Not ignoring i can relate to, but preach things like "go out there and kill all non believers" is a little extreme, don't you think ?

[ 08-11-2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

Moose, the difference is the Qu'ran regards Muslims who live in peace without going to war as "lesser" than people who do. If I recall correctly, they are supposed to inhabit a lesser heaven.

In any case, the only assurance of salvation is in Martyrdom. Not even Mohammad had an assurance. When asked he said he did not know what Allah would do with him.

So, the Muslim who follows their exemplar Mohammads life to the letter has no assurance of salvation, but the Muslim who dies fighting the infidel does.

For the Christian, to know Jesus and receive him into your life, accepting his death on your behalf, is to have assurance of salvation.

Additionally, if you followed Jesus to the letter, you would not raise a fist in self defense, you would go to your death so others would live. If you followed Mohammads life to the letter, you would raze cities, massacre people, displace and murder them.


Which sounds like a religion of peace to you?

Mohammad gave instructions on how to kill your enemies. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. Love them and show kindness. He taught us to turn the other cheek. To forgive endlessly. To treat others how we want to be treated. To not judge others.

Christians when they go to war, are failing to live up to Jesus teaching. This doesn't affect their salvation, and they may well know and love Jesus, but, by killing another human, they are performing an action at odds with Jesus life, teaching, example and desire.

The Muslim who goes to war and kills his enemy, is doing exactly as Mohammad instructed.

Big difference yes?

Oh please. The Qu'ran is much shorter than the bible, written/spoken/dictated by one man during his own life, and consistent in language style and tone. The Bible is written over a 2,000 year period (at least) by numerous authors, and has poetry, history, proverbs, letters, laws, song, philosophy, Prophecy and biographies.

The bible also continually cross references itself. It doesn't contradict itself. It uses itself as a proof. The fact that Grace completes Law is not a contradiction. The New Testament would not exist without the Old. Without the laws of the old testament, there would be no understanding of Jesus Grace.

Does the roof of a house contradict the foundation simply because it has a different shape, different function and the opposite position in the scheme of the house?

Neither does the Qu'ran contradict itself. The Qu'rans messages of peace work within and Islamic world. The messages of violence of for those outside that world.

It's so convenient to fall back on "oh these books contradict themselves". It's far harder to read them, understand them and assess the complexities without a preset discreditative agenda.

Not ignoring i can relate to, but preach things like "go out there and kill all non believers" is a little extreme, don't you think ? </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you on that point, johnny. However, is it really that different from the Bible, which states (I believe, and I'm not sure how exactly it is worded, and I know there are different interpretations), that if you don't believe in (Christian) God, you will go to hell?

Jihad, originally was as a defensive exercise. Jihad, in the Koran ( [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] How exactly do you spell it?) was meant as a form of faith self-defense: the heathens being referred to are those trying to remove the system of belief of Muslims. I am unsure of what particular parts of the Koran (I am not exactly a religious scholar) you are quoting, but I know that there is a large section that deals with the (self-defense, not flying airplanes into buildings) Jihad.

I believe that the martyrs of which are spoken in the Koran are those who choose to die for their religion, and the ones who go to a lesser heaven are the ones who don't have the guts to fight for their religion. They are expressly forbidden from killing innocents, IIRC.

I also am forced to wonder whether there is simply a culture gap between Muslims and Christians. For example, some parts of the Bible are considered folklore. There are few people who will take the Bible literally word-for-word (and I mean no offense for any who do, just saying.) Could there possibly be a misunderstanding? I agree that the language seems strong, and I could be wrong (no offense, but I haven't seen any of the quotes in greater context (obviously)), but I think we both have a long ways to go in the sense of comprehending each others' different cultures.

Oh please. The Qu'ran is much shorter than the bible, written/spoken/dictated by one man during his own life, and consistent in language style and tone. The Bible is written over a 2,000 year period (at least) by numerous authors, and has poetry, history, proverbs, letters, laws, song, philosophy, Prophecy and biographies.

The bible also continually cross references itself. It doesn't contradict itself. It uses itself as a proof. The fact that Grace completes Law is not a contradiction. The New Testament would not exist without the Old. Without the laws of the old testament, there would be no understanding of Jesus Grace.

Does the roof of a house contradict the foundation simply because it has a different shape, different function and the opposite position in the scheme of the house?

Neither does the Qu'ran contradict itself. The Qu'rans messages of peace work within and Islamic world. The messages of violence of for those outside that world.

It's so convenient to fall back on "oh these books contradict themselves". It's far harder to read them, understand them and assess the complexities without a preset discreditative agenda. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for saying please.

Call contradiction whatever you want for whatever reason you want. I'll call it contradiction. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Show the condradictions, it's easy to throw out a statement back it up. Show me where the contradictions are, I've not found any. I've found men's interpitations and teaching of what the Bible says to be contradictiontary.

[ 08-12-2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I agree with John.

Post proof or recant.

Just comparing the writings on the website above and the quotes Johnny posted on the Koran and contradictions are evident. On one hand non-believers are to be treated decently on the other violently.

Here is the webpage I copied this short list of bible contradictions from verbatim, but I added bold to make the individual instances of contradiction stand-out.

BTW- I am utterly convinced the bible is full of contradictions, so any rebuttals aimed at making me change my mind better be good, reeeeeaaal good. ;)

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html

Nice cut and paste job Chewbacca. You haven't even read the passages concerned.

I don't have the time to go through each and every point tonight. I'm off to bed. But considering the starting line was handled about as correctly as a dropped glass.....

See below:


New International Version
Exodus 20
13"You shall not murder.

New American Standard Bible
Exodus 20
13"You shall not murder.

The Message
Exodus 20
13 No murder

AMP
Exodus 20
13You shall not commit murder.

NLT
Exodus 20
13"Do not murder.

KJV
Exodus 20
13 Thou shalt not kill.

ESV
Exodus 20
13"You shall not murder.

CEV
Exodus 20
13Do not murder.

New King James Version
Exodus 20
13"You shall not murder.

YLT
Exodus 20
13`Thou dost not murder.

ASV
Exodus 20
13 Thou shalt not kill.

-----------------

Nine out of these eleven translations translated the Hebrew into Do Not MURDER.

Additionally, the commandments were for ISRAEL not for GOD to follow. They were the humans end of the deal. God's part of the bargain was to be Israel's God.

Considering this is just the first point, I'm out.

Actually I found this written by Mr Baker:

---- All of the above contradictions have been carefully studied, and when necessary the original languages have been consulted. Although it is always scholarly to consider the original languages, why should that be necessary with the "word of God?"

An omnipotent, omniscient deity should have made his all-important message unmistakably clear to everyone, everywhere, at all times. No one should have to learn an extinct language to get God's message, especially an ancient language about which there is much scholarly disagreement.

If the English translation is flawed or imprecise, then God failed to get his point across to English speakers. A true fundamentalist should consider the English version of the bible to be just as inerrant as the original because if we admit that human error was possible in the translation, then it was equally possible in the original writing.

(Some fundamentalists do assert that the King James Version is perfect. One preacher reportedly said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me.") If a contradiction exists in English, then the bible is contradictory. ----


Three problems with this line of thinking.

1. He is prescribing "what should be" onto Gods actions. One humans "what should be" is anothers "what shouldn't". He should just stick to dealing with what is because:

2. Christianity is a relationship. Divergent opinions and interpretations are PROOF of free thinking, and an alive interractive relationship that transcends personal bias.

How a person views an object is entirely dependent on the direction they are facing. Where he sees discord, I see strong relationships covering many bases. He sees denominations as a flaw, I see them as a wonderful strength. I woudl hate to see complete uniformity of belief withing Christianity. It would indicate mind control.

3. He's ignoring Rhema. The spoken word. The written and the spoken need to be in harmony with each other.

Much as he protests, the original language IS important. More importantly, is how the bible speaks to the INDIVIDUAL at their time of distress and need.

Anyhow, I'll post more later.

No need to get nasty Yorick, proof was demanded and I provided. Nobody said I should put that proof in my own words. I chose to provide proof from a site I found a while back. Your sarcastic nastiness about my cut and paste job is unbecoming. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. ;)

I am unsure about what botch job you are refering too, maybe your just upset that more proof was provided than you imagined. Perhaps you mistook the format, each point of contradiction is accented by a "vs".

example-The first point illustrates how in several passages killing is condemed but in others killing is endorsed, even sanctioned by God. Clearly contradictions.

BTW- the author of the list of contradictions is a Preacher turned aethist.
You can follow the link to a list of his books and a personal Bio if you would like to check the credientials.

BTW-If it really upsets anyone I will happlity delete the post and assume that I am free to beleive the Bible has contradictions with-out demands for proof.

[ 08-12-2003, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

The above is meant to prove God's not omnipotent? Out of the entire Bible, out of the alleged THOUSANDS of contradictions, the only attempt at proving the bible contradicts re. omnipotence is where "Judah couldn't dislodge the enemy because they had iron chariots?"

Now, I can say God is with me, like he was with Judah. If I can't park in a carspace because someone else has parked there, how does that prove God is not omnipotent?

Bewildering to say the least.

It was a test of what was Abraham's 'God' for he had put having a child ahead of God's will before (by having Ishmael). Isaac was NOT killed. He lived and bore children himself. God did NOT require human sacrifice.


Ooh. Look at this comment in the translation notes of the bible -

22:29 The meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain.

How I read it is it's a dedication. There is nothing in the bible anywhere that suggests the Hebrews killed their firstborn sons as an offering to God. I repeat, the bible must be taken as a WHOLE.

Had Jephthah studied Gods word he would have seen that that was an abomination. God did not require it. He had directly decreed not to do that. Jephthah cornered himself with his unthinking vow.

Bear in mind, the bible often simply records events without passing Judgement. ALL the Judges were flawed characters. Sampson, Ehud, Gideon, this guy Jepthah. One of the macro messages found by reading all Judges is that God can and does use flawed people. And he restores. He continually forgave Israel again and again. He continually used flawed people with flawed methods to rescue Israel from plights they only brought themselves on.

Jephthah could have just asked God for victory. He could have had the faith that God would have answered his prayer. Instead, he made an absolutist deal. Stupid mistake. We can learn many, many things from that single story. It doesn't show a contradiction however.

It quite clearly states that the Gibeonites (Israels enemies) killed these guys. David didn't offer them as a sacrifice at all. No contradiction.

How is God himself dying for all humanity a contradiction of an edict for humans not to sacrifice humans to God?

It's bizzarre.

The death and ressurection of Jesus Christ are what enable eternal life. It's God, as a perfect sinless human, taking the consequence of sin - death - upon himself.

Again, there is no contradiction.

No contradiction re. Omnipotence, Human sacrifice, and "do not murder".

Again, I'll post more later.

And have you read C.S.Lewis? The atheist professor turned literary 'preacher'?

The second elaborates on the first. I see no contradiction. He CREATED woman out of what he'd created man. Making them equal (even though equality is not mentioned in the first passage).

I see no contradiction.

And have you read C.S.Lewis? The atheist professor turned literary 'preacher'? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, The Chronicles of Narnia are some of my favorite books. I read them annually. Why?

1. Trinity. A triune God

2. Speaking about either trinity or angels. ANgels also knew good and evil, and it was in the matter of good and evil, that man was like "them". (Angels AND God)

3. Trinity. A triune God.

Whether or not Barker deeoms invoking the Trinity does nothing, these verses are part of the PROOF of the Trinity. Rather than the Trinity being used as a defense, these verses are key factors in providing the biblical concept of the Trinity.

To simply dismiss such arguing is ridiculous. A triune God makes perfect sense. Barker shows he never grasped the concept, and placed human limitations on the Creator. Consequently, throughout nature and in conceptuality, triunity, or biunity exists.

A (singular) couple (plural) is one such conceptual example of biunity.
A trio is an example of conceptual triunity.

Plainly obvious and not difficult to grasp whatsoever. Barker needs to revise his "freethought" methinks. ;)

And have you read C.S.Lewis? The atheist professor turned literary 'preacher'? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, The Chronicles of Narnia are some of my favorite books. I read them annually. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Try "Mere Christianity".

I must say this is the most off topic I have ever seen a thread, and I have seen them taken way off topic before. We should get an award or something. :D

Seeing as God is both omnipresent and omniscient, God can live in both light and darkness at the same time. Remembering of course that God is outside time.

If he in fact has a physical form at all!!

Barker is again, attempting to prescribe human limitations on what God is. We don't know WHAT God is, we know WHO God is. Barker again shows his limited concepts of God. It's no wonder he became an atheist if this page of his is any indication of the limited entity he believed his God to be.

Again. Some "freethought" was required. ;)

My favorite was the "Voyage of the Dawn Treader". "The Horse and his boy" came pretty close.

:D :D :D

We have a painting of a ship in our bedroom that always reminds me of the voyage. It even has a wooden frame that is wide enough for little people to stand upon :D That is my fave as well! :D

I invented my own world after reading them at age seven. I started drawing detailed maps of this world, that by my teenage years, ended up covering two walls.

Just a word of warning. Such "demands", in my experience, only serve to turn well mannered debate into confrontational arguements.

Let me explain. What is actually being demanded is that the original poster is required to supply "proof" of his contention in such as format as to satisfy the demander or to abandon his belief.

As this was originally posted by Yorick, I'll give an example that applies directly to him, but as a general rule, it applies to all participants in debate.

I am an agnostic. Suppose in a debate with Yorick, who is a committed Christian, I demanded the that he "post proof or recant", do you think that he would accept that if what he posted did not satisfy my standard of proof he would be under an obligation to desert his faith? I rather think not.

There are better ways of examining differing viewpoints and furthering debate than resorting to such tactics.

P.S. Yorick has been quoted directly, but this is not to be taken as a rebuke. I'm sure his desire is to further common understanding of different and passionately held beliefs.

That's true, but i never claimed the bible is better than the koran. Imo it's the same load of crap. But that's another story, and i don't wanna go there now. :D

I should have done this in the first place:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BUTWT.html

People who have spent more time than I did last night to comprehensively address Barkers issues.

Really? Is that arrogant? Maybe you can't dislodge the car because God isn't with you as he was with Judah. ;)

God is certainly omnipotent. Ask Job. ;) If there was a God, that is -- which there isn't. :makingspeech:

This was an excellent post, esteemed Wookie, despite the fact certain ones may not be direct contradictions. The Bible is full of contradictions -- which is why anyone must read it as an allegorical work or suffer inevitable schizophrenia. You missed two of my favorite contradictions:

1. Mathew/Mark differences in what Jesus says to the disciples when he asks them if they think he is the son of God. Peter answers "yes." In one, Jesus tells him he is the "rock upon which I will found my church" (the one followed by Catholics). In the other, Jesus begins his speech with "get back, Satan." Any Biblical studies course delves into these two passages. Common knowledge.

2. The God of Job. How the book of Job has not found its way into decannonization and apocrypha is beyond me. The God presented in this book is so antithetical to everything I was ever taught God was.

Finally, I note there are HUGE contradictions between the old and new testaments. However, these are not necessarily errors since the new testament is focused on reformation of the religion. Christians would be living under the rules of Kosher if it wasn't for Paul's teachings in Galatians, for instance.

Let me tie all this back up to an early comment. Yorick mentioned there is the religion and those who practice it on one side, and those who do not because they do not follow its tenets on the other side. Yorick has now posted several mini-treatises on what HIS view of his religion is. Does that mean if I can find a Pentacostal (hope I remembered correctly, Yorick) who disagrees with Yorick on some of these points -- that one of them is not a "real" practitioner of the religion??

[ 08-12-2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]
<font color=cyan><h1>WEEKLY RAMBLING THREAD WONDER AWARD!!!!!!</h1></font>
[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

[ 08-12-2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color=cadetblue>There is no contradiction here because Jesus did not say "get thee behing me satan" to Peter because Peter said he was the Christ. Jesus says that to him after Peter rebuked Jesus for saying that the Son of Man will be rejected by the elders and will be killed and rise again in 3 days.

"'But what about you?' he asked. 'who do you say I am?' Peter answered, 'You are the Christ.'"Mark 8:29

"HE then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, cheif priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after 3 days rise again. He spoke about this plainly and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get thee behind me, Satan." Mark 8:31-33</font>

Ok gang, this is off the original topic, so how about someone starting a NEW thread for the religion debate?

I cant take credit for the post, I copied and pasted it from a site I found on the net a while back ran by a group called Freedom From Religion Foundation:
http://www.ffrf.org/

They have an excellent seperation of church and state quiz:
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz.html

-I missed 2 questions- quite proud of myself I am. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Also they have an action alert news system to warn of religion creeping into goverment and even public companies:
http://www.ffrf.org/action/

-Thanks to this gem of a news source I found out them darn bible plaques mysteriously showed back up in the Grand Canyon national park. :mad:

Although I am not an aethist, I do respect the veiwpoint (shhh-Shamans can be aethists too, I've known a few ;) )

Cheers!

This is simply incorrect. Every alleged contradiction has been answered.

Er... yes it has. Why is the only retort Barker has to PROVEN FACTS that they are an "ad hoc" response? Pathetic parrying.

I got this from here: http://www.tektonics.org/passovertime.html#time


If people recorded time differently, then they recorded time differently. Facts are facts. Calling it "ad hoc" is ridiculous. As the different times are STILL used it is possible journalists today could have the same time discrepency. It depends on WHO THEY ARE WRITING FOR.

[ 08-13-2003, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

from here: http://www.tektonics.org/oathswear.html

God sending, or allowing a "lying spirit" - such as Satan - to work in the world, or allowing humans to believe lies, does not contradict the law FOR ISRAEL regarding lying.


Regarding Joshua/James: http://www.tektonics.org/tellalie.html

from http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BUTWT.html

http://www.tektonics.org/gravenimages.html

http://www.tektonics.org/godchangemind.html

This is simply incorrect. Every alleged contradiction has been answered. </font>[/QUOTE]Need I go on? I posted a link to the website, yet Timber posted his fallicy despite the "contradictions" being shown to be the shallow frauds that they are.

I can only assume Timber did not go to the site. So I'm posting them one by one. But is all this necessary?

Atthe end of the day, Timber and Chewbacca, you are both essentially repeating the opinions of others.

I read the bible daily, I've read it in totality numerous times. I find it to be internally consistent. And I place it under extraordinary scruitiny. I would not base my life on something fraudulent that does not work. Every day the Bible is put to the test in my life, and every day it "passes". It works, it is consistent and doesn't contradict itself.