probably meant the Torah - yes, that is probably around 2500 years old, counting from when it was canonized. But the Tanakh was not canonized until much later - some scholars believe Josephus canonized it, more or less (not officially, but he published his version, and it became the version).
Here's an interesting tidbit. Jews do not use the same version of the Tanakh that appears in Christian texts as the Old Testament (but, again, because the Tanakh was canonized after the Christan texts were being collected, there are some difference in the OT between various Christian groups - see here). But what's really interesting... when the Dead Sea Scrolls were dug up, it was found that the oldest copies of the Tanakh are more in line with the Christian version, not the Jewish version. (There is a good reason for this - the Christian versions all came from a single source, more or less - the Septuagint, which was translated long before the Tanakh was canonized. When the Tanakh was finally canonized later, changes had been made that were not in the Septuagint - which means the Septuagint is more authoritative than the Tanakh rabbis carry around. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved this, showing that the Septuagint is closer to the oldest versions than the MT text that Jews use.)
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| The Pope is the only person with access (and his right hand man, whatever his title is called...you know, the guy from Angels and Demons ) to the ORIGINAL Bible, in its unchanged form. |
Using Angels and Demons as a source. ^_^;
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Why doesn't he release it? I can answer that; the coming of Muhammad is prophecised (bare with my spelling) in it, because Jesus was "ended" before the mission was fully complete. My "end" to Jesus is him being raised up by God before crucification. |
i can answer it, too. He doesn't release it because some monk a thousand years ago drew dirty pictures in the margins.
Or, how about this, he doesn't release it because it contains a passage that says "don't release it".
Or...
Making up conspiracy theories is easy. Finding facts is hard. If the Pope actually possessed a real "original" copy of any part of the Bible - assuming that it was still in one piece after all these millenia - and that "original" copy said anything that might be damaging to the Pope and/or the Vatican, it would have certainly been leaked within the two thousand years since. There has been so much strife in the Roman Catholic church - anti-popes, heretics deep in the ranks - that someone somehow would have figured out a way to leak it reliably.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| He told his people that another prophet would be coming. Well, when the church wanted CHRISTIANITY to be the IT religion, it took out any traces that Christianity isn't the final religion. |
If that were true, then the numerous findings we have made of texts not controlled by the Vatican (for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls) would have revealed it. Not to mention that writers back in the day who were opposed to Christianity would have shouted loudly about it - before there was any church to object.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Anywhere in the OT or NT saying that this book will never change? That it's a "read-only-file"? No. Were they changed? Yes. |
Actually, there are places that claim is made, more or less.
But the claim is quite explicit in the Qur'an, and we know that has been changed... so... what?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| The Quran says, many many times, THIS BOOK WILL NOT CHANGE. God (I won't say Allah just for the sake of linguistic misunderstandings) has said that he has "locked" the Quran and that it won't change. I can pick up a Quran from the bookshelf twenty feet away from me and compare it to a seventh century Quran, and it will be the exact same scripture, per letter. |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| If you hand me a copy of the OT how do you plan to prove to me that it is the original? I can take my 21st century copy of the Quran and compare it to a 7th century copy of the Quran and it'll be the same exact thing. |
No. It won't. ^_^;
In my faith that i believe, this is how we define a true religion:
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
James 1:26-27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
James 1:26-27
| Indi wrote: | ||
False. The Tanakh is every bit as sketchy as the New Testament... and the Qur'an. |
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
|
Yeah, i figured - i'm sloppy about Tanakh/Torah, too.
Although, you know, the only thing that "saves" the Torah is that it's so old that we don't have historical records from the time of its formation. However, there are indications in the text itself that it was cobbled together from various sources (the two creation myths in Genesis, for example). i'm sure if we did have existing evidence from that period, we would find the Torah has as nebulous and murky a past as the New Testament and the Qur'an.
How is the Quran's history murky and nebulous? It's been made pretty clear; even the order of revealing suras is known, how long it took, etc...
are there any old history that is not murky and nebulous?
i don't care whether a belief system's source is valid or proven with historical facts, what matters is the effect the said belief system can currently cause in the society. If it is beneficial or inhuman. And as for now, there are no religion that qualifies as humane.
i don't care whether a belief system's source is valid or proven with historical facts, what matters is the effect the said belief system can currently cause in the society. If it is beneficial or inhuman. And as for now, there are no religion that qualifies as humane.
Obviously Christianity...The religion to which i belongs to appeals to me the most....Following Christ the real saviour of world... 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| How is the Quran's history murky and nebulous? It's been made pretty clear; even the order of revealing suras is known, how long it took, etc... |
No, it hasn't. You didn't read that link i posted, did you?
On a purely intellectual level, I'm agnostic. But I lean towards atheism in terms of what I want to believe and what I see as being true. At least the vast majority of religions seem to be works of fiction taken too seriously. Scientology being a recent, but valid, example of that.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
|
The modern-day Christianity has, sorry to say, become a sub-polytheist religion. What is a trinity believer? One that believes that THREE beings make up the ONE God. |
What makes you think that polytheism is in any sense inferior to monotheism? Is it just the fact that you personally subscribe to a monotheistic religion? That just looks like "my religion is better than yours" whining.
| Quote: |
| Kneeling before the cross? Praying to the cross? Wouldn't that be called idol-worshiping? Yes. |
Christians don't pray to the cross.
| Quote: |
| In Islam nothing of this sort happens; relics are not allowed. The only thing that might even be called close to a "relic" is the sacred black stone on the Kaba, which has been on the Kaba since even before the time of Abraham (Ibrahim). |
Oh right, in Islam, relics are banned except for the ones that are not. That sounds rational.
| Quote: |
| What does a relic do? Think of the Holy Shroud of Turn, which supposedly bears the image of Christ. People pray to it. Can a cloth with a ripple in it from touching a man's face do for you what God can? No. |
Nobody except you seems to think the Shroud of Turin can do what God can.
| Quote: |
| We Muslims have, in museums, clothes belonging to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), do we worship them? No. They are pieces of cloth that touched the skin of a man given miracles from God. We even know of his grave, I've visited it, but no one will be praying to it. |
Christians don't worship their relics either.
| Quote: |
| What makes praying to a cloth that |
Who do you know who prays to a piece of cloth?
You are really keen on straw men. I suggest you learn something about Christianity before you make wild untrue assertions about it again.
 |