# Religion thread... with a catch



## qqwref (Mar 25, 2010)

Here's the catch. For this thread we will assume these two things:
- God (i.e. some supernatural, immortal being) exists.
- God created the Earth.
The background is that some kind of evidence has popped up that proved these two things but nothing else. So we still don't know about heaven/hell, which holy book is correct, how many deities there are, whether God created the universe itself, etc.

Alright, so, now that we've gotten the unprovable part proved... convince me your religion is the right one  Or at least try to make a good argument that other religions aren't. I hope this will lead to some interesting debate.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 25, 2010)

Thou canst not deny his divine influence. Repent.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Mar 25, 2010)

So the flaming will now switch from Religion<->Atheists to flamewars between different religions?


----------



## Feryll (Mar 25, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> So the flaming will now switch from Religion<->Atheists to flamewars between different religions?



Yes, I can see this thread never leaving the front page of the speedsolving forum.


----------



## LarsN (Mar 25, 2010)

I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.

For religious people your setup doesn't change anything.


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

LarsN said:


> I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.
> 
> For religious people your setup doesn't change anything.


If? You can deny anything if you try hard enough. Here's an example:
""Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."" -Richard Dawkins ימח שמו
So the universe created itself? At some point, you have to be able to stop asking, "So who created this?". That point only comes when you can go beyond our pitiful "reasoning", "logic", and "laws of nature". In other words, there must be a supernatural being somewhere.
NOTE: The above is my opinion. If you flame me, you need a life. Reasoned arguments are welcome, though.
Yerachmiel


----------



## James Ludlow (Mar 25, 2010)

Because we are too vain to admit that we are about as significant as a goldfish.

Why Religion was invented.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Mar 25, 2010)

Worst thread I've seen so far.

Religion is not about: "My religion is the best, all the others are stupid religions."


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 25, 2010)

LarsN said:


> I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.



If somehow this situation happens, I don't think that atheists would have a hard time starting to worship this higher power, if they also knew that there was a heaven/hell or something similar.








jamesdeanludlow said:


> Because we are too vain to admit that we are about as significant as a goldfish.
> 
> Why Religion was invented.


----------



## LarsN (Mar 25, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> LarsN said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.
> ...



I was stating my opinion on the thread topic, not if I think God exist or not.

I agree with you that no matter what kind of evidence is produced there will always be some who denies it.


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 25, 2010)

Warning: you may be offended



Spoiler



I hate all religions, always have done, and always will do.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 25, 2010)

Then you're as bad as you think they are. Intolerance is humanities biggest flaw.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 25, 2010)




----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

*Go back to school.*

There's more to it than that, Aron. Go learn something before you comment.


Spoiler



I apologize if you're just posting those but don't believe them, otherwise the above still applies.


Yerachmiel


----------



## Tortin (Mar 25, 2010)

LarsN said:


> I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.
> 
> For religious people your setup doesn't change anything.



I think that there's a difference between knowing he exists, and actually worshiping him. For me, IF the Christian god was ever proved, I still would not worship him, even though I would accept his existence.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 25, 2010)

Tortin said:


> I think that there's a difference between knowing he exists, and actually worshiping him. For me, IF the Christian god was ever proved, I still would not worship him, even though I would accept his existence.



Even if you were 100% sure that you would go to the 'hell' as described in religious texts if you didn't?


----------



## aronpm (Mar 25, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> There's more to it than that, Aron. Go learn something before you comment.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



First of all, you don't need to tell me to go to school. I'll be leaving in 35 minutes (for school, wow.)

Secondly, please elaborate. That comic strip makes such a leap of logic that even a Christian forum admits that it's funny.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 25, 2010)

'Who' made the universe is the wrong way to go about it. We should be asking 'What' and 'How'.

Religions as a whole all bear a striking resemblance to what George Orwell describes in his book Nineteen Eighty-four, the way they all worship something that nobody has ever seen in person, but still has immense influence over the masses.



aronpm said:


> logic.



Lol.


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

aronpm said:


> yboy403 said:
> 
> 
> > There's more to it than that, Aron. Go learn something before you comment.
> ...


So do I. Misrepresentations of the truth are often funny. I was just commenting on your personal opinion as indicated by the fact that you posted them. Again, if it's not your opinion, just a joke, then I apologize and I'll delete that post.
Thanks,
Yerachmiel


----------



## RyanO (Mar 25, 2010)

If it was proved only that God exists and created the Earth, you still couldn't prove anything about God's actual characteristics. We'd be just as clueless as we are now.


----------



## Tortin (Mar 25, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > I think that there's a difference between knowing he exists, and actually worshiping him. For me, IF the Christian god was ever proved, I still would not worship him, even though I would accept his existence.
> ...



Yes. I can't make myself worship something/someone that I don't agree (sorry, I know that's not the best word) with morally. People should worship god because they want (also not really the best word for what I'm trying no communicate) to, not because they were scared and bullied into it.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 25, 2010)

Have you heard the recent news that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found? The _original scrolls_?
Take that, biatch.
I'mma see them soon at Bayside Church in Roseville. I'mma post a video of it.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 25, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> Have you heard the recent news that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found? The _original scrolls_?
> Take that, biatch.
> I'mma see them soon at Bayside Church in Roseville. I'mma post a video of it.



Have you heard the recent news that the K-T Boundary was found? The _evidence of the extinction of the dinosaurs_?
Take that biatch.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered between 1947 and 1956. That's over half a century ago, not recent at all.


----------



## lilkdub503 (Mar 25, 2010)

NO NO NO NO.

Are you trying to solicit ignorance qq? Now, I have a religion, and I hold it to be true. But I will not say someone else's religion is incorrect, mostly because in monotheistic religions the existence (or non-existence) of prophets is universal, the only split is who that prophet is.

So why would you try to get people to flame other people's most precious beliefs? I have temporarily lost much respect for you.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 25, 2010)

I have a B.A. in philosophy so this thread is gonna be quite a laugh for me. I especially like how Michael posed the question. I find it very unlikely that anyone will come up with a logically convincing answer as to why one religion should be believed over another given the premises.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 25, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Yes. I can't make myself worship something/someone that I don't agree (sorry, I know that's not the best word) with morally. People should worship god because they want (also not really the best word for what I'm trying no communicate) to, not because they were scared and bullied into it.



So you'd rather spend eternity in hell than what, ~3/4 of a lifetime worshiping something?

Meh, it's your choice.


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

RyanO said:


> If it was proved only that God exists and created the Earth, you still couldn't prove anything about God's actual characteristics. We'd be just as clueless as we are now.


Exactly, which is why most religions have a holy book, where G-d tells us things we could never figure out or understand ourselves.
Yerachmiel


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

Slowpoke22 said:


> I have a B.A. in philosophy so this thread is gonna be quite a laugh for me. I especially like how Michael posed the question. I find it very unlikely that anyone will come up with a logically convincing answer as to why one religion should be believed over another given the premises.



Logic has almost nothing to do with religion. G-d is beyond logic, because otherwise how could a supernatural being exist? Logic is a human invention, based on our experiences on Earth. Oh, and by the way, so does my mother, and she was actually raised non-religious and became a religious Jew later in life. My father and my stepfather also both converted from Unitarianism and Roman Catholicism. The more about the world you actually understand, the less likely you are to be a true atheist. The most you'll get is being an avowed atheist with serious doubts.
Yerachmiel


----------



## blade740 (Mar 25, 2010)

You don't need to worship your whole life. Just repent before you die.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 25, 2010)

@yboy403: Please turn your computer off...


----------



## Tortin (Mar 25, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I can't make myself worship something/someone that I don't agree (sorry, I know that's not the best word) with morally. People should worship god because they want (also not really the best word for what I'm trying no communicate) to, not because they were scared and bullied into it.
> ...



I won't (and can't) worship something that I don't believe in morally, no matter how hard I try. It's like I how can't force myself to worship Hitler. Can you? (Not that I'm comparing Hitler with god or anything.)


----------



## Dene (Mar 25, 2010)

Clearly my religion is the correct one. Why? Because I believe in it. You're all convinced now, yes?


----------



## Johan444 (Mar 25, 2010)

Back in the old days, some people worshipped a thunder God just because they did not know anything about lightning.

Now we know why thunderstorms appear and now we do not belive in a thunder God.


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

blade740 said:


> You don't need to worship your whole life. Just repent before you die.


:confused: Is that considered true repentance then? One major principle, of Judaism at least, is that there's always something missing if you sin with the intent to repent later.





aronpm said:


> @yboy403: Please turn your computer off...


aronpm: :fp I don't think that counts as a reasonable reply. I know it's a controversial subject, and I don't think it belongs on a speedcubing forum, but as long as it's here try and think before you post. If your next post is anything similar, I'll just ignore it.

Yerachmiel


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 25, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> Slowpoke22 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a B.A. in philosophy so this thread is gonna be quite a laugh for me. I especially like how Michael posed the question. I find it very unlikely that anyone will come up with a logically convincing answer as to why one religion should be believed over another given the premises.
> ...



Religion is a human invention, obviously. What made your parents convert to those specific sects of religion opposed to something else? Why not believe in Greek gods instead?


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Back in the old days, some people worshipped a thunder God just because they did not know anything about lightning.
> 
> Now we know why thunderstorms appear and now we do not belive in a thunder God.


Actually, I believe some people still do. Just because we know _how_ something happens doesn't men we know _why_ it happens.



Tortin said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > Tortin said:
> ...



No, you're right. You shouldn't follow a religion blindly. As long as you're open minded, your religious practices or lack thereof don't matter.
Yerachmiel


----------



## aronpm (Mar 25, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the old days, some people worshipped a thunder God just because they did not know anything about lightning.
> ...


Johan has a very good point. Religion was created first as an explanation to things that they could not explain at the time. Fire, for example, was magical. Then other natural occurrences were magical: lightning, gravity, rain, etc.

We now have very good explanations for all of those things (with the exception of gravity. That is the why people are working on string theory and quantum gravity.) So why does religion still exist? Power


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 25, 2010)

Remember when the Catholics condemned Galileo for his belief in heliocentrism? lol


----------



## RyanO (Mar 25, 2010)

God's existance doesn't imply that any religion is true. If God's existance were proven I still wouldn't follow an organized religion. Many religions are exclusive, condemning followers of other religions to eternal torment. If one of these religions is the 'one true religion,' then it seems to me God is a bad guy. I don't like the idea of God being a bad guy, so I reject organized religion.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 25, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Many religions are exclusive, condemning followers of other religions to eternal torment. If one of these religions is the 'one true religion,' then it seems to me God is a bad guy. I don't like the idea of God being a bad guy, so I reject organized religion.



I'm not following this logic. Let's say a person (aka God) tells people directions on how to get to his house (aka Heaven). Now, some people decide that there is a different way to get to his house (and don't be pedantic and say, "You could turn a block earlier and then drive up a block." Think of a maze with no loops), but that doesn't get to his house. The first group says, "No, you're not going to get to his house unless you follow these directions." You're saying that the person is a bad guy because of this?


----------



## qqwref (Mar 25, 2010)

Yes said:


> Religion is not about: "My religion is the best, all the others are stupid religions."


Maybe, but there are plenty of religions out there that specifically preach that they are the one correct religion and that the others are all wrong. I'm just wondering how one comes to that conclusion. If you spend your life believing in a specific organized religion, it's not too unreasonable to ask "why that one?".

I'm not asking for flaming, anyway. I think this could potentially lead to some interesting discussion; I know that if I ever started believing in God I'd be completely at a loss to choose which religion to follow.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 25, 2010)

By believing in one particular religion, you're essentially believing that the rest are false, or at least "less true" than the one you believe in, and this is entirely a "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" requires quite a large degree of blind acceptance/ignorance.


----------



## Kian (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 25, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > I won't (and can't) worship something that I don't believe in morally, no matter how hard I try. It's like I how can't force myself to worship Hitler. Can you? (Not that I'm comparing Hitler with god or anything.)
> ...



We weren't even talking about religion at this point(religion involves believing in something, the situation we were discussing would involve _knowing_), but ok then.


----------



## adimare (Mar 25, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Or at least try to make a good argument that other religions aren't. I hope this will lead to some interesting debate.



Alright, I choose all religions that believe that we have free will and that their God is all-knowing. Assuming that both of these ideas are correct, think of this scenario:

You ask your all-knowing God what your precise actions in the next five minutes are going to be. Will he be able to answer this question precisely? If he does answer it, are you able to do otherwise? For the sake of argument, lets say he tells you that you're going solve a Rubik's cube 7 times.

If you can choose not to solve the Rubik's cube 7 times, then God is not all knowing.
If you can't avoid solving the cube 7 times, then you don't have free will.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 25, 2010)

adimare said:


> You ask your all-knowing God what your precise actions in the next five minutes are going to be. Will he be able to answer this question precisely? If he does answer it, are you able to do otherwise? For the sake of argument, lets say he tells you that you're going solve a Rubik's cube 7 times.
> 
> If you can choose not to solve the Rubik's cube 7 times, then God is not all knowing.
> If you can't avoid solving the cube 7 times, then you don't have free will.



Just because he's all knowing doesn't mean he has to tell you.


----------



## RyanO (Mar 25, 2010)

Bryan said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Many religions are exclusive, condemning followers of other religions to eternal torment. If one of these religions is the 'one true religion,' then it seems to me God is a bad guy. I don't like the idea of God being a bad guy, so I reject organized religion.
> ...



Let me elaborate. I'll use Christianity as an example as it's the religion most people on this forum are most familiar with.

Most people don't belive that Jesus died to save everyone's sins. If this belief is the requirement to avoid eternal torture, then, in my opinion, God is evil. God created us and knows what we are reasonably capable of. Why would he make such an arbitrary requirement in order to escape eternal torment?

Some Christians will argue that God shows himself to us, so if we don't believe in him we are rejecting his love and deserve punishment. Obviously the Christian God isn't doing a very good job of showing himself, since most people don't believe in Jesus' divinity. Why make it so hard to find the truth when getting it wrong means eternal damnation? Why would God deliver his divine word in almost exactly the same format as all of the false religions? The Christian God clearly gets a kick out of torturing people.

Depending on where you are born and raised, the probabilty of becoming a Christian may be incredibly small. Does God make it harder for these people to find him because of intolerance? Is God a racist?

Imagine a person who kills everyone that doesn't ackowledge his importance. The Christian God is worse than that. The Christian God allows people who worship God but have a few details wrong to suffer eternal excruciating pain. The vanity of the Christian God is appauling.

I hope this clears up why I think exclusive religions worship evil Gods.

EDIT*

I'm not trying to say that Christians are evil, I have nothing against people with different beliefs. However, I have a big problem with the God they worship.


----------



## adimare (Mar 25, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Just because he's all knowing doesn't mean he has to tell you.



Oh, so what you're saying is that he can't tell me?


----------



## ianini (Mar 25, 2010)

My avatar says my religion.


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> yboy403 said:
> 
> 
> > Tortin said:
> ...



He used the words "believe in" and "worship". How is that not talking about religion?


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 25, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard the recent news that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found? The _original scrolls_?
> ...



Lol, I should have researched the Dead Sea Scrolls before I posted.
Cool.
You can't really deny the evidence the Scrolls provide. A lot of people before said that they didn't exist. When they were found, I think they were .


----------



## yboy403 (Mar 25, 2010)

*Bye*

I'm getting out of this thread before it gets nasty. Have fun, guys. 
Yerachmiel


Spoiler



✡ Jew till the end ✡​


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 25, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> I'm getting out of this thread before it gets nasty. Have fun, guys.
> Yerachmiel
> 
> 
> ...



Me too.



Spoiler



Christian to teh END


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 26, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Obviously the Christian God isn't doing a very good job of showing himself, since most people don't believe in Jesus' divinity.



the belief in Jesus' divinity is the basis for the entire Christian religion. Without you are just Jewish.


----------



## Drax (Mar 26, 2010)

This thread is bound for arguments and illogical debating.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 26, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I know that if I ever started believing in God I'd be completely at a loss to choose which religion to follow.



Well therein lies your problem- you assume that you need a religion in order to believe in a god. I think religion is the single greatest enemy of faith.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 26, 2010)

It's kinda tricky to believe in a god without a religion, is it not? Usually a religion seems to define its god in some manner or another, attributing to it various omnipotent qualities. God likes when people do this, He hates when you do this, by doing such-and-such you're rewarded, by such-and-such you're severely punished for eternity, etc. To the extent one agrees with a religious doctrine people can unite and share the same "morals". Perhaps that's a positive outcome, but with holy wars and extremism and whatnot, I'm not so sure. At the very least, where does this God get off demanding us to acknowledge and worship His presence without any evidence? Intuitively, for my entire life, the concept of God has been incredulous.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 26, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I know that if I ever started believing in God I'd be completely at a loss to choose which religion to follow.
> ...



Philosophy, science, etc is more of an enemy to religion than faith. Faith is an absolutely necessary component of religion.


----------



## Escher (Mar 26, 2010)

Slowpoke22 said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



I don't really understand how we got from talking about religion being an enemy of faith to faith being an enemy of religion.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 26, 2010)

Slowpoke22 said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



not at all. Faith is what one individual believes about certain things. Religion forces you to believe something that someone else tells you, which then can be attacked by science, philosophy, etc. Having faith on a personal level in what you believe in cannot be so blatantly opposed.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 26, 2010)

I didn't mean to suggest that faith is an enemy of religion, but that religion basically IS faith.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 26, 2010)

Religion creates a doctrine. As is well evidenced by every discussion about religion EVER on the internet, people hate being told what to believe. It is sometimes, more controversially said, that independent thought is the greatest enemy of religion. Not saying that thinking independently will make you an atheist, but that it will cause you to ask questions like qq's.

The long and short of it is, people don't like being told what to do. People don't like being told they can't have sex before marriage, or they can't eat pork/beef/shellfish/etc, or they have to tithe, etc. All the "can'ts" push people away from religion, and since religion is subconsciously bound with faith, it causes them to push their faith away as well.

I don't need a book or a preacher to tell me what is right or wrong, or what to believe. My faith is a matter between myself and whatever supreme being there might be. No mortal, fallible being can tell me that they know what is right.



Slowpoke22 said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that faith is an enemy of religion, but that religion basically IS faith.



lolno. You seem to have fallen into the same trap I talk about above. I wouldn't agree that religion is faith, more that it just _needs_ faith to work. But faith doesn't need religion.


----------



## Escher (Mar 26, 2010)

Slowpoke22 said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that faith is an enemy of religion, but that religion basically IS faith.



Not at all; 
It's possible to believe in God and not believe in any religion. 

It's also possible to follow a religion but not believe in God (a local church of mine is extremely liberal and many people there don't feel comfortable saying 'I believe in God', yet they follow Jesus' teachings, follow Eucharistic ritual and interpret the Bible like any other church).

The two are definitely seperable entities.

EDIT: David post is win


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 26, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> I wouldn't agree that religion is faith, more that it just _needs_ faith to work. But faith doesn't need religion.





Escher said:


> It's also possible to follow a religion but not believe in God (a local church of mine is extremely liberal and many people there don't feel comfortable saying 'I believe in God', yet they follow Jesus' teachings, follow Eucharistic ritual and interpret the Bible like any other church).



That's more what I meant to say, but couldn't find the words. You can be both religious and faithless, just as you can be without religion and still have faith.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Mar 26, 2010)

Faith is something I don't really understand, to be honest. It just seems to me that to accept religious doctrines you need to have faith that they are true, or at least some ability to trick yourself into thinking so. I also don't see how you can be religious without having faith.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 26, 2010)

Slowpoke22 said:


> or at least some ability to trick yourself into thinking so. I also don't see how you can be religious without having faith.



I think you just answered yourself there 

The difficult part is knowing whether you actually have faith or are just tricking yourself.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 26, 2010)

cmowla said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > the belief in Jesus' divinity is the basis for the entire Christian religion. Without you are just Jewish.
> ...



They have distanced themselves from the Jewish traditions because of what Jesus said. The only reason the religion exists is because people believed Jesus was the son of God and listened to what he said. Regardless, you still can't be Christian and not believe that Jesus was the son of God. That just doesn't work.


----------



## RyanO (Mar 26, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously the Christian God isn't doing a very good job of showing himself, since most people don't believe in Jesus' divinity.
> ...



You're missing my point. I wasn't claiming that most Christians disbelive Jesus' divinity. I was saying most people disbelieve Jesus' divinity. Only a little over 2 billion people identify themselves as Christians, not even close to a majority. If Christians are right about the requirements for heaven/hell then this means bad news for a lot of folks. The Christian God's way of showing himself doesn't work. Either God is incompetent or God actually wants most people to suffer.


----------



## skarian (Mar 26, 2010)

Just wanted to add my thoughts to why i think there is a supernatural creator of the universe.

There is a supernatural creator of the universe. Logically, there are only two possible ways the universe was formed, it was either created, or it created itself. Most people believe the universe was formed by either formed by a creator or through the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory could not logically substantiate the intelligence put into the creation of the universe, but having an intelligent creator does explain the intelligence within the universe. Let us begin by analyzing the Big Bang Theory.
Now let us take a glance at the Big Bang Theory. This theory can be easily disproved. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe started as light, which then created hydrogen atoms, which created the elements, which created molecules, which created living cells, which created Multi-cellular life, which created compound Biological systems. This process is not even possible. As you have just heard, the Big Bang Theory stated that the hydrogen molecules (that were created by light) created the elements. How is this possible? This hydrogen atom is merely a proton. As we should know, protons all have a positive charge. The same charge would not attract, therefore more complex elements would never have formed. Let us also look at the probability that time and chance could have formed the universe. If you have a deck of cards and you throw it from the top of a building, what are the chances that it will form into…well…anything useful? How many times would you need to throw those cards down there? Now lets say you walk down there and actually construct something useful from those cards. If someone walks by, they would not begin to think, “wow those cards must have flown down here and made this structure.” No!! That person would recognize that intelligent design was put into its creation. Now how can any rational person even begin to believe that the whole universe was constructed with mere chance and time? Also there is an issue with the element of time in this equation. Based on the Law of Half-Life, in a specific period of time, a substance will decrease in mass by half. It is estimated that the universe was formed 54 Billion years ago. Within this time frame, all the matter within the universe would have ceased to exist. 
Now I would like to explain to you scientific proof that there is a creator. The universe is composed of five main elements: Matter, Time, Space, Energy, and Reasoning Capabilities. Matter, Time, Space, and Energy can be described and explained within the confines of the universe. But what of, Reasoning Capabilities? At this very moment all of you are exhibiting a supernatural phenomena. You are reasoning the very words I am speaking. This is a Phenomenon not explainable within the universe. So where did it come from? How did it get here? When an artist paints a portrait, he might have a purpose for that, which is not visible within the portrait. It had to come from an outside source. The word supernatural means outside of what is natural. Whatever “thing” is outside of our universe must be supernatural by definition. All we know is that this creator displays the properties of power, intelligence, and a character. Therefore it is resolved that there is a supernatural creator of the universe.


that is all.....This came from a paper i turned in a few weeks ago...


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 26, 2010)

Ryan reminds me of an interesting logical contradiction. 

Hypothetical situation (Christian/Jewish can be replaced with any religions more or less):

I am a devout Christian. I marry a Jewish woman. She is the love of my life, the reason I wake up in the morning, I couldn't imagine a day without her. We both live lives free from sin. by what the Bible says I am on the path to Heaven, and she would be too except she doesn't accept Jesus as her savior. We both die suddenly in a car crash. She goes to hell, I go to heaven. Or do I?

How can heaven be perfect without my soul mate? How can I live in eternal bliss knowing that the only woman I will ever love is suffering in a pit a fire?

Logically, either heaven is imperfect/lies to you
OR 
perhaps the Holy Books of the world didn't get it exactly right. Even if they are the word of God, it is still the word of God that is *written by man*, thus making it fallible. 

Holy Books certainly have the message right: be a good person. It's when people get caught up in the details that I start having problems with religion.



skarian said:


> There is a supernatural creator of the universe. Logically, there are only two possible ways the universe was formed, it was either created, or it created itself. Most people believe the universe was formed by either formed by a creator or through the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory could not logically substantiate the intelligence put into the creation of the universe, but having an intelligent creator does explain the intelligence within the universe.



I hate this argument so much. Look, at *SOME POINT* there is a creation without a creator. You say that the universe is too complex to be formed without an intelligent creator, "God" if you will. Well gee, this God fellow sounds pretty complex/intelligent, I don't see how he could have formed with out an intelligent creator... and so on forever. You can't argue against the Big Bang because there is not creation without a creator, and then turn around and say you support _the exact thing you just tried to disprove._ You say hydrogen cannot possibly form from light, yet you claim that an all powerful creator could spring from nothingness? Why such gaping inconsistencies in your logic?


----------



## qqwref (Mar 26, 2010)

skarian's post is somewhat offtopic (lol), but:



skarian said:


> According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe started as light, which then created hydrogen atoms, which created the elements, which created molecules, which created living cells, which created Multi-cellular life, which created compound Biological systems.


That's not exactly what it says (straw man); the actual theory is far more complicated.


skarian said:


> This hydrogen atom is merely a proton. As we should know, protons all have a positive charge. The same charge would not attract, therefore more complex elements would never have formed.


The fusion process in stars is an example of this: less complex elements are combined together to create more complex ones. I think the main theory is that most of the larger elements in the universe were created in a similar process.


skarian said:


> Now how can any rational person even begin to believe that the whole universe was constructed with mere chance and time?


Nobody believes the universe was constructed "with mere chance and time". Most of the large-scale formations in the universe can be explained not by chance but by the rule that everything 'seeks' the lowest-energy situations. Mass tends to clump together because it's energetically favorable to be closer; stars use fusion because energy is produced from combining two atoms; molecules stay together because they are in a less energetic state than the sum of their component parts. And so on.


skarian said:


> Based on the Law of Half-Life, in a specific period of time, a substance will decrease in mass by half. It is estimated that the universe was formed 54 Billion years ago. Within this time frame, all the matter within the universe would have ceased to exist.


It's 13 billion years. Anyway, half-life only applies to radioactive atoms, and instead of "ceasing to exist" the atoms get turned into different, more stable atoms. For instance, Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, so if you took a million atoms and waited 700 million years half would be Uranium-235 and the other half would be Thorium-231 (not nothing). The most common isotopes you see in everyday life are stable (not radioactive). 


skarian said:


> The universe is composed of five main elements: Matter, Time, Space, Energy, and Reasoning Capabilities.


...what?


----------



## Zane_C (Mar 26, 2010)

qqwref said:


> skarian's post is somewhat offtopic (lol), but:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nicely done.


----------



## Edward (Mar 26, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Ryan reminds me of an interesting logical contradiction.
> 
> Hypothetical situation (Christian/Jewish can be replaced with any religions more or less):
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to prove anything, but I've learned that God has no beginning, as in he was not created, but he was there. Its something that is stated that the human mind cannot fathom...


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 26, 2010)

Edward said:


> I'm not trying to prove anything, but I've learned that God has no beginning, as in he was not created, but he was there. Its something that is stated that the human mind cannot fathom...



Well then if it is possible for God to always have been there, then why can't the universe always have been there? I'm not saying what you were taught is right or wrong, just that if you accept that one thing was created/has always been, then you have to accept it's possible that the other thing was also created/has always been.


----------



## Edward (Mar 26, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not trying to prove anything, but I've learned that God has no beginning, as in he was not created, but he was there. Its something that is stated that the human mind cannot fathom...
> ...



I personally like to believe that God has always been there, and one "day", he used the big bang to create the universe. I could be dead wrong, but its a good way to stay neutral.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 26, 2010)

skarian said:


> This theory can be easily disproved. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe started as light, which then created hydrogen atoms, which created the elements, which created molecules, which created living cells, which created Multi-cellular life, which created compound Biological systems. This process is not even possible.


Quite simply, you do not understand the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory says _nothing_ about how the universe was created. It only provides an extensive scientific theory of how the universe expanded.



> As you have just heard, the Big Bang Theory stated that the hydrogen molecules (that were created by light) created the elements. How is this possible? This hydrogen atom is merely a proton. As we should know, protons all have a positive charge. The same charge would not attract, therefore more complex elements would never have formed.


Have you ever heard of nuclear fusion? It's the process of atomic nuclei fusing to make larger elements. Here's an example of where it is happening: the sun!

Also, a hydrogen atom is not equal to a proton. A positively charged hydrogen atom is a proton, and that's if it's not deuterium. 



> Let us also look at the probability that time and chance could have formed the universe. If you have a deck of cards and you throw it from the top of a building, what are the chances that it will form into…well…anything useful? How many times would you need to throw those cards down there? Now lets say you walk down there and actually construct something useful from those cards. If someone walks by, they would not begin to think, “wow those cards must have flown down here and made this structure.” No!! That person would recognize that intelligent design was put into its creation. Now how can any rational person even begin to believe that the whole universe was constructed with mere chance and time?


Yes. Chance. Perhaps you fail to understand chance. There are approximately 10^21 stars in our universe. Now, imagine each star has a solar system like our own, but say, 4 planets. That means that there could be 4*10^21 planets in our universe. That is an incredibly large number.

Given a random planet, there is a very small chance that there will be complex organic molecules on it. Earth was extraordinarily lucky to have the right combination of elemental makeup, atmosphere, distance to the sun, and star type. Over the 4.34 billion years that the Earth has existed. Those complex organic molecules have evolved. I am not an expert in biology but I know that evolution is a proven fact. 



> Also there is an issue with the element of time in this equation. Based on the Law of Half-Life, in a specific period of time, a substance will decrease in mass by half. It is estimated that the universe was formed 54 Billion years ago. Within this time frame, all the matter within the universe would have ceased to exist.


54 billion years? Please identify your source. Current estimates put the age of the universe at around 13.73 billion years. 




> Now I would like to explain to you scientific proof that there is a creator. The universe is composed of five main elements: Matter, Time, Space, Energy, and Reasoning Capabilities.


LOL.



> Matter, Time, Space, and Energy can be described and explained within the confines of the universe. But what of, Reasoning Capabilities? At this very moment all of you are exhibiting a supernatural phenomena.


It's not supernatural. Reason capabilities arise because of extremely complicated electrochemical reactions in my brain.



> You are reasoning the very words I am speaking. This is a Phenomenon not explainable within the universe. So where did it come from? How did it get here? When an artist paints a portrait, he might have a purpose for that, which is not visible within the portrait. It had to come from an outside source. The word supernatural means outside of what is natural. Whatever “thing” is outside of our universe must be supernatural by definition. All we know is that this creator displays the properties of power, intelligence, and a character. Therefore it is resolved that there is a supernatural creator of the universe.


LOL. So we know that this creator has attributes, therefore he exists. Yeah, sure.

That is as dumb as the argument that the Bible is true because it says it's true, by the law of non-contradiction.



> that is all.....This came from a paper i turned in a few weeks ago...


I really hope that you get 0 marks for your paper.

I still think that perhaps you can learn some things about the universe. Go watch Carl Sagan's _Cosmos: A Personal Voyage_, and maybe you'll learn something (and get your facts straight at the same time)


----------



## Mitch15 (Mar 26, 2010)

Just a suggestion to anyone who happens to be reading this thread, regardless of your standing on anything in life:

Don't run from doubts, no matter how afraid of them you may be. The only way to ever find what you truly believe is to challenge your doubts, face them, debate them, and ultimately find whether they're worth taking seriously or not. If they are, maybe you should explore other ways of thinking until you stop doubting what you believe. Maybe only then can you be truly confident in your beliefs.

That being said, I think that it's the fear of being wrong that drives a lot of people to be intolerant. I think that when people are truly confident in what they believe, they have no reason to be intolerant. After all, what reason is there for intolerance other than fear?


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Mar 26, 2010)

Told y'all. What I didn't expect, however, is that it actually turned into the usual atheist-religion flamewar.

In all seriousness though, it's not called 'faith' for nothing. Stop trying to convert other people to your religion. Believe what you believe, nothing else.


----------



## Sin-H (Mar 26, 2010)

anthropic principle anyone? 

srsly, I don't try to convince anyone; in Middle Europe, people are not really religious anyway. I am a Christian because I was baptized and so on, that's it. If I had been raised with a different religion, I would have a different religion now, without wanting to change anything.

But I do believe in some "designer", or call it "god", if you will - not necessarily the god my Roman Catholic Church promotes.

It's hard for me to find an explanation to the fact that the laws of physics obviously tend to abet life [is that the right word, abet?] - a little bit of anthropic principle should be behind it. 
I know that you could just as well argue differently.

I know that I rather will not find out who or what this designer is, and I am okay with it. Therefore, I should be agnostic, but I don't want to turn away from faith completely.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 26, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > skarian's post is somewhat offtopic (lol), but:
> ...


High school chemistry and physics...


----------



## Ton (Mar 26, 2010)

qqwref said:


> convince me your religion is the right one .


The basic of my believe is based on love God and love your neighbors as yourself. I guess this is about it to show that this is the right one.


----------



## adimare (Mar 26, 2010)

adimare said:


> Alright, I choose all religions that believe that we have free will and that their God is all-knowing. Assuming that both of these ideas are correct, think of this scenario:
> 
> You ask your all-knowing God what your precise actions in the next five minutes are going to be. Will he be able to answer this question precisely? If he does answer it, are you able to do otherwise? For the sake of argument, lets say he tells you that you're going solve a Rubik's cube 7 times.
> 
> ...



Does anyone else want to try and find flaws in this argument?


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 26, 2010)

RyanO said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



It's faith. God doesn't show himself because He wants us to believe on our own, without any scientific proof or things like that. He doesn't want us to believe just because we _saw_ him.
There's plenty of evidence, like, maybe, _the HOLY BIBLE?!?!_


----------



## Dene (Mar 26, 2010)

adimare said:


> adimare said:
> 
> 
> > Alright, I choose all religions that believe that we have free will and that their God is all-knowing. Assuming that both of these ideas are correct, think of this scenario:
> ...



There are many ways to go about responding to this argument. It was something that was tackled by many people over the past 2000 years. Personally, I think that the main problem is the fact that you expect God to answer the question.


----------



## beingforitself (Mar 26, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> There's plenty of evidence, like, maybe, _the HOLY QUR'AN?!?!_



fixed


----------



## Rpotts (Mar 26, 2010)

if the holy bible is factual (old and new) then i can own nicaraguan slaves but not mexican or canadian slaves. I can also sell my daughter into slavery, murder those who touch pig's skin (football players?), murder homosexuals, the list goes on. 

tl;dr bible is fiction, written some 1500 years ago from stories that had been passed down (read: altered, embellished) for hundreds of years to explain away seemingly impossible phenomena (lightning, fire, weather, natural disasters, origin of life, etc)

lol my tl;dr is as long as the text itself.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 26, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> There's plenty of evidence, like, maybe, _the HOLY BIBLE?!?!_



See now, there's people who provide an in depth reasoning to their faith, who can debate religion quite well and pretty convincingly. Those are people I can respect and take seriously.

Then there's people like you, whose only argument is on the basis of, 'because the bible says so'.

Really, I'm not trying to be mean, but if that's all you're going to do, please just don't post.


----------



## Mastersonian (Mar 26, 2010)

lilkdub503 said:


> NO NO NO NO.
> 
> Are you trying to solicit ignorance qq? Now, I have a religion, and I hold it to be true. But I will not say someone else's religion is incorrect, mostly because in monotheistic religions the existence (or non-existence) of prophets is universal, the only split is who that prophet is.
> 
> So why would you try to get people to flame other people's most precious beliefs? I have temporarily lost much respect for you.



Exactly, God has no religion.

However, if there was one religion that was the true religion, it would have to be judaism. Why? The jewish people are his chosen people. (I am not Jewish, not biased)
A muslim may want to refute that, I actually don't know what the Qur'an says about that...


----------



## adimare (Mar 27, 2010)

Dene said:


> There are many ways to go about responding to this argument. It was something that was tackled by many people over the past 2000 years. Personally, I think that the main problem is the fact that you expect God to answer the question.



The fact that God knows exactly what you're going to do in those 5 minutes is enough to negate free will, how does him deciding not to tell you affect that?

Also, if we talk about a specific God, the Christian God has done this in the past:
But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Could Peter have avoided denying Christ thrice before the **** crowed?


----------



## rachmaninovian (Mar 27, 2010)

adimare said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > There are many ways to go about responding to this argument. It was something that was tackled by many people over the past 2000 years. Personally, I think that the main problem is the fact that you expect God to answer the question.
> ...



no.

Like a father knows what his child is going to do, God can know what a person is going to do. Let me illustrate with this example: A father asks a greedy child whether he wants chocolate icecream, or stones, as dessert. The father knows that the child would choose the chocolate icecream, but it is still up to the child to choose the whether he wants chocolate icecream. Of course if the stones were actually chocolate stones, it would be a different story xD


----------



## Dene (Mar 27, 2010)

adimare said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > There are many ways to go about responding to this argument. It was something that was tackled by many people over the past 2000 years. Personally, I think that the main problem is the fact that you expect God to answer the question.
> ...



The most convincing argument that I have seen regarding this problem is that God himself is "outside" of time, in that he can see all of time at all places at all times. As in, while he might technically be able to see where you would be at a time in the future, it wouldn't stop the fact that then and there you were doing it of your own free will.

I can't remember who gave this argument so I can't refer you sorry. Maybe it was Aquinas, but probably not.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 27, 2010)

We shouldn't really go into time shenanigans because it doesn't have much to do with religion. But anyway: you've got your timeline, and all the stuff that happens is a result of free will; it isn't determined *now*, but from a standpoint outside of time there's a specific progression of events. If you mess with the progression of events, you branch off and enter a new timeline. (Obviously none of this can be proven, especially since time travel is impossible, but this concept makes the most sense out of all of them.)

So suppose someone knows the future. Maybe they're God or maybe they just traveled back in time somehow. And you ask them what's going to happen. Now what? Either:
1) They don't tell you, and you're disappointed but continue on your timeline normally because nothing important changed.
2) They tell you, and a NEW timeline is created in which you "know" what will happen in the future. In this new timeline, either what they told you can happen, or not. This is the same thing that would happen if someone traveled back in time and messed with the progression of events, and then waited until they were back to their own time - they wouldn't necessarily experience the same events that they expected, because they had entered a new timeline.


----------



## Sir E Brum (Mar 27, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> Like a father knows what his child is going to do, God can know what a person is going to do. Let me illustrate with this example: A father asks a greedy child whether he wants chocolate icecream, or stones, as dessert. The father knows that the child would choose the chocolate icecream, but it is still up to the child to choose the whether he wants chocolate icecream. Of course if the stones were actually chocolate stones, it would be a different story xD



You discount the fact that no child would pick the stones, greed is irrelevant in this case. The deciding factor is the actual options not the attitude of the child. This is a very simplistic case where the outcome would be accurately predictable for any given person WITHOUT even knowing the person.


----------



## adimare (Mar 27, 2010)

qqwref said:


> 2) They tell you, and a NEW timeline is created in which you "know" what will happen in the future. In this new timeline, either what they told you can happen, or not. This is the same thing that would happen if someone traveled back in time and messed with the progression of events, and then waited until they were back to their own time - they wouldn't necessarily experience the same events that they expected, because they had entered a new timeline.



If you get your information of the future from God and you're able to create a new timeline where what God told you does not occur, then God was wrong. 

My argument is simple: if we assume that "God is all-knowing" and "we have free will" we can easily reach a contradiction, therefore it's not possible for both statements to be true.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Mar 27, 2010)

Sir E Brum said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > Like a father knows what his child is going to do, God can know what a person is going to do. Let me illustrate with this example: A father asks a greedy child whether he wants chocolate icecream, or stones, as dessert. The father knows that the child would choose the chocolate icecream, but it is still up to the child to choose the whether he wants chocolate icecream. Of course if the stones were actually chocolate stones, it would be a different story xD
> ...



of course i could give a more elaborate example explaining the same concept. but what's the point?


----------



## Mastersonian (Mar 27, 2010)

adimare said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > 2) They tell you, and a NEW timeline is created in which you "know" what will happen in the future. In this new timeline, either what they told you can happen, or not. This is the same thing that would happen if someone traveled back in time and messed with the progression of events, and then waited until they were back to their own time - they wouldn't necessarily experience the same events that they expected, because they had entered a new timeline.
> ...



Peter denied Jesus three times befre the rooster crowed, and Jesus told him so before it happened. Peter was put in those situations that made him uncomfortable (3 times), he could have denied Jesus, or confirmed he knew Jesus and died with him. Guess which one he chose? It is because of free will that God is all-knowing, God knows everything about you and will know what you will do in any kind of situation. Show me how this is contradictory.


----------



## Johan444 (Mar 27, 2010)

Mastersonian said:


> God knows everything about you and will know what you will do in any kind of situation.



So he does know if an atheist ever will turn christian?

If he know that a certain person never will be christian then some people are born with, in his eyes, no hope.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 28, 2010)

adimare said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > 2) They tell you, and a NEW timeline is created in which you "know" what will happen in the future. In this new timeline, either what they told you can happen, or not. This is the same thing that would happen if someone traveled back in time and messed with the progression of events, and then waited until they were back to their own time - they wouldn't necessarily experience the same events that they expected, because they had entered a new timeline.
> ...



But that's the thing about the timelines. God was right in your timeline but what he told you may not have been true (once it happens) because he was referring to a different set of events. There's nothing contradictory or new about prophecies being cryptic  I think logic is fixed, so no God could do something logically impossible (and with free will you cannot logically guarantee that someone will do something after you tell them they will do it). I guess I mean that statements such as all-powerful must be taken with a grain of salt, because obviously you cannot create a contradiction.


----------



## Mastersonian (Mar 28, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Mastersonian said:
> 
> 
> > God knows everything about you and will know what you will do in any kind of situation.
> ...



What can I say? Some people were meant to go to hell...


----------



## adimare (Mar 28, 2010)

qqwref said:


> But that's the thing about the timelines. God was right in your timeline but what he told you may not have been true (once it happens) because he was referring to a different set of events. There's nothing contradictory or new about prophecies being cryptic



I see absolutely no reason to assume that God is still somehow right if his predictions don't occur. Nothing useful will come out of this conversation if your argument boils down to "when he's right he's right, when he seems to be wrong he's being cryptic".

Speculative timelines aside, you do seem to agree with me that given free will God wouldn't be able to accurately describe your future to you. I predict that most theists will find this hard to accept.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 28, 2010)

adimare said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > But that's the thing about the timelines. God was right in your timeline but what he told you may not have been true (once it happens) because he was referring to a different set of events. There's nothing contradictory or new about prophecies being cryptic
> ...


I was kind of trying to provide two possible explanations, each one solving the problem in a quite different way. You could resolve the problem by saying (a) God did know the future but has changed it by telling you, or (b) it's logically impossible to tell someone what they will do in the future and then guarantee that's what happens, so God doesn't have to be able to do it even if he IS all-powerful. I don't think either completely fixes your problem, but then again you may just be asking too much, like the question of whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it. Either such a rock can't exist or it's impossible to create - but you have to accept that the impossible is impossible even for God if you want to resolve the paradox and still believe God is all-powerful. (That's not my personal belief, just an anticipation of how an intelligent believer might explain it if asked.)


----------



## Johan444 (Mar 28, 2010)

Mastersonian said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > Mastersonian said:
> ...



What a loving God you have...

anyway, it makes no sense that God knows everything that will happen. The bible says that God can show emotions, i.e. get angry, why would he get angry over an event he knew was going to happen?

If everything is already decided, then our free will is an illusion. According to the bible, God gave us free will.


----------



## (X) (Mar 28, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I can't make myself worship something/someone that I don't agree (sorry, I know that's not the best word) with morally. People should worship god because they want (also not really the best word for what I'm trying no communicate) to, not because they were scared and bullied into it.
> ...



lolololol



PatrickJameson said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > There's plenty of evidence, like, maybe, _the HOLY BIBLE?!?!_
> ...



rofl

Seriously, you can't blame him.



Spoiler



He is a christian.....



PS: I'm not discussing religion.


----------



## irontwig (Mar 28, 2010)

cmowla said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > For example, in the story of Noah and the Ark, it talked about bringing two of every kind of living thing on the earth into the Ark (neglecting sea creatures I guess). But due to how many different kinds of species there are of several living organisms, this would be impossible to fit all in one Ark (which I think was about 450 ft long, 50 ft wide, and 30 ft tall).
> ...


----------



## Edward (Mar 28, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Mastersonian said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...



Even if you knew the person you were closest to would die in a few days, you'd still be sad when they finally did.


----------



## qazefth (Mar 28, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> anyway, it makes no sense that God knows everything that will happen. The bible says that God can show emotions, i.e. get angry, why would he get angry over an event he knew was going to happen?
> 
> If everything is already decided, then our free will is an illusion. According to the bible, God gave us free will.


Im a Muslim, and disagree with your point. From my perspective, as a Muslim, there is Hadith(Prophet Muhammad's words), saying that " If God wanted, he have just send all of us to heaven and hell(right now), but Allah has gave us a chance(this world) to prove our worthiness to Him, whether we are belong in hell or paradise. So that, in the day of judgement, we wouldn't say, "why am I sent to hell? *I* did nothing, and why is *he* sent to paradise? he also did nothing."

So, as a conlusion, He knows what will happen, and this material world is nothing but a test for us, whether we are sent to hell or the paradise it is up to God, but the most important thing is, we have strive in achieving the Jannah(Paradise).

God knows best


----------



## Johan444 (Mar 28, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Im a Muslim, and disagree with your point. From my perspective, as a Muslim, there is Hadith(Prophet Muhammad's words), saying that " If God wanted, he have just send all of us to heaven and hell(right now), but Allah has gave us a chance(this world) to prove our worthiness to Him, whether we are belong in hell or paradise. So that, in the day of judgement, we wouldn't say, "why am I sent to hell? *I* did nothing, and why is *he* sent to paradise? he also did nothing."
> 
> So, as a conlusion, He knows what will happen, and this material world is nothing but a test for us, whether we are sent to hell or the paradise it is up to God, but the most important thing is, we have strive in achieving the Jannah(Paradise).
> 
> God knows best



Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but if God already knows if for example, you, are going to paradise or not, then nothing you do will change what will happen. What good is a test if it's already decided what will happen to each of us? If you strive or not will not change the outcome.


----------



## Mastersonian (Mar 28, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> qazefth said:
> 
> 
> > Im a Muslim, and disagree with your point. From my perspective, as a Muslim, there is Hadith(Prophet Muhammad's words), saying that " If God wanted, he have just send all of us to heaven and hell(right now), but Allah has gave us a chance(this world) to prove our worthiness to Him, whether we are belong in hell or paradise. So that, in the day of judgement, we wouldn't say, "why am I sent to hell? *I* did nothing, and why is *he* sent to paradise? he also did nothing."
> ...



No, you didn't misunderstand him. God didn't create you to go to hell, infact, I don't think God created us at all, just that he created Adam and Eve, and by a chain of events we are all here today, with free will. This makes it so that it is out of Gods hands to create people that he knows will go to hell.


----------



## qazefth (Mar 28, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but if God already knows if for example, you, are going to paradise or not, then nothing you do will change what will happen. *What good is a test if it's already decided what will happen to each of us? If you strive or not will not change the outcome.*


I didn't say that if we did not strive we will get the Paradise nor did I say the outcome will be the same. Different people, different results. Well, you must have heard that if do good things, we will get the Paradise, and if you do bad things, we will be send to hell. What I mean by strive is trying hard to get the paradise(by doing good deeds and live by the Quran and Sunnah).

So, it up to *you* whether to do good deeds, or bad sins. Allah might have the power to change people but Allah will not change them. As it is mentioned in the Quran;

“Truly, God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves(with their own souls)” (Quran 13:11)

Allah knows Best


----------



## qazefth (Mar 28, 2010)

cmowla said:


> a) The term a Muslim refers to a believer in one god and only one god (not bring equals to god, as they claim Christians do by calling Jesus divine), the creator of the universe (there is obviously more to it than that, but this is the portion of it relative to your statement).



Ill, explain more. The word Islam originates from an arabic word 'Aslama' which means peace. But in an Islamic context, a Muslim is a person who *willingly* submits himself to god. You are right, that Islam believe in one God as it is the pillar in Islam. And we Muslims, does not consider that Jesus (peace be upon him), has the equality with god, but we consider him as one of the greatest Prophets. Like you said in the next quote.



cmowla said:


> b) This implies that Abraham (the chosen of God) was a Muslim, and so was Jesus, etc.



For your information, Abraham was a Muslim Hanif(monotheist). He did not worship anyone but god, he even condemns his own people for worshiping idols. 



cmowla said:


> Hence, according to this, the Jewish people who truly followed God (not the ones who sinned throughout history and were supposedly destroyed by God's wrath because of it) were Muslim.



Indeed, the Jews was once followed the teachings of Prophet Moses and Aaron (peace be upon them). But they astray countlessly throughout history, like the time after the children of Israel was led out of Egypt through the red sea by Prophet Moses and Aaron, as it is mentioned in the Quran, (verse number 50 in Surah Al-Baqarah chapter 1) 

"And remember We divided the sea for you and save you and drowned Pharaoh's people withing very sight"

After they crossed the Red Sea, Prophet Moses was sent on a mission by God for forty nights, and he left his people with Prophet Aaron. When he returned as it is explained in Surah Al-Baqarah Verse 51 & 54.

"And remember, We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence you took the calf (for worship), and you did grievous wrong." [2:51]

"And remember Moses said his people: "O my people! You have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf; so turn (in repentance) to your Creator, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better got you in the sight of your Creator.' then He returned towards you (in forgiveness); for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful" [2:54][/quote]



cmowla said:


> Now why would there need to be Islam if all true Jews were Muslim? The Qur'an claims that there was perversion in the Holy books, and God chose his prophet Mohammad to bring order to the perversion (or something like that) through His holy book, the Qur'an.


Yes, you are right, BUT I disagree that Jews are Muslim, they do not follow the Muslim way(ie: ethics in Muslim way, faith and so on), they do not live based on the Al-Quran and Sunnah, and they do not the believe the prophet hood of Muhammad (peace be upon him).



cmowla said:


> As a Christian, it makes me really upset to hear that the statement "Jesus was a Muslim" because that implies that he knew he wasn't God...which makes all Christians worshipers of a man who would rebuke them if he knew. In fact, in the judgment day (according to the Qur'an) Jesus will come back and judge all Christians who believe Jesus is divine (I don't know too much detail, but you can look it up).


If Jesus is god, I challenge you, this give out a single statement that Jesus *himself says* "I am God, worship me" and I don't want what Luke said, or what Mathew said, or what Mark said, or what Paul said, or any of Jesus' Disciples said. I want an exact quote from Jesus saying he is God. You may search from any version of Bibles you want, and trust me, you wont find one. Why? Because he never claimed *Divinity*.

And if Jesus is here today, and we would ask him "what is your religion?". I don't think he would say Christianity or Judaism. The word Christianity was not coined yet at that time. The word Christianity derives from the word "Kristos". A Greek word pronounced (krees-tos) which means, savior, salvation, or messiah. As it is translated to other languages it is mispronounced. Thus having the word "Christ" pronounced (krai-st) today. 

Allah knows Best


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Mar 28, 2010)

I'm fxxking Roman Catholic and I don't even give a flying fxxk about this thread. W.e though; good thinking. I believe in my religion, you believe in yours, but the king still wants lotsa spaghetti for dinner.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Mar 29, 2010)

qazefth said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > a) The term a Muslim refers to a believer in one god and only one god (not bring equals to god, as they claim Christians do by calling Jesus divine), the creator of the universe (there is obviously more to it than that, but this is the portion of it relative to your statement).
> ...





cmowla said:


> Now why would there need to be Islam if all true Jews were Muslim? The Qur'an claims that there was perversion in the Holy books, and God chose his prophet Mohammad to bring order to the perversion (or something like that) through His holy book, the Qur'an.


Yes, you are right, BUT I disagree that Jews are Muslim, they do not follow the Muslim way(ie: ethics in Muslim way, faith and so on), they do not live based on the Al-Quran and Sunnah, and they do not the believe the prophet hood of Muhammad (peace be upon him).



cmowla said:


> As a Christian, it makes me really upset to hear that the statement "Jesus was a Muslim" because that implies that he knew he wasn't God...which makes all Christians worshipers of a man who would rebuke them if he knew. In fact, in the judgment day (according to the Qur'an) Jesus will come back and judge all Christians who believe Jesus is divine (I don't know too much detail, but you can look it up).


If Jesus is god, I challenge you, this give out a single statement that Jesus *himself says* "I am God, worship me" and I don't want what Luke said, or what Mathew said, or what Mark said, or what Paul said, or any of Jesus' Disciples said. I want an exact quote from Jesus saying he is God. You may search from any version of Bibles you want, and trust me, you wont find one. Why? Because he never claimed *Divinity*.

And if Jesus is here today, and we would ask him "what is your religion?". I don't think he would say Christianity or Judaism. The word Christianity was not coined yet at that time. The word Christianity derives from the word "Kristos". A Greek word pronounced (krees-tos) which means, savior, salvation, or messiah. As it is translated to other languages it is mispronounced. Thus having the word "Christ" pronounced (krai-st) today. 

Allah knows Best [/QUOTE]

Jesus simply had to keep his identity secret before He died and rose again. If Jesus did not do so, and spread the message He was the Christ before He finished His mission, many would begin following him...and stuff. Thus hindering the mission that he was to fulfill...in some ways? Also, if He told others who He was, would people accept him as the human being he was? He had to come under cover as one of us before the people could really listen to him...contemporary Jews wanted a messiah that was a warrior-king, defeating the Romans...and stuff. That was exactly what Jesus came not to do; so by keeping his identity relatively secret He would be able to teach without any misconceptions that the Jews may have of him, as people may assume that he was something he wasn't.


----------



## adimare (Mar 29, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I was kind of trying to provide two possible explanations, each one solving the problem in a quite different way. You could resolve the problem by saying (a) God did know the future but has changed it by telling you, or *(b) it's logically impossible to tell someone what they will do in the future and then guarantee that's what happens, so God doesn't have to be able to do it even if he IS all-powerful.* I don't think either completely fixes your problem, but then again you may just be asking too much, like the question of whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it. Either such a rock can't exist or it's impossible to create - but you have to accept that the impossible is impossible even for God if you want to resolve the paradox and still believe God is all-powerful. (That's not my personal belief, just an anticipation of how an intelligent believer might explain it if asked.)


What I bolded is actually the most satisfying answer any theist has given me. What he told me was that for him all-knowing meant knowing anything that can possibly be known (which because of free will wouldn't include the future). Most are not willing to limit their God (which you simply must do to allow the possibility of free will). Usually they avoid thinking about the argument and assume that there's got to be a way (even if they can't be bothered to think of it or even look it up) to reconcile free will with their almighty God (which can of course create a stone so heavy that he can't lift, but can also lift it).

Are you playing devil's advocate or do you think that b) is likely to be true?




Mastersonian said:


> No, you didn't misunderstand him. God didn't create you to go to hell, infact, I don't think God created us at all, just that he created Adam and Eve, and by a chain of events we are all here today, with free will. This makes it so that it is out of Gods hands to create people that he knows will go to hell.


I didn't break any window. I just threw a stone, and by a chain of events the window ended up broken. This makes it so that it is out of my hand to break any windows.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 29, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> If Jesus is god, I challenge you, this give out a single statement that Jesus *himself says* "I am God, worship me" and I don't want what Luke said, or what Mathew said, or what Mark said, or what Paul said, or any of Jesus' Disciples said. I want an exact quote from Jesus saying he is God.



John 11:25 - "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies'".

John 14:6-7 - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' "

Is there an exact quote from Jesus where he says, "Worship me"? No. But we do see him claiming to do things that only God can do and equating himself to God.


----------



## qazefth (Mar 30, 2010)

Bryan said:


> John 11:25 - "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies'".
> 
> John 14:6-7 - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' "
> 
> Is there an exact quote from Jesus where he says, "Worship me"? No. But we do see him claiming to do things that only God can do and equating himself to God.





Dr. Zakir Naik said:


> "And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
> 
> And he said unto him, 'Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
> [The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]
> ...



Allah knows best


----------



## Crazycubemom (Mar 30, 2010)

Respect each other is not difficult!

You with Religion or Atheist go with your own way. If you doubt yourself go visit a Psychology clinic.


----------



## Rama (Mar 30, 2010)

My mom warned me about this thread.
All I can say I just joined the Nation of Islam and you white devils are sickening me.
Your white supremacy doesn't work here online and neither with God.

Brother Rama X

Ps. if you are based in Seattle go call Frasier.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 30, 2010)

Bryan said:


> John 11:25 - "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies'".
> 
> John 14:6-7 - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' "





Dr. Zakir Naik said:


> Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God


Look at the quote I gave you. Jesus directly said that those who believe in him will have eternal life. Again, I think you're stuck on the fact that every single word isn't in this quote that you want.



Dr. Zakir Naik said:


> On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).



Christ was talking with the Pharisees, and they like to get technical on the law. So Jesus gave them an impossible task because all sin. In fact, they talk about this immediately afterwards and the Pharisee realizes he can't be perfect. He even says "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones (in Heaven)".


----------



## qazefth (Apr 29, 2010)

Finally, I can get online. It seems like the discussion has end, But I will not end unless I can prove to you. If you still do not believe what I have said, then you can check and read it here.

Who was Jesus?
Son of who?
Bible, a closer look


Text Site
Written by Chaplain Yusuf Estes
Former Christian, & Federal Prison Chaplain.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

Like qazefth, I am quite unsatisfied with the accepted 'proof' that Jesus claimed divinity. Jesus is quite cryptic about the whole thing. For something as important as the destination of our eternal souls I would like a much more concrete claim of divinity than, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies.' He could of been saying many things here. It deosn't specify what belief about Jesus is required. Belief that he is a prophet? Belief that he is God? Belief that he is human? Belief in his teachings?

As for John 14: 6-7, I really don't see how this is inconsistent with Jesus being merely a prophet. I think Christians put a lot of words into Jesus' mouth.


----------



## stinkocheeze (Apr 29, 2010)

PASTAFARIANISM FTW.

THE FLYING SPAGETTI MONSTER WILL RULE THE WORLD.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 29, 2010)

What Bible versions are you using? Use the King James. It's one of the most closely translated bibles besides the Geneva Translation.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> What Bible versions are you using? Use the King James. It's one of the most closely translated bibles besides the Geneva Translation.



Since the original texts have been lost it's a pretty bold claim to say one version is more closely translated than another. The only thing I could see to suggest one version being closer to the original is the age of the translation, but once again there is no assurance that today's translations have very much in common with the original.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 29, 2010)

Well most of the new translations today are only to get a copyright. which to do so, one has to change so many words. which means that over time the meaning will change as they already have. The Bible specifically states

Revelation 22:18-21
"18 For I testify unot every man that heareth the words of prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto the things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the boo of life, and out of the holy cuty, and _from_ the things which are written in this book. 
20 He which testifieth these things saith, *Surely I come quickly*
. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Je'sus.
21 The grace of our Lord Je'sus Christ _be with you all. Amen

(bold type and Underlined type are words of Christ)_


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

Do I need any more proof?


----------



## EVH (Apr 29, 2010)

yboy403 said:


> LarsN said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.
> ...


This.
How to prove any Big Bang Believer, Abiogenisis and anything else of that nature wrong.


----------



## Edward (Apr 29, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Do I need any more proof?



I lol'd.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

I don't understand why some people are so afraid of science.


----------



## EVH (Apr 29, 2010)

How are we afrraid of science? What I don't get is how where the origin of life/matter is. What made it? This is where something supernatural is at work. We can't just say that the earth was created in one big bang, because where did that matter come from?


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 29, 2010)

EVH said:


> We can't just say that the earth was created in one big *command*, because where did that matter come from?


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

Where did the creator come from? Something must of created it. This makes just as much sense as your assertion. I'm not saying that there isn't a God, but you need to realize that scientific theories like the Big Bang or abiogenisis aren't inconsistent with the existence of a higher power. Ignoring our best scientific analysis of observed phenomenon doesn't prove anything other than your close mindedness.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

EVH said:


> How are we afrraid of science? What I don't get is how where the origin of life/matter is. What made it? This is where something supernatural is at work. We can't just say that the earth was created in one big bang, because where did that matter come from?




You know that life "has" been created in laboratory conditions right?


----------



## aronpm (Apr 29, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> EVH said:
> 
> 
> > How are we afrraid of science? What I don't get is how where the origin of life/matter is. What made it? This is where something supernatural is at work. We can't just say that the earth was created in one big bang, because where did that matter come from?
> ...



[Citation needed]


----------



## wynalazca (Apr 29, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> You know that life "has" been created in laboratory conditions right?



If by life you mean amino acids, then yeah. Funny thing is, amino acids aren't living organisms.



adimare said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > Just because he's all knowing doesn't mean he has to tell you.
> ...



No, if God is all knowing, then he would know the infinite possible things you could do and you, as a person with free will, would then choose one of the paths. The flaw in your argument is the assumption that for God to be omniscient, he has to know the exact future as it will happen and that everything is predestined to happen.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

wynalazca said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > You know that life "has" been created in laboratory conditions right?
> ...



Funny thing? I'm not so sure about that.

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/3/815.abstract Just to give you an idea.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

@nitrocan: What exactly are you responding to? There are two seperate issues in your quote tree and you don't seem to be addressing either of them.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

RyanO said:


> @nitrocan: What exactly are you responding to? There are two seperate issues in your quote tree and you don't seem to be addressing either of them.



The one with the origin of life.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > @nitrocan: What exactly are you responding to? There are two seperate issues in your quote tree and you don't seem to be addressing either of them.
> ...



So you are claiming that amino acids are living organisms? I really don't follow your logic.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

RyanO said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



Did you even follow the link?


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

Yes, but the link doesn't say anything about amino acids being living organisms because it's not true.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Yes, but the link doesn't say anything about amino acids being living organisms because it's not true.



I never claimed that.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

If you don't want people to think you are responding to what you are quoting just don't quote anything, lol.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

RyanO said:


> If you don't want people to think you are responding to what you are quoting just don't quote anything, lol.



Yes, I think the "Funny thing" was misleading, sorry about that. I was just stating that life forms have been observed in laboratory conditions.


----------



## wynalazca (Apr 29, 2010)

After glancing over the article, they took a few basic compounds and created fluorescent soap. They kept throwing out the term 'organic' which is extremely misleading. All it means is that the substance is made up of carbon. Gasoline is organic. Gasoline is not life.


----------



## Bubitrek (Apr 29, 2010)

Bad thread


----------



## RyanO (Apr 29, 2010)

Bubitrek said:


> Bad thread



Thanks for your contribution.

As for the article nitrocan posted, I have to agree that life was not created in that particular experiment. Honestly I have no idea if we've been succesful creating life in a lab, but I'm curious to hear more about it.


----------



## qazefth (Apr 29, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> What Bible versions are you using? Use the King James. It's one of the most closely translated bibles besides the Geneva Translation.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS2Pji1jwgc

This makes me wonder, why Bible have versions?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2010)

EVH said:


> This is where something supernatural is at work. We can't just say that the earth was created in one big bang, because where did that matter come from?


Can't you accept "we don't know that part yet" as an answer? Science never claims to know everything (knowing more is, after all, the point). I would rather have half of the correct, provable explanation than all of an explanation that can be neither proved nor falsified.



LarsN said:


> I think it would be more interesting to hear what atheists would do if the existence of a God was undeniably proved.


Then I would... start believing in God? Not exactly a big deal. And just proving the existence of God doesn't mean you have any clue what He wants, so we'd pretty much be in the same situation as now - I wouldn't follow any specific religion.

Not to LarsN in particular, but: it's weird to suggest that intelligent people would be unwilling/unable to change their beliefs if they were proved wrong, because everyone's done it already. When teachers in school tell you the electron orbits the nucleus and then only later you learn about a probability cloud, or when teachers tell you speeds add together and you believe it until you learn about relativity... no reasonable person clings to their old belief and says "that's what I believe, you can't convince me otherwise"! It's easy to change what you believe, but it will only happen if you are convinced first.



qazefth said:


> This makes me wonder, why Bible have versions?


Because the original isn't in a language English-speaking people can read, and it's impossible to translate perfectly, so it keeps getting translated in different ways. I think there's exactly one "official" version in the original Hebrew/Greek, but I could be wrong.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

wynalazca said:


> After glancing over the article, they took a few basic compounds and created fluorescent soap. They kept throwing out the term 'organic' which is extremely misleading. All it means is that the substance is made up of carbon. Gasoline is organic. Gasoline is not life.



Since you obviously don't want to take this seriously or afraid to do so, I will quote the last sentence from that article.



> UV photolysis of realistic, interstellar ice analogs, and that some of the components have properties relevant to the origin of life, including the ability to self-assemble into vesicular structures.



At what point does this property compare with gasoline?

Keep in mind that the origin of life, only had to happen once.


----------



## BrunoAD (Apr 29, 2010)

*Russian Roulette*

I read the Holy Bible many times over (many different translations) and studied it for years, yet can NOT find a single mistake, contradiction, or lie. This leads me to a conclusion that it had to be written by someone Perfect. It claims to be authored by God Himself, dictated by Him to about 40 men of various backgrounds and occupations, who wrote it over many hundreds of years. It is a HUGE book and yet there is perfect flow, from beginning to end! It is a perfect instruction manual for life, both physical and spiritual. It shows us how to live a healthy, successful life and how to find God and everlasting fruitful life. It has answers for everything. It even talks about live dinosaurs thousands of years before they were “discovered”. It promises that ALL who seek after God with all their heart WILL find Him and as a result spend eternity with Him. The entire book centers around God, who is also named Jesus Christ, who lived out a short lifetime in a human body, so He would show us His immense love for us, by paying for all our transgressions by dying (without any fault of His own) the most horrifying, painful, humiliating death in human history.

I studied other religions and quickly found many inconsistencies and mistakes in their scriptures and beliefs. In general, they focus on self instead of others. They worship men, animals, and even objects, instead of God. That to me does not make much sense.
There is a HUGE difference between Bible believing Christianity and all other religions of the world. Others (including many “Christian” religions) teach that YOU have to do something to make it to a particular place (Paradise, Nirvana, Heaven, Purgatory, etc.) in the afterlife. The Bible teaches that God did it all. He gives us everlasting life as a free gift and all we have to do is accept and trust.

A very, VERY important question anyone should ask themselves is: “What do I have to lose if I am WRONG??” What if the Bible is true and without trusting Jesus Christ, you end up separated from God in Hell – for EVER and without any chance ever again to make it to Heaven? That is a HUGE risk!!!!
On the other hand, if the Bible was not true, it is still the best bet the world has to offer, considering it does teach that following the commandments is the best way to live. So, for example if reincarnation was the true way, Bible Believing Christians would still win, considering in other religions, your good works get you to a better place. Bible tells us to do good to show God that we love Him, NOT for the love of self, and/or to work our way to some better place. He does not tell us that we have to love Him, but He does desire our love and rewards us bountifully for it. He tells us we show Him how much we love Him by how much we obey Him – and ALL He asks is that we love others. 
You just can’t go wrong with that...

In a way, this life is like playing Russian Roulette over and over, hoping, or pretending the bullet is never in the barrel.
Those who trust Jesus Christ, He took the bullet for them...


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Apr 29, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I read the Holy Bible many times over (many different translations) and studied it for years, yet can NOT find a single mistake, contradiction, or lie. This leads me to a conclusion that it had to be written by someone Perfect. It claims to be authored by God Himself, dictated by Him to about 40 men of various backgrounds and occupations, who wrote it over many hundreds of years. It is a HUGE book and yet there is perfect flow, from beginning to end! It is a perfect instruction manual for life, both physical and spiritual. It shows us how to live a healthy, successful life and how to find God and everlasting fruitful life. It has answers for everything. It even talks about live dinosaurs thousands of years before they were “discovered”. It promises that ALL who seek after God with all their heart WILL find Him and as a result spend eternity with Him. The entire book centers around God, who is also named Jesus Christ, who lived out a short lifetime in a human body, so He would show us His immense love for us, by paying for all our transgressions by dying (without any fault of His own) the most horrifying, painful, humiliating death in human history.
> 
> I studied other religions and quickly found many inconsistencies and mistakes in their scriptures and beliefs. In general, they focus on self instead of others. They worship men, animals, and even objects, instead of God. That to me does not make much sense.
> There is a HUGE difference between Bible believing Christianity and all other religions of the world. Others (including many “Christian” religions) teach that YOU have to do something to make it to a particular place (Paradise, Nirvana, Heaven, Purgatory, etc.) in the afterlife. The Bible teaches that God did it all. He gives us everlasting life as a free gift and all we have to do is accept and trust.
> ...



What about the idea that The bible stole a lot of its stories from The Epic of Gilgamesh? Trust me, if you read the entire bible with an open mind, you would find contradictions. If you pull some crazy meaning from every word you read, you can make it make sense to you. 

Also, Jesus didn't write the bible. Nor does it say anything about him possesing him to make sure they all wrote it correctly. Even if he was pure divinity, their conjecture could've completely skewed what he was really trying to get across. 

I don't like disrespecting people's beliefs, but so many "christinans" don't even know what they say they believe in. Just to prove this point, if "every plant that contained seed was given to man by god" then why is weed considered such a bad thing? It seems to me like the bible has just been twisted around so that people can pick and chose what they want to believe, and what they don't. 

Like it has been said many times, If a man were to tell you he could fly, it would not be your job to prove him wrong, but his job to prove himself right. Logic has been stripped from religion and replaced by faith, because faith makes people feel its ok to not know more. This is not the way to progress as a race In my opinion


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I read the Holy Bible many times over (many different translations) and studied it for years, yet can NOT find a single mistake, contradiction, or lie. [...] It is a HUGE book and yet there is perfect flow, from beginning to end! It is a perfect instruction manual for life, both physical and spiritual.



No offense, but I doubt you read it very carefully. There are plenty of contradictions (like the two separate creation stories in Genesis, or the four Gospels which differ quite a bit in the details) and things which directly go against modern knowledge and morality. I'm somewhat mystified by the second part of what I quoted, as well, because there are sections of the Bible, such as the list of laws in Leviticus and the long chronologies elsewhere, which aren't at all useful for an audience today, and definitely don't have "perfect flow". I should also mention that different books were written many centuries apart (if it was so perfect, why not just write it all at once?).

I'm also somewhat entertained that you specifically say that all parts of the Bible are perfect and should be followed, and also say you're a Christian; do you follow all of the laws in Leviticus, such as keeping kosher and following the the sacrifice and purity decrees? Do you follow the OT God's commandments and Jesus's teachings at the same time?


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 29, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I studied other religions and quickly found many inconsistencies and mistakes in their scriptures and beliefs. In general, they focus on self instead of others. They worship men, animals, and even objects, instead of God. That to me does not make much sense.
> There is a HUGE difference between Bible believing Christianity and all other religions of the world. Others (including many “Christian” religions) teach that YOU have to do something to make it to a particular place (Paradise, Nirvana, Heaven, Purgatory, etc.) in the afterlife. The Bible teaches that God did it all. He gives us everlasting life as a free gift and all we have to do is accept and trust.
> 
> A very, VERY important question anyone should ask themselves is: “What do I have to lose if I am WRONG??” What if the Bible is true and without trusting Jesus Christ, you end up separated from God in Hell – for EVER and without any chance ever again to make it to Heaven? That is a HUGE risk!!!!
> ...



So you are actually taking the risk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being God?

Jokes aside, I agree with qqwref. Thanks to the 1-2 year old religion debate I had the time to read the holy books and I can't really say there aren't any contradictions in any of them. The Bible might have a "flow" as you said because it's more or less a compilation of sun mythology, but still I don't agree with you there either.

It's funny how you so "easily" found contradictions in the other religions but not in your own, whereas others have been doing exactly the opposite. It's like defending a Mac against a PC because you own one.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 29, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> What if the Bible is true and without trusting Jesus Christ, you end up separated from God in Hell – for EVER and without any chance ever again to make it to Heaven? That is a HUGE risk!!!!



This is one of the places where I get lost. Why does God only give people one chance? Why can't it be more obvious?(Please answer this without saying, "there's evidence everywhere").


----------



## Stefan (Apr 30, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Why does God only give people one chance? Why can't it be more obvious?



Cause he's an insidious psycho. Get over it.


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I read the Holy Bible many times over (many different translations) and studied it for years, yet can NOT find a single mistake, contradiction, or lie.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 30, 2010)

I wouldn't mind Hell, I only fear loss of self.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 30, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> A very, VERY important question anyone should ask themselves is: “What do I have to lose if I am WRONG??” What if the Bible is true and without trusting Jesus Christ, you end up separated from God in Hell – for EVER and without any chance ever again to make it to Heaven? That is a HUGE risk!!!!
> On the other hand, if the Bible was not true, it is still the best bet the world has to offer, considering it does teach that following the commandments is the best way to live. So, for example if reincarnation was the true way, Bible Believing Christians would still win, considering in other religions, your good works get you to a better place. Bible tells us to do good to show God that we love Him, NOT for the love of self, and/or to work our way to some better place. He does not tell us that we have to love Him, but He does desire our love and rewards us bountifully for it. He tells us we show Him how much we love Him by how much we obey Him – and ALL He asks is that we love others.
> You just can’t go wrong with that...
> 
> ...



Honestly, Pascal's wager is one of the worst reasons to believe in Christianity. There are a multitude of mutally exclusive religions, what if their religion is right and you are wrong? Even if there is one true religion, the chances of it being Christianity are very low. If you are a Christian the best case scenario: you are right and go to heaven with the worst case scenario: you are wrong and go to hell. If you are an athiest worst case scenario: you are wrong and go to hell with the best case scenario: you are wrong, but the true God is kind and loving, allowing all good people to go to heaven, not just those who appeal to God's vanity by believing in him. You are taking exactly the same risks as the athiest. Pascal's wager fails; living in fear is no way to live your life.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> In all seriousness though, it's not called 'faith' for nothing. Stop trying to convert other people to your religion. Believe what you believe, nothing else.



Exactly. This^


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> For example, in the story of Noah and the Ark, it talked about bringing two of every kind of living thing on the earth into the Ark (neglecting sea creatures I guess). But due to how many different kinds of species there are of several living organisms, this would be impossible to fit all in one Ark (which I think was about 450 ft long, 50 ft wide, and 30 ft tall).



uhh..... it didn't say every breed of a specific animal. it just said two of each KIND... so two dogs, two cats, two bears, etc.( one male one female.)


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > For example, in the story of Noah and the Ark, it talked about bringing two of every kind of living thing on the earth into the Ark (neglecting sea creatures I guess). But due to how many different kinds of species there are of several living organisms, this would be impossible to fit all in one Ark (which I think was about 450 ft long, 50 ft wide, and 30 ft tall).
> ...



What kept the two bears from eating the two dogs and two cats?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

They were all babies. or young animals or whatever. and even so, God has the power to tame animals.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Honestly, Pascal's wager is one of the worst reasons to believe in Christianity. There are a multitude of mutally exclusive religions, what if their religion is right and you are wrong? Even if there is one true religion, the chances of it being Christianity are very low. If you are a Christian the best case scenario: you are right and go to heaven with the worst case scenario: you are wrong and go to hell. If you are an athiest worst case scenario: you are wrong and go to hell with the best case scenario: you are wrong, but the true God is kind and loving, allowing all good people to go to heaven, not just those who appeal to God's vanity by believing in him. You are taking exactly the same risks as the athiest. Pascal's wager fails; living in fear is no way to live your life.



Very false statement. you say that if Christianity is wrong, that the worse case is we would go to hell? If the bible was wrong there would not be a hell since hell came from the Bible and the Bible was written by God and if all of that was false there would not be a God or a hell. and we would not know after we died because we would be in the ground after we die with no thought and no afterlife. Go doesn't allow all "the good people" into Heaven. The bible says no man is good no not one. But we are saved by His grace when we accept His only begotten Son. So athiest have more to lose than a Christian does. and being a Christian, my faith is strong enough that I can say. I'm not going to lose anything


----------



## hagendaasmaser (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > For example, in the story of Noah and the Ark, it talked about bringing two of every kind of living thing on the earth into the Ark (neglecting sea creatures I guess). But due to how many different kinds of species there are of several living organisms, this would be impossible to fit all in one Ark (which I think was about 450 ft long, 50 ft wide, and 30 ft tall).
> ...



What do you mean by "KIND" of animal. What taxonomic level are we talking about? You already ruled out species. So what...? And not all animals are male/female. For all hermaphroditic animals (or perhaps I should say organisms depending on how loosely your using the word "animal"), what was the case? 

If I were to accept your (and the Bible's) claim that there were only two dogs of the same kind on the Ark for the sake of argument, then why are we "blessed" (pun intended) with so many different breeds of dog now?


----------



## ChrisBird (Apr 30, 2010)

On a similar note to Shelley's post.

What about ducks? Ducks don't die in a flood, they would be 2 specially selected ducks in the ark, and all the rest would be in the water. Still alive.


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, Pascal's wager is one of the worst reasons to believe in Christianity. There are a multitude of mutally exclusive religions, what if their religion is right and you are wrong? Even if there is one true religion, the chances of it being Christianity are very low. If you are a Christian the best case scenario: you are right and go to heaven with the worst case scenario: you are wrong and go to hell. If you are an athiest worst case scenario: you are wrong and go to hell with the best case scenario: you are wrong, but the true God is kind and loving, allowing all good people to go to heaven, not just those who appeal to God's vanity by believing in him. You are taking exactly the same risks as the athiest. Pascal's wager fails; living in fear is no way to live your life.
> ...



You're forgetting that Christianity isn't your only option as a believer. You're wagering that Christianity is the one true religion above all the other ones. So worst case scenario, you've chosen the wrong religion and end up in Islamic hell, or something.


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> On a similar note to Shelley's post.
> 
> What about ducks? Ducks don't die in a flood, they would be 2 specially selected ducks in the ark, and all the rest would be in the water. Still alive.



Man, God really didn't think his whole total destruction plan through, did he?


----------



## Kian (Apr 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > On a similar note to Shelley's post.
> ...



Not that it's important at all, but while ducks might not drown, they would definitely die from having nothing to eat.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 30, 2010)

Kian said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...


On the other hand, plenty of fish for the pelicans and seagulls.


----------



## Kian (Apr 30, 2010)

JBCM627 said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



Sure. But where would they rest?


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 30, 2010)

Kian said:


> JBCM627 said:
> 
> 
> > Kian said:
> ...



Anywhere.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

first of all I God created gender specifically and he said on male and one female. so if we are talking right now assuming the bible is truth( which the way I see it, it is) then in this case the animals on the ark were male and female/

I knew that would come up... well for one the two dogs don't have to both be of the same breed.. A guy name Mike Riddle explained it way better than I could. But the way it comes out is
The Biblical "kind" is usually a broader category than our modern term for "species." For example, it is likely that the gray wolf, the red wolf, the coyote, the dingo, the jackal, and the domestic dog (six different species) all belong to the same Biblical kind, and that they all trace their lineage to a single pair of canines. ( Although these animals rarely interbreed in the wild, they can interbreed in captivity and produce fertile offspring.) Likewise, the domestic cat and seceral specials of wild cats may share a common lineage, and we know that dozens of species of sparrows have spring from the three pairs of sparrows that left the ark. Creationists recognize that the origin of new species within a kind does occur. the origin of new species withing a kind, however, is not the same as changing on kind into another.
We have observed the change in dogs over time, but that doesnt mean that evolution has occurred. You can breed wolves to get chihuahuas, but you can't breed chihuahuas to get wolves- variation in the genetic information has been lost. Darwin used this type of change as evidence without an understanding of the limits of genetic change that are known today.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > On a similar note to Shelley's post.
> ...



If that was the only inconsistency 
For example, how did he collect species that only resided in America continent?
I have met many people saying that the Noah's Ark story is symbolic, but again how do I know which parts to take literally and which parts to not?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> On a similar note to Shelley's post.
> 
> What about ducks? Ducks don't die in a flood, they would be 2 specially selected ducks in the ark, and all the rest would be in the water. Still alive.



True ducks CAN swim. But I highly doubt that ducks could survive 40 days and 40 nights of rain and nowhere to get food (besides fish) and nowhere to rest and they probably would just drown eventually. Keep in mind we aren't talking about your everyday flood, this was a worldwide flood covering every mountain top.


----------



## ChrisBird (Apr 30, 2010)

While we could get into an argument about ducks floating and sleeping, and eating fish etc. Let's switch for a second to another similar problem.

The fish.

They rest in the water (where they would be already), they eat food from the water (where they would be already), they mate and reproduce in the water (where they would be already).
So why aren't their loads of evil fish by now?
Why haven't they taken over the world? (joke on this last one)


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> first of all I God created gender specifically and he said on male and one female. so if we are talking right now assuming the bible is truth( which the way I see it, it is) then in this case the animals on the ark were male and female/



Even earthworms and slugs?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...



Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you, to keep them alive (Genesis 6:20).
This verse tells us that Noah didn’t have to search or travel to far away places to bring the animals on board. The world map was completely different before the Flood, and on the basis of Genesis 1, there may have been only one continent. The animals simply arrived at the Ark as if called by a “homing instinct” (a behavior implanted in the animals by their Creator) and marched up the ramp, all by themselves.

Though this was probably a supernatural event (one that cannot be explained by our understanding of nature), compare it to the impressive migratory behavior we see in some animals today. We are still far from understanding all the marvelous animal behaviors exhibited in God’s creation: the migration of Canada geese and other birds, the amazing flights of Monarch butterflies, the annual travels of whales and fish, hibernation instincts, earthquake sensitivity, and countless other fascinating capabilities of God’s animal kingdom.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



I was not aware of an Islamic hell. I didn't know they taught about hell.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> While we could get into an argument about ducks floating and sleeping, and eating fish etc. Let's switch for a second to another similar problem.
> 
> The fish.
> 
> ...



What are you trying to say??




@Shelly:Even earthworms and slugs?

They wouldn't have been in the ark. I'm pretty sure they could survive in water. You're just trying to find every silly little flaw aren't you? I don't know everything, I'm not saying I do. I'm saying I have full faith in the Bible, and this being a religion thread, I'm doing my best to show what the Bible says. Ask someone who has a degree in this area that question I'm sure they would have an answer for you


----------



## hagendaasmaser (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> first of all I God created gender specifically and he said on male and one female. so if we are talking right now assuming the bible is truth( which the way I see it, it is) then in this case the animals on the ark were male and female/
> 
> I knew that would come up... well for one the two dogs don't have to both be of the same breed.. A guy name Mike Riddle explained it way better than I could. But the way it comes out is
> The Biblical "kind" is usually a broader category than our modern term for "species." For example, it is likely that the gray wolf, the red wolf, the coyote, the dingo, the jackal, and the domestic dog (six different species) all belong to the same Biblical kind, and that they all trace their lineage to a single pair of canines. ( Although these animals rarely interbreed in the wild, they can interbreed in captivity and produce fertile offspring.) Likewise, the domestic cat and seceral specials of wild cats may share a common lineage, and we know that dozens of species of sparrows have spring from the three pairs of sparrows that left the ark. Creationists recognize that the origin of new species within a kind does occur. the origin of new species withing a kind, however, is not the same as changing on kind into another.
> We have observed the change in dogs over time, but that doesnt mean that evolution has occurred. You can breed wolves to get chihuahuas, but you can't breed chihuahuas to get wolves- variation in the genetic information has been lost. Darwin used this type of change as evidence without an understanding of the limits of genetic change that are known today.



It's getting late for me right now, so this response will have to be short as I would like to catch some z's. Your assertion that "we know that dozens of species" makes no sense. We do? How do we know that? Can anyone prove that dozens of species of sparrow emerged from these 3 types of sparrow from the ark? 

Your chihuahua comment is interesting as I've never heard anything like it. May I request a citation? I doubt the credibility of this statement as I've never heard of any scientific experiment taking one species and breeding it to produce offspring of another species (I understand that many successive generations of breeding would have to take place). I'm sorry for my ignorance on the matter, I just seem to have a hard time accepting your claim that scientists started with 2 wolves and were able to end up with a chihuahua. Did you mean they bred a wolf and a chihuahua and were able end up with a chihuahua after successive breeding? 

The last underlined information refers to Darwin's use of evidence. I'm sure there is some sort of neglect to understand Darwin's work or what exactly he was using as evidence, so I would like to see a citation for this as well. I've read many of Darwin's papers and I have never come across him using what your referring to as "evidence." Blanketing Darwin's work under the statement that he didn't have an understanding of genetic change like we do is interesting, for lack of a better word. Yes our understanding of evolution and Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection has improved, but until you can prove that he actually used "evidence" like what you referred to, then that claim holds no water. I think what you are doing is oversimplifying his real work to better debunk his research as "outdated." Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Muesli (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



Ok, now you're just making this up.

An animal homing mechanism? That's almost as preposterous as the idea that animals can adapt to their environment through genetic mutation.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

Then if Ducks could survive in the water for 40 days and 40 nights and eat and sleep and repruduce. case closed they weren't on the ark. Was that not the original point??


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

I got this info that I posted from Creation scientists. if you have an issue with what I said idc. go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
why is the homing device idea preposterous? it was just a pun. and it's no more preposterous than the big bang.

as for the chiuahua thing, I don't understand that completely either. I'm tired I can't think. But as I understand it at the time of Noah there were only 6 or 7 kinds of dogs. and it's proven that from those 7 that we can get the species of dogs we have today. refering back to the statement waaay earlier, that would only be 14 dogs 7 female 7 male. and they would have been puppies which would not have taken up enough room to fit a fat baby... or maybe a fat fat fat baby


----------



## Muesli (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> I got this info that I posted from Creation scientists. if you have an issue with what I said idc. go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
> why is the homing device idea preposterous? it was just a pun. and it's no more preposterous than the big bang.
> 
> as for the chiuahua thing, I don't understand that completely either. I'm tired I can't think. But as I understand it at the time of Noah there were only 6 or 7 kinds of dogs. and it's proven that from those 7 that we can get the species of dogs we have today. refering back to the statement waaay earlier, that would only be 14 dogs 7 female 7 male. and they would have been puppies which would not have taken up enough room to fit a fat baby... or maybe a fat fat fat baby


You've made the classical mistake of trying to justify your made up ideas with more made up ideas. The big-bang, evolution, the fact that earth is over 6000 years old all have evidential grounds. I'd like to see you put forward reasonable justification for your magical animal homing device.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> I can't think.



Well, that's probably because you believe in 



jackdexter75 said:


> Creation scientists.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 30, 2010)

It's called instinct... Animals have instinct. Anyway the whole idea of Noah's ark is a supernatural event. I can't explain God. But my point is I have faith in what I believe. And you obviously have faith in what you believe. I don't think the Bible is made. Up there is documented evidence. I believe the Bible to be true. For instance we have more documented evidence on the bible than we do about Ceasar. but we all state it as fact that he was real. some people try to say that Jesus was a real man, just not the way the Bible says... well where do they get that faulty info.? Don't bash me for merely standing of for what I believe. It's quite annoying, dealing with children on a forum full of people who post about an issue they don't look up both ends of the issue up. So I'm just going to leave this up for all the "people with the evidence" and "know everything"


----------



## aronpm (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> So I'm just going to leave this up for all the "people with the evidence" and "know everything"



Okay, cool. Your insane level of stupidity was starting to get annoying. Bye.


----------



## ChrisBird (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> It's called instinct... Animals have instinct. Anyway the whole idea of Noah's ark is a supernatural event.*1. I can't explain God.* But my point is I have faith in what I believe. And you obviously have faith in what you believe. I don't think the Bible is made. Up there is documented evidence. I believe the Bible to be true. For instance we have more documented evidence on the bible than we do about Ceasar. but we all state it as fact that he was real. some people try to say that Jesus was a real man, just not the way the Bible says... well where do they get that faulty info.? Don't bash me for merely standing of for what I believe. *2. It's quite annoying, dealing with children on a forum full of people who post about an issue they don't look up both ends of the issue up. So I'm just going to leave this up for all the "people with the evidence" and "know everything*"



1. No really, who woulda thunk it.

2. It's quite annoying to be a hypocrite to then I assume?


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> @Shelly:Even earthworms and slugs?
> 
> They wouldn't have been in the ark. I'm pretty sure they could survive in water. You're just trying to find every silly little flaw aren't you? I don't know everything, I'm not saying I do. I'm saying I have full faith in the Bible, and this being a religion thread, I'm doing my best to show what the Bible says. Ask someone who has a degree in this area that question I'm sure they would have an answer for you



Earthworms drown when it rains. Anyway, you seem to have missed the point of why I brought up earthworms and slugs. They're hermaphrodites (as are a few species of fish and mollusks and other less complex members of the animal kingdom, but I guess most of those would have survived without the Ark). You claim God created gender and every animal has a male and a female, but the facts of the world contradict that.


----------



## qazefth (Apr 30, 2010)

qqwref said:


> qazefth said:
> 
> 
> > This makes me wonder, why Bible have versions?
> ...



Exactly. After they translate, the keep revising. The content change a bit by bit over hundreds of years. But, us Muslims, we only have ONE QURAN. And that it had never been changed. Hundred of thousands people memorize The Quran by heart, in it's entirety and were scattered about the earth in many different countries. Over the centuries since the Quran was revealed millions have memorized it completely and have taught it to others who have memorized it completely, from cover to cover, letter perfect without mistakes.



jackdexter75 said:


> I was not aware of an Islamic hell. I didn't know they taught about hell.



Hmm, now you will know. Yes, we believe in hell and heaven. 



> Quote from the Quran,
> 
> Chapter 14 (Surah Ibrahim), Verse 16-17,
> 
> ...



We believe in Bible. and We believe in Jesus. We believe in Jesus as: 

* a true messenger of God;
* prophet of God;
* miracle birth without human intervention;
* he was the 'Christ' or Messiah as predicted in the Bible;
* he is with God now and most important;
* He will be coming back in the Last Days to lead the believers against the 'Antichrist.'



> Chapter 6 (Surah Al-An'am), Verse 85
> 
> 85. And Zakariyya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the Righteous.
> 
> ...



*Priest and Preachers*


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



The concept of hell is not unique to Christianity and Christians certainly weren't the first to come up with it either.


----------



## Kian (Apr 30, 2010)

JBCM627 said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > JBCM627 said:
> ...



Hmm, that's in intriguing. I wonder if they could really live without land. I honestly have no clue.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 30, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Exactly. After they translate, the keep revising. The content change a bit by bit over hundreds of years. But, us Muslims, we only have ONE QURAN. And that it had never been changed. Hundred of thousands people memorize The Quran by heart, in it's entirety and were scattered about the earth in many different countries. Over the centuries since the Quran was revealed millions have memorized it completely and have taught it to others who have memorized it completely, from cover to cover, letter perfect without mistakes.



You don't really know much about the history of Quran, do you? Or the fact that there are so many different translations of the Quran, that whenever someone says something against it, muslims will go "It must be a translation error." What a defense mechanism.



> Chapter 6 (Surah Al-An'am), Verse 85
> 
> 85. And Zakariyya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the Righteous.
> 
> ...


But also:



> Tövbe/5:
> Then, when the sacred months have passed, *slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush*. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
> 
> Kehf/74:
> ...


Is that really an acceptable reason?


> Kasas 15:
> 
> And he (Moses) entered the city at a time of carelessness of its folk, and he found therein two men fighting, one of his own caste, and the other of his enemies; and he who was of his caste asked him for help against him who was of his enemies. So Moses *struck him with his fist and killed him*. He said: This is of the devil's doing. Lo! he is an enemy, a mere misleader.
> 
> ...


So when the situation is the other way around, the folk is wrongdoing?


----------



## Bubitrek (Apr 30, 2010)

Dear muslim friends! Beware with Quran's translation. It's not a small thing. 
I don't like to discuss people's religions. Who is right we'll see later.


----------



## riffz (Apr 30, 2010)

I used to debate religion on forums and such, but I realized that no one is ever going to be swayed or convinced over a message board so I've stopped doing it.

EDIT: But I see a lot of you don't understand the point of the flood at all. God sent the flood to rid the world of evil men. He didn't care about killing all the animals, just saving the ones that would have died in the flood!


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 30, 2010)

riffz said:


> I used to debate religion on forums and such, but I realized that no one is ever going to be swayed or convinced over a message board so I've stopped doing it.
> 
> EDIT: But I see a lot of you don't understand the point of the flood at all. God sent the flood to rid the world of evil men. He didn't care about killing all the animals, just saving the ones that would have died in the flood!



Hey, I was  (not at first though)


----------



## qazefth (Apr 30, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> You don't really know much about the history of Quran, do you? Or the fact that there are so many different translations of the Quran, that whenever someone says something against it, muslims will go "It must be a translation error." What a defense mechanism.[/qoute]
> 
> Hmm, I think you misinterpreted me. The Quran has only ONE VERSION but MANY TRANSLATION. There are difference between version and translation. You can just go out there and buy numerous kind of translation of the Quran by Yusof Ali, Ibnu Khatir and many more. They are translating the Quran from Arabic to another languange from what they understand. But mainly, they tell the same thing, same meaning. That is what im trying to say.[/qoute]
> 
> ...


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 30, 2010)

qazefth said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > You don't really know much about the history of Quran, do you? Or the fact that there are so many different translations of the Quran, that whenever someone says something against it, muslims will go "It must be a translation error." What a defense mechanism.[/qoute]
> ...



Tövbe = penitence (what is your explanation for that verse, by the way?)

Those explanations, I've read them like 1000 times. And I also read the whole sura, I just didn't want to quote them all.

To sum up, a guy that just kills for reasons like this, isn't a really good idol for us now is he? The explanations don't even make up for what they did. How can they? The story is telling us that it is right go ahead and kill someone if you suspect that they are going to drive people out of their religion. Human life shouldn't be that easy.

And the part that Hızır Aleyhisselam (the person accompanying Moses) just knows everything in advance is just storytelling.

Edit: By the way, before Moses kills that one guy, he is bestowed with wisdom from God, and that's how he ends up.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2010)

If your holy book is so great and perfect and the word of God and all that, why does it need to be explained so much? You should never have to say "this was intended for a different culture/time" or "that's a translation error" or "that's not a contradiction because God can make the impossible happen" or "yes this is literally true... but it wasn't meant the way it was written, you have to interpret it symbolically". You're telling me there's a creature so powerful and amazing to create everything in the universe, do the impossible, control and watch anything, etc... and he can't even write a *book* without tons of unexplained contradictions, incorrect statements given as fact, and other things which need tons of explanation because they don't make sense as written? That's BS and you know it.


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 30, 2010)

qqwref said:


> If your holy book is so great and perfect and the word of God and all that, why does it need to be explained so much? You should never have to say "this was intended for a different culture/time" or "that's a translation error" or "that's not a contradiction because God can make the impossible happen" or "yes this is literally true... but it wasn't meant the way it was written, you have to interpret it symbolically". You're telling me there's a creature so powerful and amazing to create everything in the universe, do the impossible, control and watch anything, etc... and he can't even write a *book* without tons of unexplained contradictions, incorrect statements given as fact, and other things which need tons of explanation because they don't make sense as written? That's BS and you know it.



The ultimate irony is that, the Quran itself states that it has been made easy to understand so that it is for all of the universe.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2010)

Yeah, well, not just the Quran... the Bible is the same way, and I'm sure many other holy books are too.


----------



## BrunoAD (Apr 30, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> BrunoAD said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the places where I get lost. Why does God only give people one chance?
> ...


----------



## BrunoAD (Apr 30, 2010)

RyanO said:


> BrunoAD said:
> 
> 
> > living in fear is no way to live your life.
> ...


----------



## nitrocan (Apr 30, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the places where I get lost. Why does God only give people one chance?
> ...



So dragging someone to hell because he didn't want to be with God, is not forcing? How is everything you said logical at all? I don't think you got his question right.


----------



## Johan444 (Apr 30, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > BrunoAD said:
> ...


----------



## BrunoAD (Apr 30, 2010)

I did not come here to argue, or fight. I see no point in that. I believe there is only one Truth and it can be obtained by anyone who truly searches for it. If someone is wrong, yet fights vehemently, it will not make their mistakes right. If someone does not WANT to believe what Jesus taught, that is their choice and they alone will have to deal with the consequences. Did He teach anything wrong? His only command was to love others. Oh, He did claim to be God in the flesh (no other religion claims such a thing), and was murdered for it. To this day, Christians all over the world get murdered for claiming this same thing, as Jesus predicted about 2000 years ago. 

Jesus is still alive and He promised to reveal Himself and give abundant life to those who seek after God. He did so to me in July 2003 and MANY others throughout history. God promises that "ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13) And "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) 

I understand that I can not make you believe, or convert you. No man was able to do that to me, although many tried. God Himself had to convince me. My goal is to get people seeking, because God promises: “Seek and ye shall find.” I love you, you could be my brother, or sister and eternity is a VERY LONG time. The choice really is there and it is yours to make.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Apr 30, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I did not come here to argue, or fight. I see no point in that. I believe there is only one Truth and it can be obtained by anyone who truly searches for it. If someone is wrong, yet fights vehemently, it will not make their mistakes right. If someone does not WANT to believe what Jesus taught, that is their choice and they alone will have to deal with the consequences. Did He teach anything wrong? His only command was to love others. Oh, He did claim to be God in the flesh (no other religion claims such a thing), and was murdered for it. _To this day, Christians all over the world get murdered for claiming this same thing_, as Jesus predicted about 2000 years ago.
> 
> Jesus is still alive and He promised to reveal Himself and give abundant life to those who seek after God. He did so to me in July 2003 and MANY others throughout history. God promises that "ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13) And "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
> 
> I understand that I can not make you believe, or convert you. No man was able to do that to me, although many tried. God Himself had to convince me. My goal is to get people seeking, because God promises: “Seek and ye shall find.” I love you, you could be my brother, or sister and eternity is a VERY LONG time. The choice really is there and it is yours to make.



for what I put in bold... What? There are other christians running around claiming to be the son of god and getting killed for it? that doesn't sound right.

Here is my main problem with this belief. 

If Hitler, right before he died, repented, even after all the evil he brought forth, he'd be relaxing in heaven, While someone like... I dunno, BoB Marley lets say, someone who only preached and lived for peace, and never wanted to hurt people, but chose not to believe that Jesus was the son of god, would go to hell

So, if the way I see this is true, "Heaven" will be filled with a bunch of closed-minded followers that sit around judging everyone else, and hell will be filled with the entire rest of the world. I'm pretty sure by this standard, I'll take hell over heaven. 

Also, if you really havr read the whole Bible, read the old testament again... and tell me that God doesn't have some evil in him. He straight murders people, and enjoys it. I mean, at the very least, if an almighty god wanted someone dead, he could just remove them from exsistance. Why pelter them with arrows and famon?

Lastly, I don't see how the whole heaven/hell thing really applies. Either A) God was suprised when Lucifer defied him (which seems odd to me, an almighty God being suprised) or B) Luscifer is part of God's plan in the first place. This can be seen in Revulations when the lamb is opening the seals, and gets to the 6th seal ( I think, it could be 4th) and Satan walks out of the seal, with Hades behind him, and God gives him the sword to destroy the world. God... Gives him the sword... what could this mean? Why would god create satan? As a test of faith? There would be no faith required had satan not been here... it seems sadistic at least. 

I do believe Jesus exsisted, as a human, a good person, and maybe even a prophet. I do also believe, however, that either he was trying to glorify himself as god, or that he was harshly misunderstood by his disciples, who skewed a lot of what he said into a religion. 

I do find some of the things Edgar Casey has said about Jesus intetesting, but I don't think there is time or space for that discussion


----------



## Edward (Apr 30, 2010)

dunpeal2064 said:


> Also, if you really havr read the whole Bible, read the old testament again... and tell me that God doesn't have some evil in him. He straight murders people, and enjoys it. I mean, at the very least, if an almighty god wanted someone dead, he could just remove them from exsistance. Why pelter them with arrows and famon?



If God just took someone from existance, people would start asking questions. He gives an explainable way for those people to die.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Apr 30, 2010)

Edward said:


> dunpeal2064 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you really havr read the whole Bible, read the old testament again... and tell me that God doesn't have some evil in him. He straight murders people, and enjoys it. I mean, at the very least, if an almighty god wanted someone dead, he could just remove them from exsistance. Why pelter them with arrows and famon?
> ...



Doesnn't it seem odd though that something all powerful absolutely refuses to do anything supernatural, even if it meens people suffering more? Should we not be questioning as it is?

Also, when Jesus turned water into wine, he didn't give any scientific reasoning behind it, and I guarentee people asked questions. Same with turning the fish and bread into ... well... more fish and bread. The miracles were flying about back then (when the world was just as full of disbelievers, so don't use that as a reason) and now its like "Well... God _could_ do that, but then you'd know he was there"


----------



## Edward (Apr 30, 2010)

dunpeal2064 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > dunpeal2064 said:
> ...



ugg, I don't know how to explain this, but tl;dr, God has reasoning behind everyinthg. This reasoning beyond me of course.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Apr 30, 2010)

Edward said:


> dunpeal2064 said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



well... that ended that discussion. lol.


----------



## shelley (Apr 30, 2010)

riffz said:


> EDIT: But I see a lot of you don't understand the point of the flood at all. God sent the flood to rid the world of evil men. He didn't care about killing all the animals, just saving the ones that would have died in the flood!



A deadly plague which infects only humans would have been more efficient and would have avoided a lot of unnecessary death. For a supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing being, your god is not very good at getting things done. I'm not sure I'd want to worship him.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2010)




----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 30, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> So I'm just going to leave this up for all the "people with the evidence" and "know everything"



This video is even more humorous when I start noticing these things.


----------



## rachmaninovian (May 1, 2010)

Edward said:


> dunpeal2064 said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



ahh, miracles.

lemme give a little analogy.
An apple falls from a tree. Then you being sad that the apple will suffer a bruise will go and "intervene" the fall by reaching out your hand and stopping the fall, catching the apple. You are, stopping the natural cause of the apple from dropping. First, you were outside of the space of the apple and its beloved tree, but you can step into the space and do whatever you want to do. Just don't kill the apple thx I wanna eat it.

In the fashion, God creates miracles. Since He is supposedly outside of the world, He can of course step in and stop the "natural" processes from happening.


----------



## ChrisBird (May 1, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > dunpeal2064 said:
> ...



Or he could make the world work properly the first time around?

Doesn't seem very all-powerful to me.


----------



## Edward (May 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Everything God has created is good. It is humans who corrupt and pervert things.


----------



## ChrisBird (May 1, 2010)

Edward said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > rachmaninovian said:
> ...



So he made it good..... but not good enough so that we can't mess with it.

So we are messing with God's stuff.

And therefore he isn't all powerful.


----------



## Edward (May 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...



It's not like he can't stop us. He doesn't because he doesn't need to. He knows what he's doing. 

He's letting us mess with it, because it was made for us.


----------



## aronpm (May 1, 2010)

Edward said:


> He's letting us mess with it, because it was made for us.



:fp


----------



## jackdexter75 (May 1, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I did not come here to argue, or fight. I see no point in that. I believe there is only one Truth and it can be obtained by anyone who truly searches for it. If someone is wrong, yet fights vehemently, it will not make their mistakes right. If someone does not WANT to believe what Jesus taught, that is their choice and they alone will have to deal with the consequences. Did He teach anything wrong? His only command was to love others. Oh, He did claim to be God in the flesh (no other religion claims such a thing), and was murdered for it. To this day, Christians all over the world get murdered for claiming this same thing, as Jesus predicted about 2000 years ago.
> 
> Jesus is still alive and He promised to reveal Himself and give abundant life to those who seek after God. He did so to me in July 2003 and MANY others throughout history. God promises that "ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13) And "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
> 
> I understand that I can not make you believe, or convert you. No man was able to do that to me, although many tried. God Himself had to convince me. My goal is to get people seeking, because God promises: “Seek and ye shall find.” I love you, you could be my brother, or sister and eternity is a VERY LONG time. The choice really is there and it is yours to make.



You said it the way I wish i could have. And I wish I had the patience and slow to anger personality you have. Thanks for what you just said. I appreciate it


----------



## riffz (May 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...



God created love. Love cannot truly exist unless you have a choice not to love. These decisions not to love are what cause "problems". The only way he could have made a perfect world would be to make use all like robots and give us no choice to love... That doesn't sound too great at all to me.

I told myself I wasn't going to join this debate....


----------



## qazefth (May 1, 2010)

http://www.wakeupproject.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=10360&start=0

Im not sure why im posting this link, worth a look though..


----------



## aronpm (May 1, 2010)

qazefth said:


> http://www.wakeupproject.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=10360&start=0
> 
> Im not sure why im posting this link, worth a look though..



I saw this and stopped reading:


> Any way, I have a lot of knowledge about Christianity, New age concepts, a tiny bit about Buddhism, Reiki Healing, Chakras/energy system, and various other things.


----------



## Muesli (May 1, 2010)

Religion and science... religion and science...

Lets face it, nobody knows what the hell they are on about. The difference is that Science is actually moving to find out the answers, while religion is content to just sit in the dark ages and insist that they are right. 

It's akin to two people sat in a windowless room. One man says to the other, "It's raining" whilst the other man says "I wonder if it's raining".


----------



## we900 (May 1, 2010)

muslim cuber ftw


----------



## nitrocan (May 1, 2010)

riffz said:


> God created love. Love cannot truly exist unless you have a choice not to love. These decisions not to love are what cause "problems". The only way he could have made a perfect world would be to make use all like robots and give us no choice to love... That doesn't sound too great at all to me.
> 
> I told myself I wasn't going to join this debate....



What's all this fuss about love? Love is just another evolutionary advancement, not only humans, but many other animals went through. It's basically a mixture of adrenaline, testosterone/estrogen, dopamine, serotonin, then oxytocin and vasopressin etc. 

If you are talking about love for humans, animals etc. then that's just another social adaptation we went through many many years ago. For example, piranhas are very wild fishes and can rip the flesh out of your bones with no problem at all. Although they are so vicious, you can never see a piranha attacking another piranha. It's just how our instincts work. You wouldn't help the bear in a bear vs. human fight, or help the bee protect its property while stinging a human.


----------



## rachmaninovian (May 1, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...


by assuming that there is something bad about this world means you automatically assume there is good stuff.

Good and evil are opposites, and coexist in this world. like north and south magnetic poles and stuff. you know.

without the south pole the north pole is no longer north in someways. without evil there isn't a standard to compare the good.
evil existed because of free will. our moral values may teach us that raping is wrong but people still give in and stuff.


----------



## qazefth (May 1, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Religion and science... religion and science...
> 
> Lets face it, nobody knows what the hell they are on about. The difference is that Science is actually moving to find out the answers, while religion is content to just sit in the dark ages and insist that they are right.
> 
> It's akin to two people sat in a windowless room. One man says to the other, "It's raining" whilst the other man says "I wonder if it's raining".



Then, I believe you would be interested with this http://www.scienceislam.com/


----------



## shelley (May 1, 2010)

we900 said:


> muslim cuber ftw



You're not very good at this, are you?

This isn't a "represent your religion" thread. Read some of the other posts and come back if you actually have something to add to the discussion.


----------



## nitrocan (May 1, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Religion and science... religion and science...
> ...



Here I go again:



> Tarık 4/7:
> So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from a gushing fluid. That issued from *between the loins and ribs*.
> 
> Science says, testicles.





> Fussilet 10/12
> ...He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask; Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days...
> 
> So the skies (heavens) were set after all of the earth was set (mountains, trees etc.)





> Kehf 86:
> Till, when he reached the *setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring*, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
> 
> So sun sets in a muddy spring...





> Mülk 5:
> And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with *lamps*, and We have made them *missiles for the devils*, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.
> 
> I don't have anything to say to this one.


I could list more but I don't want to go on.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 1, 2010)

The only reason that I think Christianity is real, is that Jesus preformed miracles. I have no clue how that is possible, without some supernatural being helping him.

(And I don't know how Mary could have had a baby without having sex) (And I meant that in all seriousness, so don't put me down because you think that I am trying to be funny)


----------



## RyanO (May 1, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> The only reason that I think Christianity is real, is that Jesus preformed miracles. I have no clue how that is possible, without some supernatural being helping him.
> 
> (And I don't know how Mary could have had a baby without having sex) (And I meant that in all seriousness, so don't put me down because you think that I am trying to be funny)



Have you seen Jesus perform miracles? No.

Lots of other religions claim that their prophets have performed miracles. Why don't you believe in them?


----------



## Tyrannous (May 1, 2010)

Edward said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > rachmaninovian said:
> ...




God Created Humans...


----------



## hagendaasmaser (May 1, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> The only reason that I think Christianity is real, is that Jesus preformed miracles. I have no clue how that is possible, without some supernatural being helping him.
> 
> (And I don't know how Mary could have had a baby without having sex) (And I meant that in all seriousness, so don't put me down because you think that I am trying to be funny)



I find it interesting that you have to put a disclaimer that you are not joking with your response. If you know it sounds stupid when you claim things like Jesus performing miracles and Mary having a baby without having sex and have no proof that these things happened, then why even waste the time commenting?

I know, you know, we all know what the bible says sounds stupid. So why do some people take what it says seriously. I don't take any mythology seriously, do you? The standards of evidence supporting some mythological claims are just as strong as those supporting biblical claims, yet most Christians dismiss mythology as "silly." Why don't we just take these writings for what they are, literature. That's all the bible is.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 1, 2010)

hagendaasmaser said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason that I think Christianity is real, is that Jesus preformed miracles. I have no clue how that is possible, without some supernatural being helping him.
> ...


The bible can be proven that it is real unlike mythology. First of all it was written ALONG time ago by many man that some didn't even no each other and yet it is in harmony. And it being still used today meaning that it has to be special in order for its teachings to survive that long and it being the most selling book ever.

Also the bible contains scientific things that weren't discovered by the time it was written
Ex.:Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 These two texts say that the earth is hanging over nothing and is round(circle of the earth) back then people didn't know this and these books were written roughly between 1473 b.c and 732 b.c. Christopher Columbus didn't prove the earth was round until 1492 a.d


----------



## nitrocan (May 1, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> hagendaasmaser said:
> 
> 
> > CubesOfTheWorld said:
> ...



Wait, I had just written a bunch of stuff, but

a circle isn't 3D.

Psalm 104/5 also says that the earth can never be moved.


----------



## hagendaasmaser (May 1, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> hagendaasmaser said:
> 
> 
> > CubesOfTheWorld said:
> ...



There are some factual inconsistencies with your response. I don't know if you heard this from somebody else who didn't really know what they were talking about, or you have neglected to actually look and study the history of the bible. Christopher Columbus didn't prove the earth was round, he just discovered that there was a western "chunk" of land on the other side of what we call the Atlantic Ocean today--a group of vikings were actually the first to set foot on this land, but that's neither here nor there. Eratosthenes was the first to actually conclude that the earth was round and that was around 1700 B.C. 

The things that you, and many erroneously credit the Bible for "predicting" are inconsistent, vague "guesses" that many people loosely connect to modern events and occurrences.

"The bible can be proven that it is real unlike mythology. First of all it was written ALONG time ago by many man that some didn't even no each other and yet it is in harmony." If the bible can be proven, then why hasn't it yet? Mythological "stories" were written ALONG time ago as well, and by many men. These stories also have things in common between them, does that make them true? Just because a lot of people have read the bible doesn't make the bible true. If everyone jumped off of a bridge, beat their spouses, or killed puppies, then does that make any of these actions "correct"? There are logical inconsistencies in your rationale behind believing in this book, which is a little disconcerting to me.

I would recommend actually taking the time to look at the facts of topics you want to post about before actually doing so. "Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored." ~Aldous Huxley


----------



## luke1984 (May 1, 2010)

As an atheist, if there's evidence for a god, and it's sound, I will accept. 
However, there's no evidence for any god. And there's tons of evidence against the gods of all known religions.

Therefore no one can know if there's a god, and religion is solely based on belief, not on rational reasoning.


----------



## ChrisBird (May 1, 2010)

luke1984 said:


> As an atheist, if there's evidence for a god, and it's sound, I will accept.
> However, there's no evidence for any god. And there's tons of evidence against the gods of all known religions.
> 
> Therefore no one can know if there's a god, and religion is solely based on belief, not on rational reasoning.



Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I'd just like to point out.

Religion = faith
Faith = believing without proof

If you proved a religion, it wouldn't be faith anymore. It would be fact.


----------



## dbax0999 (May 1, 2010)

hagendaasmaser said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > These two texts say that the earth is hanging over nothing and is round(circle of the earth) back then people didn't know this and these books were written roughly between 1473 b.c and 732 b.c. Christopher Columbus didn't prove the earth was round until 1492 a.d
> ...



Ah, I wanted to tell him.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 1, 2010)

hagendaasmaser said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > hagendaasmaser said:
> ...



I study the bible I don't know everything about it and I doubt there is someone who does.
The fact that Columbus discovered that chunk of land proved the idea that many europeans had at that time that the earth was flat wrong.
Eratosthenes was born in 276 b.c. so it is impossible for him to had made that conclusion in 1700 b.c.

For one thing mythology has been proved wrong I don't know all the mythology there is to know but we know there isn't a giant holding up the earth.

I would like to ask you what do you think are these vague guesses that people connect to modern events?


----------



## nitrocan (May 1, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> hagendaasmaser said:
> 
> 
> > foxfan352 said:
> ...



How did you prove mythology wrong?

And if you prove Mythra, Horus, Krishna etc. wrong, you also prove someone else wrong, which I will leave for you to figure out.


----------



## hagendaasmaser (May 1, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> hagendaasmaser said:
> 
> 
> > There are some factual inconsistencies with your response. I don't know if you heard this from somebody else who didn't really know what they were talking about, or you have neglected to actually look and study the history of the bible. Christopher Columbus didn't prove the earth was round, he just discovered that there was a western "chunk" of land on the other side of what we call the Atlantic Ocean today--a group of vikings were actually the first to set foot on this land, but that's neither here nor there. Eratosthenes was the first to actually conclude that the earth was round and that was around 1700 B.C.
> ...



No, Christopher Columbus' discovering a chunk of land west of Atlantic did not prove the earth was spherical, no matter how much you want to think it did. I'm sorry your quick Wikipedia search of Eratosthenes says that he was born in 276 B.C. but I'm going to have to regretfully inform you that you are looking up the wrong Eratosthenes, but I wouldn't hold it against you to take almost no time to research things. However, I will humor you, as you seem to enjoy it. The Eratosthenes you googled or w/e was involved in measuring the diameter of the earth, a bit confusing I agree, however the calculation was only able to be done knowing that the earth was spherical (not a circle like you accidentally said in one of your earlier posts). We can therefore determine that the understanding that the earth was spherical was proposed before Eratosthenes, and your response could have altogether been avoided. 

Yes, mythological ideas have been proved wrong, and I too know that there isn't a giant holding up the earth. But, a lot of what the Bible has said has been proved wrong and people still try to rationalize its accuracy. 

The vague guesses about things on modern events have been storms, earthquakes, and many many countless natural events that some have tied to Biblical stories. Do you completely deny that these predictions have been made?


----------



## foxfan352 (May 1, 2010)

[/QUOTE] How did you prove mythology wrong?

And if you prove Mythra, Horus, Krishna etc. wrong, you also prove someone else wrong, which I will leave for you to figure out. [/QUOTE]
I doubt you believe in mythology is right.

I belive there is only one God so there can't be more than one. I am sure that all people won't agree with me but I don't think they can prove that there belief's are right.


----------



## RyanO (May 2, 2010)

I don't know of a single person who would actually condone following all of the things the Bible says we should do. The Bible advocates forcing victims of rape to marry their attacker. Do any of you actually believe this is right? I don't understand how anyone that has read the Bible can claim that it is perfectly problem free.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 2, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > hagendaasmaser said:
> ...





hagendaasmaser said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > hagendaasmaser said:
> ...



I said Columbus proved to the europeans that the earth wasn't flat.

I remeber Eratosthenes from a science class last year but I didn't know there was another Eratothenes

Yes I know that I said the the earth was a circle but we both know that the 2d shape of a sphere is a circle so it can be concluded it refers to a sphere. 


No I don't deny that those predictions were made


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> The bible can be proven that it is real unlike mythology. First of all it was written ALONG time ago by many man that some didn't even no each other and yet it is in harmony. And it being still used today meaning that it has to be special in order for its teachings to survive that long and it being the most selling book ever.
> 
> Also the bible contains scientific things that weren't discovered by the time it was written
> Ex.:Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 These two texts say that the earth is hanging over nothing and is round(circle of the earth) back then people didn't know this and these books were written roughly between 1473 b.c and 732 b.c. Christopher Columbus didn't prove the earth was round until 1492 a.d



You're so cute.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (May 2, 2010)

Edward said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Do I need any more proof?
> ...



This.


----------



## ChrisHarf (May 2, 2010)

If god is all forgiving, why is there Down Syndrome and Autism and crippled individuals? Why do shock websites exist? That's why I'm an atheist.


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

hagendaasmaser said:


> I'm sorry your quick Wikipedia search of Eratosthenes says that he was born in 276 B.C. but I'm going to have to regretfully inform you that you are looking up the wrong Eratosthenes



Show us the one you mean, please.


----------



## megaminxwin (May 2, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> luke1984 said:
> 
> 
> > As an atheist, if there's evidence for a god, and it's sound, I will accept.
> ...




..so no religion could exist if you proved it true!

Paradoxical genius.


----------



## PatrickJameson (May 2, 2010)

megaminxwin said:


> ..so no religion could exist if you proved it true!
> 
> Paradoxical genius.



It's not a paradox. If one religion was undoubtedly proven true, there would be no need for all the other religions and the religion that was correct would just become fact. Of course, if there is a God, my guess is that every religion is 'wrong' in some way.


----------



## qazefth (May 2, 2010)

Here I go again



nitrocan said:


> Here I go again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rachmaninovian (May 2, 2010)

qazefth: will you participate in jihad since it is taught and encouraged in the koran?

"Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Surah 61:4). 

and this:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits...191And slay them wherever ye catch them. and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. 192 But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Surah 2:190-193).


----------



## qazefth (May 2, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> qazefth: will you participate in jihad since it is taught and encouraged in the koran?



Rach, I don't really get what you are trying to say. But if you are asking about Jihad Fisabalillah (struggle in the way of Allah) then yes, because it is a must in every Muslim. Just about everything in Islam is jihad. Fasting is jihad, taking care of your parents is jihad, fighting for the truth is jihad, and even giving to charity is jihad. Media nowadays is saying that jihad is a holy war. No, holy war is Harrum Muqadasah in arabic. And it is never mention in the Quran. And I am sorry if I go out of context from your question.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (May 2, 2010)

The competitor loves the rubik's cube but it does not seek to understand the heart of the cube. That is to say the corner.

science theory and religion 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlA-iwU494


----------



## nitrocan (May 2, 2010)

qazefth:

Why do you keep copying information from different websites? I asked for your opinion. Those explanations don't satisfy the problems I pointed out. They are obviously interpretations that are made up. I'm pretty sure muslims, before the sun was proven to be the center of the solar system, really believed that the sun really set on a muddy spring.

I am not directly translating anything. I know a lot about the Quran, since I come from a muslim country. I have debated these many many times. I always look at word by word translations before I make my claims.

EDIT:



qazefth said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > qazefth: will you participate in jihad since it is taught and encouraged in the koran?
> ...



Bakara 190/194

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).


----------



## qazefth (May 2, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> qazefth:
> 
> Why do you keep copying information from different websites? I asked for your opinion. Those explanations don't satisfy the problems I pointed out. They are obviously interpretations that are made up. I'm pretty sure muslims, before the sun was proven to be the center of the solar system, really believed that the sun really set on a muddy spring.
> 
> I am not directly translating anything. I know a lot about the Quran, since I come from a muslim country. I have debated these many many times. I always look at word by word translations before I make my claims.



Why do I take the interpretion from somewhere else? This is because Im agreeing what Ibn Kathir wrote and in Islam, we follow authorities. Because there is a board of muslim scholars discussing the tafsir of the Quran. and If you still do not satisfy, then that is your problem. 

Get the copy of Said Nursi book titled Risale-i Nur. That will explain to you.


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Why do I take the interpretion from somewhere else? This is because Im agreeing what Ibn Kathir wrote and in Islam, *we follow authorities*.



Funny how you said *that*, not something like _"he expressed it better than I could"_ or _"he wrote it already, no need doing it again"_.


----------



## nitrocan (May 2, 2010)

qazefth said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > qazefth:
> ...



I think you got me wrong. The interpretations you supplied weren't answers to my questions. Nor were the ones you supplied back then about the child getting killed. I want your honest opinion.

Take a look at this too.



> Enam 107:
> 
> Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.


Then in the same sura,


> Enam 148:
> 
> They who are idolaters will say: Had Allah willed, we had not ascribed (unto Him) partners neither had our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught. Thus did those who were before them give the lie (to Allah's messengers) till they tasted of the fear of Us. Say: Have ye any knowledge that ye can adduce for Us? Lo! ye follow naught but an opinion, Lo! ye do but guess.



So first, it's "If Allah wanted, there would be no idolaters".
Afterwards, if someone says that "If Allah wanted, there would be no idolaters", you should say "Do you have any proof for that? You just keep guessing." Is this self challenge?


----------



## nitrocan (May 2, 2010)

> Enam 108:
> 
> Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance.



lets see if we get the same kind of treatment in return:



> Bakara 65:
> And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye *apes*, despised and hated!





> Bakara 171:
> The likeness of those who disbelieve (in relation to the messenger) is as the likeness of one who calleth unto that which heareth naught except a shout and cry. *Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense*.





> Araf 179:
> Already have We urged unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears wherewith they hear not. *These are as the cattle - nay, but they are worse!* These are the neglectful.





> Furkan 44:
> Or deemest thou that most of them hear or understand? *They are but as the cattle - nay, but they are farther astray*





> Tövbe 28:
> O ye who believe! The idolaters *only are unclean*. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year.





> Maide 60:
> Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? Worse (is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen ! Worese is he of whose sort *Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols*. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.





> Cuma 5:
> The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the *likeness of the ass carrying books*. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.





> Araf 176:
> And had We willed We could have raised him by their means, but he clung to the earth and followed his own lust. *Therefor his likeness is as the likeness of a dog: if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out.* Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate unto them the history (of the men of old), that haply they may take thought.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> The only reason that I think Christianity is real, is that Jesus preformed miracles. I have no clue how that is possible, without some supernatural being helping him.


It's easier to believe that a miracle happened (when you "have no clue how that is possible") than to believe that the people who thought they witnessed miracles were mistaken or lying?



foxfan352 said:


> First of all it was written ALONG time ago by many man that some didn't even no each other and yet it is in harmony.


This has been disproved already, the Bible is full of contradictions, and with some of the later books (such as the Gospels) the Church actually explicitly decided what to include in the Bible and what to leave out.



foxfan352 said:


> And it being still used today meaning that it has to be special in order for its teachings to survive that long and it being the most selling book ever.


You don't think the fact that Christianity is a very large religion has had anything to do with this? That's what makes it "special", not any alleged truth value.



foxfan352 said:


> The fact that Columbus discovered that chunk of land proved the idea that many europeans had at that time that the earth was flat wrong.


Actually, everyone knew the Earth was roughly spherical (look at some maps from just before Columbus), which was exactly why he did that expedition in the first place. The problem was that nobody realized the American continents were there, and mistakenly thought you could just sail straight west and hit Asia. When he reached America he immediately assumed he'd hit the area around India and that's exactly what he reported back. (We still call Native Americans "Indians"...) Times were simpler back then. He wasn't even the first European to hit this continent, but he did bring awareness of it to Europe, so that's something.


----------



## qazefth (May 2, 2010)

It seems like this discussion will last longer than I have expected. Maybe months, or even years. I better get back on my studies, the rest leave to you guys. But I will be back someday.

Forgive me, if I have said something wrong or hurt your feelings. Above in all that, I just want to say that no matter what our religion is, let it be hindu, christianity, judaism, islam or even if you are an atheist, we must always remember we are one and we are the same. We are humans, the caliphs of this earth, and the best creation of God.

Even if we have attained power or achieved a great victory. We are still humans, it doesnt change the fact that we came from the same source. And we must always remember, that there is a being above us, that has created us. That has given us the pleasure of this world, the pleasure to breathe, to communicate, to live, and that being is God Almighty (definitely not Jesus peace be upon him, he is just a prophet). 

No matter how much knowledge we have attained, no matter how many discoveries we have uncovered, we must remember that it is just a tiny fragment of God's eternal knowledge. So don't get cocky. 

And again, people cannot change unless they themselves want to. If you want to see debates videos between Christian and Islam, search *Ahmed Deedat*, may Allah be pleased with him.

Qazefth, signing off,

Allah Knows Best

P/s 
*If you have any question to ask, doubts about Islam, or opinions about Islam. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheist and so on, are most welcome to join our daily live class at chatislam.com. Class start as early as 9 A.M US/Eastern (EST). At the end of every class, we will conduct a live Questions and Answer.

We also have class specially for sisters, that will be led by Sister Khadijah.

You are welcome to visit our websites on Islam:
www.WhatsIslam.com www.GodAllah.com 
www.ProphetOfIslam.com www.AllahsQuran.com 
www.911Bible.com www.ScienceIslam.com 
www.IslamsWomen.com www.IslamNewsRoom.com
www.RevertsConverts.com

Non muslim can first start learning about islam by visiting: www.WhatsIslam.com*


----------



## BrunoAD (May 3, 2010)

dunpeal2064 said:


> Doesnn't it seem odd though that something all powerful absolutely refuses to do anything supernatural, even if it meens people suffering more? Should we not be questioning as it is?
> 
> Also, when Jesus turned water into wine, he didn't give any scientific reasoning behind it, and I guarentee people asked questions. Same with turning the fish and bread into ... well... more fish and bread. The miracles were flying about back then (when the world was just as full of disbelievers, so don't use that as a reason) and now its like "Well... God _could_ do that, but then you'd know he was there"



God STILL does miracles. After Jesus’ ministry, a new testament (covenant) began and a way was made for the Holy Spirit to come and live directly within those who seek and choose to trust God – who, in a way, give God permission to dwell with them. By the way, Jesus, Holy Spirit and God the Father are 3 different aspects of 1 God. To help visualize this, consider other trinities such as: 
Time - past, present, future
H20 - ice, water, steam
3-D dimension - length, width, height

Before this, people needed a LOT more convincing and even after some of the most amazing visual miracles, many people CHOSE not to trust God. Once you get the Holy Spirit, you are convinced and this is one of the most amazing miracles. When this happens, there is such a drastic change in a person's life, people that knew them just can't understand what really happened. They think the person went insane, or something along those lines. Yes, people do actually simply go crazy at times, but this particular situation has happened thousands (if not millions) of times in the past 2,000 years or so, and is always the same – all of a sudden, this person agrees with the Holy Bible, no matter how against it they were previously, and they begin to live it, as if a new person was born. The Bible calls it being “born again” (see John chapter 3). 

God knows that some people would not accept Him no matter what miracles He presents them with. These are people who are unwilling to genuinely love and forgive others, because of selfishness. There is a reason He tells us to love even our worst enemy and to forgive always. 
Let’s say this person gets drunk and drives head on into your car. Your parents, siblings, pregnant wife, and your dog with her litter of puppies get slowly burned to death in the following wreck. You survive, but are scarred beyond recognition, lose your legs and arms, etc. The offender gets off without a scratch and any apparent penalty. You start harboring bitterness, hatred and unforgiveness towards them. However, this offender, like you, was otherwise an apparently good person and made it to heaven. What kind of heaven would it be, being stuck for eternity with your most hated enemy?

Regarding Hitler, sounds like you don’t want him in heaven, so aren’t you glad God made a separate place for those who would turn heaven into hell if they could? Besides, it is impossible for a good man to go to hell, but just about everyone defines “good” differently, so who is really good? When you are in court because you murdered someone, it does not matter how many good things you have done throughout your lifetime – you are still GUILTY, even if that was your only offence! We are ALL guilty of breaking God’s perfect law. If you read through the 10 commandments, most likely you broke every one of them at least once. God is perfect in every way, including His infinite wisdom, He is perfectly just and knows best where each of us belongs. 

And the reason we don’t just cease to exist is because when God made us, He breathed His own immortal breath of life into us, so we are all eternal beings. If we end up in hell, it is our own fault and only a fool will blame God, or someone else...


----------



## qqwref (May 3, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Besides, it is impossible for a good man to go to hell, but just about everyone defines “good” differently, so who is really good?


I don't think so. According to the Bible and many other Christians, you go to heaven if you believe in and follow Jesus, not if you are "good". If you think your view is more correct, can you please quote some Bible verses (NT only please, since OT was from before Jesus's time) that say good people will all go to heaven?


----------



## PatrickJameson (May 3, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> God knows that some people would not accept Him no matter what miracles He presents them with. These are people who are unwilling to genuinely love and forgive others, because of selfishness.



Huh? How are these even remotely connected?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (May 3, 2010)

extremely relevant


----------



## RyanO (May 3, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> qazefth: will you participate in jihad since it is taught and encouraged in the koran?
> 
> "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Surah 61:4).
> 
> ...


 
Rachmaninovian: will you ruthlessly murder non believers because it is taught and encouraged in the Bible?

"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die"(Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

In my opinion this is far worse than the scriptures you quoted from the Qur'an, as the Qur'an is speaking of fighting in self defense not murdering innocents.


----------



## blade740 (May 4, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> God knows that some people would not accept Him no matter what miracles He presents them with. These are people who are unwilling to genuinely love and forgive others, because of selfishness.



Who's more selfish, the one who loves others because it'll get him into heaven, or the one who knows there is no heaven but loves others anyway?


----------



## nitrocan (May 4, 2010)

RyanO said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > qazefth: will you participate in jihad since it is taught and encouraged in the koran?
> ...


Not always:


> Tövbe 8:
> And when the sacred months have passed, then kill them wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.





> Azhab 60/61:
> If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madīnah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little.
> Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.


I also want to quote something I find very amusing:


> Azhab 50/51:
> O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
> 
> You, [O Muhammad], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated – there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them – all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing.





> Azhab 53:
> O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.


Ground rules?


----------



## RyanO (May 4, 2010)

@nitrocan: I wasn't really defending the Qur'an, just demonstrating that the Bible is also quite flawed.


----------



## jackdexter75 (May 4, 2010)

RyanO said:


> I don't know of a single person who would actually condone following all of the things the Bible says we should do. The Bible advocates forcing victims of rape to marry their attacker. Do any of you actually believe this is right? I don't understand how anyone that has read the Bible can claim that it is perfectly problem free.



Where in the world did you get that the Bible says for someone to marry the person that rapes them?! It cleary speaks against it. I would like for you to show me where it says this


----------



## ChrisBird (May 4, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know of a single person who would actually condone following all of the things the Bible says we should do. The Bible advocates forcing victims of rape to marry their attacker. Do any of you actually believe this is right? I don't understand how anyone that has read the Bible can claim that it is perfectly problem free.
> ...





The Bible said:


> Deuteronomy 22:25-29 (New International Version)
> 
> 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
> 
> * 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives*.



This ring any bells?


----------



## RyanO (May 4, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know of a single person who would actually condone following all of the things the Bible says we should do. The Bible advocates forcing victims of rape to marry their attacker. Do any of you actually believe this is right? I don't understand how anyone that has read the Bible can claim that it is perfectly problem free.
> ...



"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty sheckles of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her(Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Sometimes I wonder if most Christians even read their Bibles.

EDIT*

Awww, too slow. I guess skeptics DO read their bibles.


----------



## ChrisBird (May 4, 2010)

RyanO said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



Look at the post above you =D


----------



## nitrocan (May 4, 2010)

RyanO said:


> @nitrocan: I wasn't really defending the Qur'an, just demonstrating that the Bible is also quite flawed.



I know, I just thought that I'd add it so that there isn't any confusion.


----------



## jackdexter75 (May 4, 2010)

RyanO said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



I just read it and the KJV does not say that. The NIV version is a perverted "translation" of the Bible that secular man wrote. I don't read that Bible and I don't think it is a good Bible to read. To get a Bible Published one has to change so many words in order to get one. even change meanings of scripture. So read the KJV and tell me what it says, and then try and come to the same conclusion. My God is not the author of confusion. and many versions of the Bible will create it.


----------



## RyanO (May 4, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> I just read it and the KJV does not say that. The NIV version is a perverted "translation" of the Bible that secular man wrote. I don't read that Bible and I don't think it is a good Bible to read. To get a Bible Published one has to change so many words in order to get one. even change meanings of scripture. So read the KJV and tell me what it says, and then try and come to the same conclusion. My God is not the author of confusion. and many versions of the Bible will create it.



I'd love to hear what your version says on the subject.


----------



## ChrisBird (May 4, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



So riddle me this.

If your God isn't the author of confusion, why does every interpret the Bible differently?
If God was all powerful, why doesn't he make the Bible above the influence of personal-interpretation and instead make it clear enough for people to understand?

If the Bible had one clear message and not a thousand half-right ones, it might be somewhat credible.

~Chris

As for your claim about KJV vs the one I posted. Here is your "better" version.



The Bible (KJV) said:


> Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version)
> 
> 28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
> 
> 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.



Hmm, seems oddly similar.
And as for your "I just read it and the KJV does not say that." Maybe fact -check before claiming such things?


----------



## nitrocan (May 4, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



Are you sure about that? What have people been debating for so long then?


----------



## RyanO (May 4, 2010)

The KJV is admitedly more subtle, but "lay hold on her, and lie with her" sure seems to imply the use of force.

An example of God's approval of rape in war time can be shown by

"1Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 

2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city"(Zechariah 14:1-2 *KJV*).


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (May 4, 2010)

EVH said:


> We can't just say that the earth was created in one big *command*, because where did that matter come from?



sudo make


----------



## aronpm (May 4, 2010)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> EVH said:
> 
> 
> > We can't just say that the earth was created in one big *command*, because where did that matter come from?
> ...



make: *** no makefile found. Stop.


----------



## riffz (May 4, 2010)

RyanO said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



I don't think you understand the implications of this verse. During this time period, if a girl was raped and impregnated she would be shamed by society and treated terribly. This verse is stating that to punish the rapist he must pay her father a large sum of money, and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the woman and her baby. It doesn't mean that she has to love him, but women could not take care of themselves during that time period, and if she already had a baby born out of rape then no one would marry her and she would be left in poverty the rest of her life. As her husband, the man would be expected to provide food, shelter, etc. for her.


----------



## rubixfreak (May 4, 2010)

To end this thread, here is *THE ONLY* real god:


Spoiler












To be honest I always wonder why anyone would believe in any supernatural power which was never seen, documented or proved to exist.
...


----------



## qqwref (May 4, 2010)

riffz said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



Yeah? So? This isn't that time period, but people still believe that the Bible should be literally interpreted and exactly followed. That law is *still on the books*. So I see three options here:
- God didn't realize that his Word would still be followed in two thousand years, and didn't bother to put any clauses in it saying that certain things would only apply for certain time periods. This option makes no sense to me since He is supposed to be omniscient and wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake.
- Modern Christians actually should follow this verbatim as it is God's word, i.e. rapists should still be forced to marry the rape victims, children should still be killed for being disobedient to their parents, slavery should still be considered moral, etc.
- The Bible was written by a bunch of guys who lived 2000+ years ago and shouldn't be followed word for word any more than the Magna Carta should.


----------



## RyanO (May 4, 2010)

riffz said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



I don't think you understand how traumatizing rape is for the victim. The time period is no excuse; this would still be a terribly horrific exerience for the woman involved. Why didn't God just command people to treat women like human beings rather than disrespecting an innocent victim. I think it's BS to let God off the hook for the backwards societal practices of Biblical times. If God knows what is morally right, why doesn't he command us to do it, rather than commanding things so perverse that they would make any decent person sick to their stomach.

Hmmm, I like that girl. I should rape her so she'll become my wife. Way to go God....way to go.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 5, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> What's all this fuss about love? Love is just another evolutionary advancement, not only humans, but many other animals went through.



There are different kinds of love. Original Bible languages have over 10 different words for love depending on what kind it is. For example, I love playing with a Rubik's cube, I love certain music, weather, or ice cream, yet in different ways I love my friends, wife, children, parents, etc. 
Generally it is natural to love things that make us feel good in some way. We want to keep those things close, safe and unharmed. However, God asks us to love with an unnatural love that is not based on feelings and may actually contradict them. 
Most of us think that love is a feeling, but love based purely on feelings is actually lust, which is basically a desire for something that satisfies self. Once the object of affection does not invoke pleasant feelings, this kind of love is quickly lost and often even turns to hatred. 

True (Godly) love is much different. God states that true (unselfish and unconditional) love is an act of choice and that is why He asks us to love even those who our wicked human nature wants to hate. He is specific to point out that we get no credit for loving those who love us back (Luke 6:32). Not because it is wrong, but because that comes almost as easy as breathing, basically anyone can do it when conditions are cozy. It would be like praising a fish, because it swims...

At times, the most loving thing is to inflict pain, physical and/or emotional. Such as, when a child does something wrong, it is wise to spank them in love (never in anger!), because this will teach them that there are negative consequences for doing wrong. This is why God allows pain, disease and death, which are consequences of sin (disobedience/rebellion against God's perfect instruction). He even warned us first, that if we break His laws, there will be painful consequences. 
(We were told not to spray WD40 into our cube, or there will be negative issues sooner, or later  )


----------



## nitrocan (May 5, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > What's all this fuss about love? Love is just another evolutionary advancement, not only humans, but many other animals went through.
> ...



I cannot believe that you just misquoted me (I had explained some more versions of love in my post), and then directed your post into somehow, stating that it is a good thing to make people suffer and DIE for their wrong-doings. I don't see any "loving" in that. How do you love someone so much, that you want to actually kill him/her? That doesn't make any sense.

People should stop bumping this topic now. I am shocked at how corrupt some people could turn out to be.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

luke1984 said:


> no one can know if there's a god, and religion is solely based on belief, not on rational reasoning.



There have been thousands, if not millions of people throughout history that claimed to know God, there still are. Many willingly give anything and everything because of this knowledge and they even look forward to their death. When you know what will happen after you die, you obviously have a much different outlook on life than when you feared dying.
The Bible does claim that we can KNOW where we go after death (1 John 5:13) and this also has proven to be true to many.

Also, pure Christianity is not exactly a religion. It is a relationship between Jesus and His followers. In a religion you do rituals because you have to, or it gets you something. In a good relationship you do things because you love the other person and want to please them and it goes both ways. 
Besides, Jesus had big problems with religious leaders and their religions for many reasons and some of His roughest words and actions were aimed at them. They actually chase people away from God, give Him a bad name and promote division, while they covet wealth and power. Just look at all the pain and death that religious differences brought and when people see it, they wonder why they would want to be a part of that mess.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

hagendaasmaser said:


> a lot of what the Bible has said has been proved wrong



Please, be specific. Which parts have been proven wrong and by what proof?


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

RyanO said:


> The Bible advocates forcing victims of rape to marry their attacker.



The original texts and correct translations define this as sex outside of wedlock, not necessarily rape. This is hard to understand in today's world of free sex and multiple marriages, but back in those days, it was one man to one woman, which was God's original plan. Once virginity was broken, and possibly a baby was made, this woman had no chance to have another man, unless the man died, and even then it was difficult. So once the sin was done, the best course of action was for the offenders to actually commit to each other, which would eventually work to the good of all - the baby would have its real father, the woman would get loved as she desires and the man would get respect, till death do them apart.

Ever since the New Covenant came into effect, we are not under the law anymore. Not because they were bad laws, or mistakes, but because they are not necessary anymore. Those laws were for a different time, although they could still be applied to great effect today. The law was a guide for people who wanted to follow God. After Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, the law was replaced by the Holy Spirit, Who is a Guide to those who want to follow God.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (May 6, 2010)

The Bible is really quite...interesting. I know many people, namely family members, that have read and read and read over the Bible and have finally concluded that it makes no sense whatsoever to believe literally. 

The importance of the Bible, to me, is the lessons of life it gives and Jesus's teachings, because its teachings of being a good person can apply to anyone, not just Christians.



I mean, the Bible was written by man, wasn't it? How could it possibly be perfect?


----------



## Escher (May 6, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> After Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, the law was replaced by the Holy Spirit, Who is a Guide to those who want to follow God.



Yes, people seem to be very keen to forget how the New Testament supersedes the Old, so that they can use outdated social ideologies (that were relatively moral in the historical context) to support their own prejudices.


----------



## ZamHalen (May 6, 2010)

I am not going to argue a religion but argue that no one has the right to tell you which religion is "best".I'm Catholic (flame me I don't care) but I've been taught from a young age to respect others beliefs.We,in all truth, can never really say which religion is "best" we can only say which religion is best for ourselves.I don't care if worship the spaghetti god it means nothing to me personally so why should I care.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

qqwref said:


> BrunoAD said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, it is impossible for a good man to go to hell, but just about everyone defines “good” differently, so who is really good?
> ...



You are correct about who goes to heaven. I did not mean to insinuate that we go to heaven according to our good works. Next to God's standard, not even one man is good - all are guilty of breaking His perfect law (Matthew 19:17, Romans 3:12). However, Jesus DID live a perfect life without sin, thus when He was executed, God accepted Him as a perfect sacrifice to wipe out all sin. Jesus, in effect, made us all not guilty. All we have to do is accept. Sounds so easy, yet so few are willing to go with Him...


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Who's more selfish, the one who loves others because it'll get him into heaven, or the one who knows there is no heaven but loves others anyway?



Hmmm, I really don't know which one of those two is more selfish. I can't see their hearts, or true motives. I also am not sure how to measure levels of selfishness.

By the way, loving others will never get anyone to heaven. Who teaches that?


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

RyanO said:


> An example of God's approval of rape in war time can be shown by
> 
> "1Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
> 2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city"(Zechariah 14:1-2 *KJV*).



This is by no means God's approval of rape. This simply speaks a prophecy of what will happen to Jerusalem.


----------



## edd5190 (May 6, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> After Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, the law was replaced by the Holy Spirit, Who is a Guide to those who want to follow God.




The law was never replaced.



Matthew 5:18 said:


> For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## nitrocan (May 6, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > An example of God's approval of rape in war time can be shown by
> ...



I am wondering how the men who were to invade Jerusalem felt about raping the women of Jerusalem after reading this verse.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 6, 2010)

edd5190 said:


> The law was never replaced.



“ye are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” (Galatians 3:23)

“But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” (Galatians 5:18)


----------



## qqwref (May 6, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Also, pure Christianity is not exactly a religion. It is a relationship between Jesus and His followers. In a religion you do rituals because you have to, or it gets you something.


Uh, no. Christianity is definitely a religion. You can't distance yourself from everyone else just because you think they're all doing things because they have to (they're not).



BrunoAD said:


> Ever since the New Covenant came into effect, we are not under the [Old Testament] law anymore.


If you've thrown off the OT's morals and law, why do Christians quote the OT? Either you do have to follow those laws (then do so) or you don't (then ignore the OT's moralistic/legalistic teachings because they are outdated). Choose one and only one.


Incidentally, KJV Matthew 5:17 says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Was Jesus wrong about this?


----------



## chowmein (May 12, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk&feature=player_embedded

"yes."
"no."
"CORRECT!"


----------



## chowmein (May 12, 2010)

o and also i found this one amusing...

http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/04/is-god-really-fake.html


----------



## Feryll (May 12, 2010)

Spoiler


----------



## desertbear (May 12, 2010)

I like the discussion in this thread. Using sources and citing them is (ironically enough) not used very often in religious debates. I am glad to see we are using our resources.

The truth is, while we can argue all we want about religion, the end result is the same. But I am not saying we should stop this debate, it is very good to debate and question another's beliefs as well as your own. However, even as a practicing Buddhist, I would say there is no one best religion for every single person in the world. Almost all religion expresses great truth along with a call for compassion. Take your pick of religion, but as long as you can honestly say that you believe in it fully and that you are working towards becoming a better person because of it, I say that you are part of a good religion.

I'd be hard pressed to say any religion is "wrong". And I believe that a religion which preaches that other religions are inherently wrong is missing the point of religion. As a Buddhist, I can say there is much good in every religion that I can learn from. Christians, I have great respect for the large quantity of social work you perform. Muslims, I have great respect for the reverence with which you hold your religious practices as well as your discipline regarding religious practices. Jews, I have great respect for the depth of which you analyze your own scholarly works. Hindus, I have great respect for your reverent worship and love for meditation. Jainists, I have great respect for your devotion to the practice of ahimsa.

We are all beautiful people. Difference in religions is much like taking different roads/paths to the same destination.

Amitabha!
-Jeff


----------



## Tyson (May 12, 2010)

Problem...

"Take your pick of religion, but as long as you can honestly say that you believe in it fully and that you are working towards becoming a better person because of it, I say that you are part of a good religion."

Working towards becoming a better person? The problem with religion is that it changes the way people define what it means to be a better person.

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

Scott Roeder honestly believes that he is being a better person by murdering George Tiller. So religion is still okay here? I don't think it's okay for us to enforce morals on other people if the morals are based on subjective things with no evidence.


----------



## desertbear (May 12, 2010)

Okay. I'm sorry, I guess I didn't define that well enough. You're right, some people do believe being a better person is murdering, raping, etc. I'll rephrase that to "as long as you can honestly say that you believe in it fully and that you are working towards loving all and making the world a more peaceful place".


----------



## Tyson (May 12, 2010)

desertbear said:


> Okay. I'm sorry, I guess I didn't define that well enough. You're right, some people do believe being a better person is murdering, raping, etc. I'll rephrase that to "as long as you can honestly say that you believe in it fully and that you are working towards loving all and making the world a more peaceful place".



That doesn't work. Roeder believed he was making the world a more peaceful place by killing Dr. Tiller as killing Dr. Tiller would prevent him from performing abortions.

Why does it only matter if you believe in it? I think I'm showing you here that allowing people to believe whatever they want and allowing them to act on those beliefs if they are genuine can lead to some pretty unpleasant things. If you're going to act on something, shouldn't it be supported by evidence?

Unless... you want to claim to Christianity is a bad religion because of this. In which case, I have no problem with that. Though I would say I know of some bad examples from Buddhists too.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 12, 2010)

qqwref said:


> If you've thrown off the OT's morals and law, why do Christians quote the OT? Either you do have to follow those laws (then do so) or you don't (then ignore the OT's moralistic/legalistic teachings because they are outdated). Choose one and only one.
> Incidentally, KJV Matthew 5:17 says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Was Jesus wrong about this?



Jesus was never wrong on anything, He IS the Truth.
We are not to throw out the Old Testament, or its laws. There is much benefit to heeding its wisdom. For example, I did not understand why God tells us that certain foods like pork, shellfish, catfish, etc. are unhealthy for us. I loved these foods, so after I started reading the Bible in 2003, I studied this out. (I do work in research and it is also my hobby.) I found out that God sorted out animal food according to its health benefits to us, LONG before man had the science to know this. Most “unclean” animals are scavengers and eat and store in their bodies poisons that are around us. God made these animals for a different purpose than to be used as human food. For example look at a pig. It’s digestive system is much different from a cow (a clean animal). Pig eats just about anything, including feces and rotting flesh, then its short digestive system pulls out poisons and stores them in fat and muscles. They can get so clogged up with toxins that even their excretory system is made differently to keep them safe. I suggest studying this out. It is AMAZING how intricately everything is made.

There is nothing wrong with the Old Testament. Its main purpose is to point to Christ, but also to show us what is right and what is wrong, to help us live a long, healthy and prosperous life Without clear guidelines, we do whatever we feel like doing and then justify it to make it look like we did right. Once we receive the Holy Spirit, we have a proper guide to tell us what is good, thus the law becomes redundant.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 12, 2010)

desertbear said:


> Difference in religions is much like taking different roads/paths to the same destination.



But HOW do you know for sure all these paths lead to the same destination? What if there really is ONLY ONE way and we miss it, because we were too _______________ (lazy, selfish, proud, ignorant, fill in the blank)?

They (makes me wonder who "they" are) say that all roads lead to Rome. If that was so, why bother looking at a map?? Just pick a road that appears most convenient and start going - just hope you don't run out of time, before you get there.

What I am trying to get across is this: SEEK after the Truth, before it is too late!


----------



## nitrocan (May 12, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > If you've thrown off the OT's morals and law, why do Christians quote the OT? Either you do have to follow those laws (then do so) or you don't (then ignore the OT's moralistic/legalistic teachings because they are outdated). Choose one and only one.
> ...



Yes, evolution is indeed an amazing thing.


----------



## qqwref (May 12, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > If you've thrown off the OT's morals and law, why do Christians quote the OT? Either you do have to follow those laws (then do so) or you don't (then ignore the OT's moralistic/legalistic teachings because they are outdated). Choose one and only one.
> ...


OK. So you believe it's acceptable to keep slaves, proper to stone (i.e. kill) children who disobey their parents, correct to have a rape victim marry a rapist, and right to kill adulterers and women who are not virgins when they marry?


----------



## desertbear (May 12, 2010)

Tyson said:


> desertbear said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. I'm sorry, I guess I didn't define that well enough. You're right, some people do believe being a better person is murdering, raping, etc. I'll rephrase that to "as long as you can honestly say that you believe in it fully and that you are working towards loving all and making the world a more peaceful place".
> ...



Organized religion can be dangerous. I understand your point. But I cannot control what every Buddhist does, or what every Christian does. I can only control myself. This is a universally applicable truth. 

As much as I wish people didn't believe in some of the things they did, to be human is to be able to freely choose and believe. That is why I say it is important to believe in what you follow. To follow a religion out of fear is insecurity. 

What I mean mostly is that most religions produce much more good results than bad. And usually when it's a bad result, it's a misinterpretation. The religion itself is hard pressed to control individual interpretations. If the man who killed the abortion doctor had really known the word of God, he would know that Jesus and his religion say that the ends do not justify the means. Even if he thinks in this situation, the kill is self-defense, this is his problem. Is it fueled by Christianity? Partially, but also mainly by fanaticism and zeal. There are always members of groups who perform extreme actions, ones that don't define the group itself. Yes, some tragic things have happened as a result of Christianity, but also, many beautiful and wonderful things. Even if your morality is proportionalism, to sacrifice all the good social work and altruism that Christianity has performed for a few goof-ups doesn't seem entirely proportional.

As for Buddhism, yes, there are examples. But there are also examples in every institution. The Buddha never claimed that his followers would be perfect at first. In the Dhammapada the Buddha says "Do not concern yourself with the faults of others, or what they have or haven't done. Concern yourself with what you yourself have or haven't done". I cannot answer for these people flaws. I can only learn from them. 

I said that all of this applies to a good religion. Not every person in a good religion is a good person.

But I have enjoyed this conversation 

Amitabha,
Jeff


----------



## Mastersonian (May 12, 2010)

I know this was a few pages back, but just so everyone knows, the Hebrew(or greek, I forget) word for circle is also the hebrew(again, maybe greek) word for sphere.


----------



## irontwig (May 12, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Jesus was never wrong on anything, He IS the Truth.



Two words: mustard seed.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 12, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> evolution is indeed an amazing thing.



It takes an immense amount of blind faith to believe in evolution, much more than it takes to believe that God created everything. There is so much going against evolution, if you truly study it. I am talking about MACRO evolution, not micro evolution, which is basically adaptation. Evolution teaches such claims as "Nothing exploded and here we are!", or “we evolved from mud by pure chance”. 
Consider the vastness and complexity of our universe, structure of a cell, intricacies of DNA, an atom, or a quark. These are so unbelievably complex and perfect that it would be a more intelligent statement to say that a pile of rubble evolved into a functioning watch, or a jumbo jet over billions of years, than what some scientists are claiming about the Big Bang and macro evolution. I say SOME, as I work in the science field and research, and am amazed just how many scientists are admitting that those claims cannot be true, as more evidence is coming up against evolution. 
Only a few years ago our textbooks claimed our universe began millions of years ago, this number continues to escalate and is now at about 14 billion years and even that is nothing more than a guess. The Bible claims God created Earth and man about 6,000 years ago and there is much more evidence supporting that. Unlike “scientist’s” millions over the past few years, this number remained unchanged for thousands of years. Truth does not change.

Studying quarks that form atoms, we are finding out that everything is made of energy waves (sound waves, light waves, micro waves, etc.) Matter is not actually solid, but a huge amount of energy waves that work in perfect unison. When we speak, we create waves. Sound waves can be powerful enough to disrupt solid matter, such as glass. The Bible teaches that God SPOKE everything into existence. He created energy waves, then arranged them perfectly to form (the Big Bang!). He then created man out of mud (which is in a way what evolutionists teach, minus God, the Creator).

If you are set on believing something, search and study it out. Don’t accept something blindly, just because it sounds good.
I heard there are animals called lemmings that supposedly follow their “leader” to their doom. I have seen caterpillars walking on a rim of a plate, each one following the one in front, until they die of exhaustion. We, humans, are much like that. We pick someone and follow them, regardless of their validity, then we get so comfortable (maybe even proud) in our way that even if we see evidence that this person is wrong, we refuse to get on the right path. There are consequences to everything...


----------



## BrunoAD (May 12, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Two words: mustard seed.



You are correct, those are indeed two words.


----------



## Escher (May 12, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> I heard there are animals called lemmings that supposedly follow their “leader” to their doom.



I don't particularly care to enter into this discussion, but that's actually a myth created by a scene in a film made by Disney (I think). They simply herded the lemmings off the cliffs and recorded the result, claiming they were suicidal. 
Lemmings _don't_ throw themselves to their dooms in search for food (or their 'leader')!


----------



## PatrickJameson (May 12, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > evolution is indeed an amazing thing.
> ...



Are you trolling?


----------



## BrunoAD (May 12, 2010)

Mastersonian said:


> I know this was a few pages back, but just so everyone knows, the Hebrew(or greek, I forget) word for circle is also the hebrew(again, maybe greek) word for sphere.



The Hebrew word used in describing our planet was "chuwg". This was used to describe an act of circling, as if you set off on a straight course from one point, you would circle back to the same point. This would not be possible on a flat surface and could only describe a globe.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 12, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Are you trolling?



Hmmm, not intentionally, although I am not sure what exactly you mean, Patrick.

I am focusing on the original post by qqwref:
"_convince me your religion is the right one Or at least try to make a good argument that other religions aren't_."

When others chose to challenge my beliefs, is it not prudent to explain my stance?


----------



## aronpm (May 12, 2010)

I don't think you understand how evolution works, or even what evolution tries to explain. Evolution says nothing about how the universe started, and it says nothing about the origin of life on Earth. Evolution only seeks to explain the diversity of life of Earth.

P.S: Macro evolution is the same as Micro evolution. The only difference is the amount of time.


----------



## shelley (May 12, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Evolution teaches such claims as "Nothing exploded and here we are!"



This is all I needed to read to know that nothing you wrote is worth any consideration because you have no idea what evolution is.


----------



## Kirjava (May 12, 2010)

How old do you think the earth is?


----------



## RyanO (May 13, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> If you are set on believing something, search and study it out. Don’t accept something blindly, just because it sounds good.
> I heard there are animals called lemmings that supposedly follow their “leader” to their doom. I have seen caterpillars walking on a rim of a plate, each one following the one in front, until they die of exhaustion. We, humans, are much like that. We pick someone and follow them, regardless of their validity, then we get so comfortable (maybe even proud) in our way that even if we see evidence that this person is wrong, we refuse to get on the right path. There are consequences to everything...



Anyoe else find it ironic that this logic is being used to *defend* religion?


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 13, 2010)

:fp

I don't like these threads. Just face it guys... People can live the religion they want to live. I don't like these debates.


----------



## Tyson (May 13, 2010)

_Organized religion can be dangerous. I understand your point. But I cannot control what every Buddhist does, or what every Christian does. I can only control myself. This is a universally applicable truth. _

Sure, not a problem. No problem here.

_As much as I wish people didn't believe in some of the things they did, to be human is to be able to freely choose and believe. That is why I say it is important to believe in what you follow. To follow a religion out of fear is insecurity._ 

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

_What I mean mostly is that most religions produce much more good results than bad. And usually when it's a bad result, it's a misinterpretation._

This I'm going to slam you on. Really? Is this fair? So whenever someone does something good in the name of Allah, it's Islam. But when someone does something bad in the name of Allah, it's a misinterpretation?

"No true follower of religion will do something bad."
"But Duke is a follower of this religion, and he did something bad."
"Ah, but he's just misinterpreting it."

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

Logical fallacy you have provided.

_The religion itself is hard pressed to control individual interpretations._

This is basically a restatement of what you said above. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

_If the man who killed the abortion doctor had really known the word of God, he would know that Jesus and his religion say that the ends do not justify the means._

No, that's your interpretation of Christianity. When did you become an authority on Christianity? He obviously disagrees with you.

_Even if he thinks in this situation, the kill is self-defense, this is his problem._

Is it really his problem, or is it the dead doctor's problem? My problem with this is that people can justify their actions, and other people have to deal with the consequences.

_Is it fueled by Christianity? Partially, but also mainly by fanaticism and zeal. _

Is there any difference?

_There are always members of groups who perform extreme actions, ones that don't define the group itself. Yes, some tragic things have happened as a result of Christianity, but also, many beautiful and wonderful things. Even if your morality is proportionalism, to sacrifice all the good social work and altruism that Christianity has performed for a few goof-ups doesn't seem entirely proportional._

They are a part of the group, and they are a part of the group's definition. The fact is that most of the altruism that Christians have been performed can be performed by other groups.

_As for Buddhism, yes, there are examples. But there are also examples in every institution. The Buddha never claimed that his followers would be perfect at first. In the Dhammapada the Buddha says "Do not concern yourself with the faults of others, or what they have or haven't done. Concern yourself with what you yourself have or haven't done". I cannot answer for these people flaws. I can only learn from them. 

I said that all of this applies to a good religion. Not every person in a good religion is a good person.

But I have enjoyed this conversation 

Amitabha,
Jeff_

I mean, there's a lot there. And this stuff is not simple to debate in text form because there are many points here. So instead of bothering with every thing I've written, I just want you to respond to my claim that your defense here is a fallacy, namely, the No True Scotsman fallacy.


----------



## bluecloe45 (May 13, 2010)

IM UNITARIAN


----------



## nitrocan (May 13, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > evolution is indeed an amazing thing.
> ...



There, you have just proven yourself to be a troll.

I find it much more satisfying to say "Science cannot answer this yet, but that doesn't mean it won't" instead of "This is sooo complex, God must have done it". If all scientists were thinking like you, nobody would have bothered researching these.

You also admitted that it takes some amount of blind faith to be believing in God... Interesting.


----------



## blade740 (May 13, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Only a few years ago our textbooks claimed our universe began millions of years ago, this number continues to escalate and is now at about 14 billion years and even that is nothing more than a guess. The Bible claims God created Earth and man about 6,000 years ago and there is much more evidence supporting that. Unlike “scientist’s” millions over the past few years, this number remained unchanged for thousands of years. Truth does not change.



This is how science works. We have no way of knowing what actually happened at the beginning of the universe. All we have are some old books (written by people who also had no way of knowing what actually happened) and scientific analysis. The truth doesn't change, but since we don't know the truth, all we can do is make an educated guess according to the evidence we have. When more evidence shows up, the theory is changed to better fit it. 

What evidence is there (besides the bible, which is a book written by men, and is in no way a credible source) that God created the Earth 6000 years ago?




BrunoAD said:


> Studying quarks that form atoms, we are finding out that everything is made of energy waves (sound waves, light waves, micro waves, etc.) Matter is not actually solid, but a huge amount of energy waves that work in perfect unison. When we speak, we create waves. Sound waves can be powerful enough to disrupt solid matter, such as glass. The Bible teaches that God SPOKE everything into existence. He created energy waves, then arranged them perfectly to form (the Big Bang!). He then created man out of mud (which is in a way what evolutionists teach, minus God, the Creator).



I'm not sure if this paragraph is a joke or what. You're saying that because everything is made of energy waves, the most plausible solution is that God spoke, creating sound waves, which arranged to create everything there is today. Isn't the idea that the whole earth was created from sound waves even more ridiculous than evolution?



BrunoAD said:


> If you are set on believing something, search and study it out. Don’t accept something blindly, just because it sounds good.
> I heard there are animals called lemmings that supposedly follow their “leader” to their doom. I have seen caterpillars walking on a rim of a plate, each one following the one in front, until they die of exhaustion. We, humans, are much like that. We pick someone and follow them, regardless of their validity, then we get so comfortable (maybe even proud) in our way that even if we see evidence that this person is wrong, we refuse to get on the right path. There are consequences to everything...



Why don't you read this paragraph again, but imagine that I'm saying these words to you.


----------



## DcF1337 (May 13, 2010)

I shan't really go into the argument because I find it a huge waste of time. But I'd just like to say this:

Science is supported by physical evidence and experiments and observations. We don't simply believe in something because some group tells us it is so, we understand reality from observations we can make around us. And fans of science can prove what they believe.

Religious fanatics (or simply, theists) on the other hand, like to debate about about something for which there is absolutely no basis or evidence. They base their beliefs on books which tell them things like "the sun orbits around the earth" and the "moon is higher than the stars". People who are so easily fooled would believe just about anything. You just have feed them with enough lies and extraordinary "evidence".

And this is why you can't argue about religion. Because no matter what you use, evidence for evolution, evidence for the big bang, the fallacies of the Turin Shroud, or even passages from the Bible/Qur'an, they will make stuff up in defence of their beliefs and give a lot of guesses. 

Let them see for themselves, that only the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Lord the true God and only His Noodly Appendage will save you from boiling in hot sauce. May you find the true way, the Pastafarian way of life, because he who follows the way of the FSM shall live forever and ever even after death.

Ramen.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 13, 2010)

desertbear: I like your posts, you've got a nice balanced and accepting attitude towards other religions. I can also say that about all Buddhists I know irl, so it's definitely got something to do with Buddhism.

_And I believe that a religion which preaches that other religions are inherently wrong is missing the point of religion._

I'd just say that Buddhism is very different from most other religions and, depending on which brand you're practising, is more of a philosophy. To a Christian, the whole point _is_ that they are right and you're wrong and you will BURN IN HELL...



DcF1337 said:


> And this is why you can't argue about religion. Because no matter what you use, evidence for evolution, evidence for the big bang, the fallacies of the Turin Shroud, or even passages from the Bible/Qur'an, they will make stuff up in defence of their beliefs and give a lot of guesses.


I know what you're saying, but not all religious people are like that. Some are just unaware of all the evidence and logical arguments (because their parents did a great job protecting them from such evil things) and haven't ever seriously considered that they could be wrong. These open-minded people are of course a small minority of all religious people, but they are probably more quiet than the fundamentalist fanatics and there could be many of them lurking.

And even if online debates make very few people convert, they aren't a complete waste of time. I'd like to understand why religious people are religious and how did they choose which religion to follow, and these threads have definitely shed some light to it.


----------



## Kirjava (May 13, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Only a few years ago our textbooks claimed our universe began millions of years ago, this number continues to escalate and is now at about 14 billion years and even that is nothing more than a guess. The Bible claims God created Earth and man about 6,000 years ago and there is much more evidence supporting that. Unlike “scientist’s” millions over the past few years, this number remained unchanged for thousands of years. Truth does not change.




Heh, I didn't see this. Why are you guys even bothering?

Oh, to make fun of his absurdities. Right.


----------



## nitrocan (May 13, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> BrunoAD said:
> 
> 
> > Only a few years ago our textbooks claimed our universe began millions of years ago, this number continues to escalate and is now at about 14 billion years and even that is nothing more than a guess. The Bible claims God created Earth and man about 6,000 years ago and there is much more evidence supporting that. Unlike “scientist’s” millions over the past few years, this number remained unchanged for thousands of years. Truth does not change.
> ...



Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a troll from a non-troll at debates like this.


----------



## Tyson (May 13, 2010)

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law


----------



## BrunoAD (May 13, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Isn't the idea that the whole earth was created from sound waves even more ridiculous than evolution?



Yes it is. It would take much more than just sound waves to create something as amazing as we have here.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 13, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> There, you have just proven yourself to be a troll.



Please, state your definition of a troll.



nitrocan said:


> You also admitted that it takes some amount of blind faith to be believing in God... Interesting.



Absolutely. God does not advertise His existence with big banners and flashing lights. He wants to see what we are like when we think no one is watching, when we are honest. In a way how those who usually speed in their cars slow down when there is a police around, we would be much different (fake) people, if we could see someone like God looking over our shoulder.


----------



## nitrocan (May 13, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > There, you have just proven yourself to be a troll.
> ...


This:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > You also admitted that it takes some amount of blind faith to be believing in God... Interesting.
> ...


----------



## Dene (May 13, 2010)

This thread is still going? Deary me.


----------



## Tyson (May 13, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the idea that the whole earth was created from sound waves even more ridiculous than evolution?
> ...



Has anyone even bothered to point out that sound waves don't exist without a medium? As in, even if there was a god and he had a voice and spoke words, there would no sound and he couldn't do anything?

Because he has to create air first. And I don't think he did that until about day 4.


----------



## desertbear (May 13, 2010)

"This I'm going to slam you on. Really? Is this fair? So whenever someone does something good in the name of Allah, it's Islam. But when someone does something bad in the name of Allah, it's a misinterpretation?"

You can check my quote, I said usually. Not whenever. That would be a huge argument against basic logic. And yes, I know I'm pushing normal logic already. I have no authority to say what is the correct interpretation or not. But you can see that in almost all of these situations, the person who committed the offense is in direct opposition to the majority of the religion's followers. If the whole religion or the majority is in agreement with this heinous crime, I would call it a bad religion. But that is my personal opinion, it only goes so far.

What I mean in this point also goes along with a few of my others that you addressed. To be Scottish is genetic, and based on heritage. No Scotsman needs to conform to a specific set of beliefs and/or standards. The only true criteria for being a Scotsman is to have family of Scottish heritage. Religion however, is very different. There are specific catechisms/doctrines of faith that are supposed to be accepted for you to be classified as a member of a religion. One such in Christianity is that direct abortion is wrong. But another is that the ends don't justify the means. And another is that intended and premeditated murder is wrong. Even if the man did not believe that he fell into the last category (planning this as a "murder") he still has to reconcile the first and second principles. Now, many normal people would say pick one or the other. But that isn't the teaching of Christianity. Christianity has out rightly rejected proportionalism throughout history. You cannot take one over the other because you think it's more important. You also cannot say, "well the ends justify the means here in this specific circumstance". That is situation based ethics, which has also been condemned by Christianity. Christianity is a belief system, and consequently, you must hold certain beliefs for it. So I am saying that if this man claims to be Christian, his act was most certainly not Christian for those reasons. 

I do not claim to be an authority on Christianity. This is why I am taking all of my points from AUTHORITIES in the Christian faith. Namely, the Bible, the living word of God, and the foundations and catechisms of Christianity itself. The second, I suppose could be rejected, because you could say that only what Jesus has directly said matters. But even Jesus taught against the philosophies this man used to "justify" his decision. And to be Christian is to follow Christ, yes? So when you do not follow Christ, you are not Christian. This is all I mean. 

I understand your point about it being the doctor's problem. This is very valid. I did not phrase what I meant very well. I meant that it is this individual's problem concerning his Christianity, not Christianity's problem. They can't control every individuals interpretation or opinion. They can try to change his opinion back for the better, but people in general aren't easily swayed. But yes, you're correct in saying it's the doctor's problem now because of the extremist and falsely "justified" decision of this man. I was just referring to the fact that Christianity as an institution is hard pressed to control each and every interpretation. They try their best to lead individuals to their doctrines, but people can be stubborn. 

"Is it fueled by Christianity? Partially, but also mainly by fanaticism and zeal.

Is there any difference?"

Yes. Well, I suppose I could replace fanaticism and zeal with extremism. Regardless, my point is that Christianity preaches humility, reserve, and non-violence. Specific institutions within Christianity may act differently, so here I must give you that point. But I am talking about Christ himself, and his teachings. Mother Teresa, a wonderful woman of Christianity, I would say is not fanatical or extreme. She practiced with humility, and sought not to hurt a single being. This man would be the exact opposite; wishing to be praised for his actions, as well as taking only parts of the Christian law as specifically important. Jesus had people like this in his own time, and he preached against them; the Pharisees.

So if you mean specific preachers/institutions of Christianity, then yes, I would absolutely agree. But I just meant the most basic and fundamental form of Christianity; the life and teachings of Christ himself. 

I do enjoy talking about this, and I have great respect that you aren't afraid to state what you believe and think. We have lost many people like you in the world.

(I also have respect because I was raised Christian. I do not consider how I was raised to be entirely Christian though. This is why I only cite catechism and the Bible as my sources, not individuals. Also, I used to hold the exact opinions you do. I was almost the same. I'm not saying it's bad. It's just as valid as any other belief system. I'm Buddhist now, but I can see where you are coming from, for I used to feel entirely the same)

Amitabha,
Jeff


----------



## qqwref (May 14, 2010)

desertbear said:


> Specific institutions within Christianity may act differently, so here I must give you that point. But I am talking about Christ himself, and his teachings.


It would be nice if Christianity itself always followed Christ's teachings. Unfortunately they diverged at a relatively early point in Church history.



desertbear said:


> Mother Teresa, a wonderful woman of Christianity, I would say is not fanatical or extreme. She practiced with humility, and sought not to hurt a single being.


Hmm, careful. I've heard she and her organization were not nearly as amazing as popular opinion would have it.


----------



## Kirjava (May 14, 2010)




----------



## Joël (May 14, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Truth does not change.



Dogma's also don't change.



Spoiler


----------



## blade740 (May 14, 2010)

desertbear said:


> But you can see that in almost all of these situations, the person who committed the offense is in direct opposition to the majority of the religion's followers. If the whole religion or the majority is in agreement with this heinous crime, I would call it a bad religion.





desertbear said:


> I do not claim to be an authority on Christianity. This is why I am taking all of my points from AUTHORITIES in the Christian faith. Namely, the Bible, the living word of God, and the foundations and catechisms of Christianity itself.



First of all, these are a bit contradictory. The bible (the infallible living word of God) contains many verses that were simply disregarded at some point. In fact, many verses in the bible (including GOD'S OWN ACTIONS) are examples of what you'd probably call "heinous crimes". Any religion that calls for death as a punishment as much as the bible does is what I'd call a "bad religion"



desertbear said:


> There are specific catechisms/doctrines of faith that are supposed to be accepted for you to be classified as a member of a religion. One such in Christianity is that direct abortion is wrong. But another is that the ends don't justify the means.



Don't confuse things your parents told you with actual tenets of the Christian faith. Did the ends justify the means when God killed most of the life on earth because people weren't listening to him? 



desertbear said:


> This man would be the exact opposite; wishing to be praised for his actions, as well as taking only parts of the Christian law as specifically important.



That has nothing to do with the example given. It seems that religious zealots like this seek recognition for their actions only from God (I assume most know that their fellow man would condemn such actions)


----------



## BrunoAD (May 14, 2010)

Tyson said:


> Has anyone even bothered to point out that sound waves don't exist without a medium? As in, even if there was a god and he had a voice and spoke words, there would no sound and he couldn't do anything?
> 
> Because he has to create air first. And I don't think he did that until about day 4.


Energy waves do not need a medium. Light waves as well as other waves travel through vacuum without a problem.


----------



## BrunoAD (May 14, 2010)

qqwref said:


> It would be nice if Christianity itself always followed Christ's teachings. Unfortunately they diverged at a relatively early point in Church history.



Very true. There are too many "Christian" cults that made their own religions which suit them. They bring shame and a bad name to Jesus Christ and all He stands for. Bible calls them "Wolves in sheep's clothing".

Very few choose to trust and follow Jesus Christ's teachings. 

"_Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it._" (Matthew 7:13-14)


----------



## BrunoAD (May 14, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> BrunoAD said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



nitrocan, perhaps you misunderstood my question. I'll rephrase:
In your own words, define trolling.


----------



## qazefth (May 14, 2010)

Lalala...






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgj6p3JTLg

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)'

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man, ("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.' 

(2:256)

Good Night, zzz


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (May 14, 2010)

I'm dedicated to Total Slack.


----------



## Joël (May 14, 2010)

qazefth said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgj6p3JTLg



I watched about 35 or so minutes of it, but it's all the same type of reasoning that my religious (christain) family members use, but they use the same lines of reasoning for different faiths. 

Basically they act as if the existence of God/Allah is somehow as obvious as the sun, and if you don't agree you don't contemplate, you are not rational or you have no intelligence. This type of reasoning "The existence of God/Allah is clear if you look at creation and contemplate", implying that if you don't 'get it' you haven't been contemplating enough, is being repeated quite a few times. It's funny how easily he dismisses other religions... And how people of other faiths also dismiss other religions with 1 paragraph or less. I've seen this happen so many times. Also cool how he emphasises the monotheistic nature of Islam and how that's all unique and how that also proves God/Allah. In my experience Christians also emphasise one special property about their faith (How Jesus died for our sins) and use it to prove how unique their religion is, and how that somehow means they must be right.

It all sounds like a bunch of fairy tales to me.


----------



## forgotten (May 15, 2010)

*1+1=2*


----------



## nitrocan (May 15, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Lalala...
> ...



You keep avoiding but I'll put them in front of you anyway:



> Bakara 217:
> And if any of you turn back from their faith and *die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.*






> Maide 101/102:
> O ye who believe! *Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.* But if ye ask about things when the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Forbearing.
> 
> *Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.*


So now, you can't ask any questions. You might convert or something.



> Bakara 106:
> None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We *substitute something better or similar*: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
> 
> Nahl 101:
> ...


You also quoted that there is no compulsion in religion, so that nobody should force someone to accept Islam. I will quote, yet again:



> Tövbe 5:
> But when the forbidden months are past, then *fight and slay the polytheists wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem* (of war); _but_ *if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them*: for Allah is  Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.


----------



## qazefth (May 15, 2010)

> Bakara 217:
> And if any of you turn back from their faith and *die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.*


This verse is for the Muslims. Those who quits Islam, or convert to other religion, and died in the religion other than Islam, will be companions of the Hell Fire.


> > Maide 101/102:
> > O ye who believe! *Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.* But if ye ask about things when the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Forbearing.
> >
> > *Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.*
> ...


----------



## nitrocan (May 15, 2010)

qazefth said:


> > Bakara 217:
> > And if any of you turn back from their faith and *die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.*
> 
> 
> This verse is for the Muslims. Those who quits Islam, or convert to other religion, and died in the religion other than Islam, will be companions of the Hell Fire.



So that makes it okay?



> > Maide 101/102:
> > O ye who believe! *Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.* But if ye ask about things when the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Forbearing.
> >
> > *Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.*
> ...


Please read that verse again. You're just making things up to make it sound right.


> > Fatır 43:
> > But *no change* wilt thou find in Allah's way (of dealing): *no turning off* wilt thou find in Allah's way (of dealing).
> 
> 
> ...




Tövbe is "tawbah" in Turkish. Why would you assume that I didn't read it from that? I use http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp for my translations.

AND unfortunately for you, the direct translation says KILL the polytheists.

So it's you that should get back to reading the Quran once more.


EDIT: I read the thing written in the 1+1=2 link. Those will only please someone who is already a muslim. For example the one with the atmosphere being formed of 7 layers. That is wrong. The atmosphere has 5 distinct layers.

I won't go into explaining them all since I've done it too many times with other people.


----------



## Tyson (May 17, 2010)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

"Does the Taliban have an opinion on physics worth considering? No."


----------



## qqwref (May 17, 2010)

For that matter, what do the Muslims here make of this? It isn't some crazy obscure historical event I'm bringing up, this happened under ten years ago...


----------



## shelley (May 17, 2010)

qqwref said:


> For that matter, what do the Muslims here make of this? It isn't some crazy obscure historical event I'm bringing up, this happened under ten years ago...



More recently, progress is made! http://puzzledponderer.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/saudi-arabian-fireworkers-my-now-rescue-girls-too/

Isn't it great that it only took them 8 years to figure out that saving lives might be more important than modesty?


----------



## Tyson (May 17, 2010)

We really do need to get away from this "everyone's opinion must be respected" thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-pray-instead-of-calling-for-medical-aid.html

Oh, and that was only two years ago.


----------



## RubiksDude (May 18, 2010)

jamesdeanludlow said:


> Because we are too vain to admit that we are about as significant as a goldfish.



My goldfish care about me. +1.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 18, 2010)

Tyson said:


> We really do need to get away from this "everyone's opinion must be respected" thing.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-pray-instead-of-calling-for-medical-aid.html
> 
> Oh, and that was only two years ago.



_"The state law that allows healing through prayer became an issue in 2003 when *a two-year-old autistic child in Milwaukee was crushed to death during an attempted exorcism*."_

WTF??? o_o

Edit: Don't forget that you can go to jail for owning dirty comics or books. US is truly the best and freest country.


----------



## Innocence (May 18, 2010)

Tyson said:


> We really do need to get away from this "everyone's opinion must be respected" thing.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-pray-instead-of-calling-for-medical-aid.html
> 
> Oh, and that was only two years ago.



They're idiots...that isn't anyone's fault.

It says nowhere in the bible to not call for an ambulance when somebody is hurt. :S


----------



## Tyrannous (May 18, 2010)

Saw this article on how a yogi man survived 2 weeks without food, water or even going to the toilet, as he was "blessed by a goddess" when he was young.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592544,00.html


----------



## Tyson (May 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > We really do need to get away from this "everyone's opinion must be respected" thing.
> ...



I never said that this was a product of The Bible or Christianity. Even the article says that they don't belong to any organized faith. The point is that not everyone's opinion should be respected.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps...eligious-policeman-dpgonc-20100517-fc_7588496

And that article is from yesterday.

@Johannes91

No need to be sarcastic regarding freedom in the United States. Whereas I think the United States is pretty free in most regards, there are definitely some areas that need improvement.

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


----------



## qqwref (May 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > We really do need to get away from this "everyone's opinion must be respected" thing.
> ...


Well... they didn't have ambulances back then, of course. But according to who you ask there are definitely some Bible verses that explicitly say God will heal you if you have faith and/or ask for it. Surprisingly many people believe that health problems will essentially fix themselves if you pray.

The Bible says a LOT of stuff, and it's all too easy to find a different interpretation than any mainstream Christian one... Was it really so hard to write a document that had a single, specific interpretation, that an omnipotent, omniscient deity couldn't do it?


----------



## clincher (May 18, 2010)

What if some things aren't meant to be understood?
Not everything in the bible has to be interpreted literally
But it sure has some flaws lol


----------



## desertbear (May 18, 2010)

In response to Blade:

Those aren't just things my parents have told me. I have investigated for myself. However, I believe what the Buddha Shakyamuni said is best in this regard:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

For that reason, I always investigate more than just the word of another, especially parts of my OWN religion. I do agree with you that God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or flooding the earth in the Bible were heinous crimes. But people seem to use the cop-out answer "We can't understand God. He does what is right." I don't buy that at all. I think actions should at least be explained or justified.

What I mean is that the Christian faith holds the belief that the end doesn't justify the means. Does it go along with everything in the Bible? No, of course not. I wish it did, but the Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts, etc. prove otherwise. Are there examples of using "ends-means" philosophy in the Bible? Certainly. And I also wish that parts and verses weren't disregarded the way they are. I am horrified by some of the actions in the old testament. 

All I meant was that to be Christian means to follow Christian doctrines. If you're following the Bible wholeheartedly and literally, then yes, I think this man could say that he was just practicing his faith. But most Christian sects would condemn his actions. That's what I meant. I think following the Bible literally isn't what makes you a Christian. But I could be wrong. All I really want to say is that what he did goes against his religion's doctrines. Perhaps God actually did want him to kill that man. Who knows? Perhaps reading and following the Bible literally makes you a Christian. But I just think to be a member of a religion, you have to accept their doctrines, no matter how contradictory they might be to their holy texts.


----------



## qazefth (May 19, 2010)

Yeah, *don't ask things that are already plain and clear to you. Or else you will get into trouble.* And no, im not making this up. That is why I told you, if you want the best answer, you need to find the the answer from the Sunnah (A statement, action, agreement, and disagreement to an act by Prophet Muhammed.) as well. Not just the translation. And from the sunnah and the Quran, that are the sources of tafsir.




> http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp



Clear enough. You are referring to a direct translation. Haven't I posted before the differences between a translation and a tafsir? 



> AND unfortunately for you, the direct translation says KILL the polytheists.



And you had told me once, you are not direct translating. I did not say the _direct translation_ is not killing. Qa-ta-la. Kill. Qa-ti-lu. Kill them. That is the direct translation. *ترجم* in arabic. But Tafseer تفسير, is the explanation of each of the words. 

Polytheist, *موشركين* Mushrikikin (polytheist, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). And at that time, is theKafir Quraish(a tribe who ruled Makkah before Prophet Muhammad Alaihissalam took it back) and others who is against the Prophet Muhammad Alaihissalam.

Its already said in the Quran, there are people who are going to deny the Quran. In surah Al-Kahfi, Verse 105

(They are those who deny the Ayat of their Lord and the meeting with Him.) they denied the signs of Allah in this world, the proofs that He has established of His Oneness and of the truth of His Messengers, and they denied the Hereafter.

(and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall assign no weight for them.) means, `We will not make their Balance heavy because it is empty of any goodness.
__________________________________________

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...not-too-much-islam-but-too-little-500882.html

And qq, there are lots of things that you don't know about Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Tyson (May 19, 2010)




----------



## aronpm (May 19, 2010)




----------



## Tyson (May 19, 2010)

_yay for religious thinking_

CLARIFICATION... the following is a fundie post I found

"Atheists always use rape as an argument for justifying killing because they want to justify abortion. But is rape really that bad? It's a horrible experience but you get over it with time. If you use it to justify murder you're never going to get over it. Imagine you have a painful divorce. Would you murder your children after because they remind you of your ex husband? Of course not. I think any woman would easily tell you that a painful divorce is worse than rape but it's not an excuse to kill your baby, so why is rape?

Christian women can also take a lot more than atheist women. Maybe this is part of the reason that atheists get so hung up about this. Christian women can turn to Christ or worship God in their hearts and endure great suffering. I'm not belittling it but think about it, no amount of suffering from rape is as great as the suffering our Lord suffered on the cross for our sins. You are the one who has to ask more true Christian women about this. You're out of touch and trying to make a big deal out of something just for shock value."


----------



## Joël (May 19, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Its already said in the Quran, there are people who are going to deny the Quran. In surah Al-Kahfi, Verse 105



Prophetic words of infinite wisdom! 

"Here's a brilliant holy book with a brilliant message... Some of the things might sound a little bit far fetched, and people are going to laugh at you and ridicule you for believing it, but then again, that only fulfils this prophecy and proves that it's all true!!"


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

qazefth said:


> > http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp
> 
> 
> 
> Clear enough. You are referring to a direct translation. Haven't I posted before the differences between a translation and a tafsir?



So for you, an interpretation is more valid then what is actually written in the Quran? Oh please...



> 107 Maun:
> 
> *Hast thou observed him who belieth religion?
> That is he who repelleth the orphan,
> ...



Really? I am not this kind of a person.


----------



## megaminxwin (May 19, 2010)

Wow, this must be the most controversial thread in SpeedSolving history.


----------



## qqwref (May 19, 2010)

qazefth said:


> Polytheist, *موشركين* Mushrikikin (polytheist, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). And at that time, is theKafir Quraish(a tribe who ruled Makkah before Prophet Muhammad Alaihissalam took it back) and others who is against the Prophet Muhammad Alaihissalam.


It's this argument again, the one where you say something in your holy book was appropriate for the time. But that means it should be ignored now, right, because it isn't relevant anymore? Why does a book written by God Himself need a guide as to which parts you should listen to and which parts you shouldn't look at?



qazefth said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...not-too-much-islam-but-too-little-500882.html
> 
> And qq, there are lots of things that you don't know about Saudi Arabia.


I don't doubt that at all. But some things are not OK for a country to do, no matter how great the country might be otherwise, and police act as representatives of their country and their government. Anyway, I'd say that there are many interpretations of the Quran - exactly as there are many interpretations of the Bible - and it is really unfortunate that a MAJOR sect of Islam interprets it in a way that creates gross human rights violations. That will always keep me and hundreds of millions of others from even considering the religion. The problems need to be fixed from the inside.



Tyson said:


> Atheists always use rape as an argument for justifying killing because they want to justify abortion. But is rape really that bad? It's a horrible experience but you get over it with time. If you use it to justify murder you're never going to get over it. Imagine you have a painful divorce. Would you murder your children after because they remind you of your ex husband? Of course not. I think any woman would easily tell you that a painful divorce is worse than rape but it's not an excuse to kill your baby, so why is rape?


I don't know how serious this paragraph was, but - many (most?) pro-choice people don't consider a sufficiently young fetus to be a separate person, and wouldn't consider an early abortion to be murder. Preventing someone from being born is clearly less of an offense than killing someone, if it's an offense at all. Of course then you have people on the absolute other side of the spectrum who think any after-the-fact birth control is murder because the person is created at conception. We'll never know what the right viewpoint is unless we can agree on a definition of a person.

I think the reason it's considered reasonable to abort when raped, nowadays, is because having a baby is generally a huge deal. A lot of time is put into preparing for the baby, a lot of effort is put into raising it, and so on; having a child at the wrong time can literally ruin a life. Since people tend to care who the father is, a single woman would face some measure of social ostracization if she chose to raise the child, and even more if she raised it badly or abandoned it after birth. I can imagine a situation in which you'd want to keep the baby, though; if you're willing to have kids at the time, and want to for the kids' sake and don't care who the father is, it could be fine. In most cases, though, having a child at the time would be a huge problem, and most people do see it as more reasonable to abort than to almost certainly ruin their own life.


----------



## Tyson (May 19, 2010)

I was hoping since that comment came from me, it would be assumed that it was a extreme fundie post I found on the internet, and not something I would personally support.

Oh, and this is from today:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/19/pakistani.facebook.shutdown/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn


----------

