It well known that there is information dating back to the times of Jesus and Mohammad locked away in the Vatican vaults which is never to be disclosed. Supposedly this is one of the main reasons the Vatican is its own state. So no government can ever force the information to be released.
Wouldn't it be a tickler is this information proved that Jesus and Muhammad were either both prophets of the same standing or Muhammad was infact god's son and Jesus was only a prophet. Shit that information would turn this planet up side down. But like everything to do with religion..............we will never be sure.
Wouldn't it be a tickler is this information proved that Jesus and Muhammad were either both prophets of the same standing or Muhammad was infact god's son and Jesus was only a prophet. Shit that information would turn this planet up side down. But like everything to do with religion..............we will never be sure.
Still a ripped off version of the bible used by Mohammed to gain power. I don't get why they still call Jesus a prophet in the Koran when Jesus said himself multiple times that he was the son of god.
Even so, I would still be Christian, not Muslim... I would just no longer believe in God. See, Christ didn't kill people to spread his beliefs, he died for that. Other people spread what Jesus had said, not Jesus himself. Muhammed on the other hand killed to spread his beliefs. To me there is something inherently less "holy" or "true" about that. I would rather follow a religion that advocates peace and isn't the right one, than follow the religion that advocates peace through Jihad.JahManRed wrote:
It well known that there is information dating back to the times of Jesus and Mohammad locked away in the Vatican vaults which is never to be disclosed. Supposedly this is one of the main reasons the Vatican is its own state. So no government can ever force the information to be released.
Wouldn't it be a tickler is this information proved that Jesus and Muhammad were either both prophets of the same standing or Muhammad was infact god's son and Jesus was only a prophet. Shit that information would turn this planet up side down. But like everything to do with religion..............we will never be sure.
Those Muslims and their Crusades and Inquisition...iamangry wrote:
Even so, I would still be Christian, not Muslim... I would just no longer believe in God. See, Christ didn't kill people to spread his beliefs, he died for that. Other people spread what Jesus had said, not Jesus himself. Muhammed on the other hand killed to spread his beliefs. To me there is something inherently less "holy" or "true" about that. I would rather follow a religion that advocates peace and isn't the right one, than follow the religion that advocates peace through Jihad.JahManRed wrote:
It well known that there is information dating back to the times of Jesus and Mohammad locked away in the Vatican vaults which is never to be disclosed. Supposedly this is one of the main reasons the Vatican is its own state. So no government can ever force the information to be released.
Wouldn't it be a tickler is this information proved that Jesus and Muhammad were either both prophets of the same standing or Muhammad was infact god's son and Jesus was only a prophet. Shit that information would turn this planet up side down. But like everything to do with religion..............we will never be sure.
And this applies to the extremists as well?sergeriver wrote:
It doesn't seem a Religion of intolerance, hate and terrorism.
No, of course not. But there are extremists in all Religions.Pug wrote:
And this applies to the extremists as well?sergeriver wrote:
It doesn't seem a Religion of intolerance, hate and terrorism.
I admit I don't know much about the life and times of Muhammad. I didn't know that he personally murdered people in his life time. I honestly would appreciate a link if you have one handy, to read up.iamangry wrote:
Even so, I would still be Christian, not Muslim... I would just no longer believe in God. See, Christ didn't kill people to spread his beliefs, he died for that. Other people spread what Jesus had said, not Jesus himself. Muhammed on the other hand killed to spread his beliefs. To me there is something inherently less "holy" or "true" about that. I would rather follow a religion that advocates peace and isn't the right one, than follow the religion that advocates peace through Jihad.JahManRed wrote:
It well known that there is information dating back to the times of Jesus and Mohammad locked away in the Vatican vaults which is never to be disclosed. Supposedly this is one of the main reasons the Vatican is its own state. So no government can ever force the information to be released.
Wouldn't it be a tickler is this information proved that Jesus and Muhammad were either both prophets of the same standing or Muhammad was infact god's son and Jesus was only a prophet. Shit that information would turn this planet up side down. But like everything to do with religion..............we will never be sure.
You mention that Islam advocates peace through Jihad. Islam is an inherently peaceful religion and I am sick listening to people rubbish it over the actions of the few who have twisted the Korans text to fit their own purpose. Right wing Nazi groups re-interpreted the bible to justify some of their violent acts, yet Christianity is not labeled Jihadist. In fact Constantine edited the whole bible to fit his own agenda. The bible Christians take as the word of god is infact an edited version.
The people who spread Jesus's word killed many. The warrior popes, the crusades and witch burners were all killing using jesus's name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuhammadJahManRed wrote:
I admit I don't know much about the life and times of Muhammad. I didn't know that he personally murdered people in his life time. I honestly would appreciate a link if you have one handy, to read up.iamangry wrote:
Even so, I would still be Christian, not Muslim... I would just no longer believe in God. See, Christ didn't kill people to spread his beliefs, he died for that. Other people spread what Jesus had said, not Jesus himself. Muhammed on the other hand killed to spread his beliefs. To me there is something inherently less "holy" or "true" about that. I would rather follow a religion that advocates peace and isn't the right one, than follow the religion that advocates peace through Jihad.JahManRed wrote:
It well known that there is information dating back to the times of Jesus and Mohammad locked away in the Vatican vaults which is never to be disclosed. Supposedly this is one of the main reasons the Vatican is its own state. So no government can ever force the information to be released.
Wouldn't it be a tickler is this information proved that Jesus and Muhammad were either both prophets of the same standing or Muhammad was infact god's son and Jesus was only a prophet. Shit that information would turn this planet up side down. But like everything to do with religion..............we will never be sure.
You mention that Islam advocates peace through Jihad. Islam is an inherently peaceful religion and I am sick listening to people rubbish it over the actions of the few who have twisted the Korans text to fit their own purpose. Right wing Nazi groups re-interpreted the bible to justify some of their violent acts, yet Christianity is not labeled Jihadist. In fact Constantine edited the whole bible to fit his own agenda. The bible Christians take as the word of god is infact an edited version.
The people who spread Jesus's word killed many. The warrior popes, the crusades and witch burners were all killing using jesus's name.
There are a ridiculous number of sources, if you have a problem with wikipedia, view some of the other sources. I know that people have killed countless others in the name of spreading Christianity, and its wrong that they did. But I also know that that is not what Jesus taught, that Jesus never killed or harmed another, that he taught peace. Unlike Mohammed, Jesus never attacked his neighbors (Mohammed's attack on a Meccan convoy). Christianity never fought any battles while Jesus was alive, while the road to Islam's survival was paved with blood. Hell, it was the Christians who took the muslims in during their darkest hour (the exodus from Medina to Ethiopia). Now you're right though, Islam is inherently a religion of peace... so long as it doesn't feel threatened. The Quran says to use Jihad against the enemies of Islam as a last resort, but talk of defending oneself with killing inherently makes a religion violent IMO. Jesus says the opposite, love thine enemy and thine neighbor, which is why I call it a peaceful religion.
What part of the "bible is edited" did you not understand? How do you know those are Isa's words? Or rather some blood thirsty Christan editing your great book to invade some far flung country 80 zillion years ago?iamangry wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuhammadJahManRed wrote:
I admit I don't know much about the life and times of Muhammad. I didn't know that he personally murdered people in his life time. I honestly would appreciate a link if you have one handy, to read up.iamangry wrote:
Even so, I would still be Christian, not Muslim... I would just no longer believe in God. See, Christ didn't kill people to spread his beliefs, he died for that. Other people spread what Jesus had said, not Jesus himself. Muhammed on the other hand killed to spread his beliefs. To me there is something inherently less "holy" or "true" about that. I would rather follow a religion that advocates peace and isn't the right one, than follow the religion that advocates peace through Jihad.
You mention that Islam advocates peace through Jihad. Islam is an inherently peaceful religion and I am sick listening to people rubbish it over the actions of the few who have twisted the Korans text to fit their own purpose. Right wing Nazi groups re-interpreted the bible to justify some of their violent acts, yet Christianity is not labeled Jihadist. In fact Constantine edited the whole bible to fit his own agenda. The bible Christians take as the word of god is infact an edited version.
The people who spread Jesus's word killed many. The warrior popes, the crusades and witch burners were all killing using jesus's name.
There are a ridiculous number of sources, if you have a problem with wikipedia, view some of the other sources. I know that people have killed countless others in the name of spreading Christianity, and its wrong that they did. But I also know that that is not what Jesus taught, that Jesus never killed or harmed another, that he taught peace. Unlike Mohammed, Jesus never attacked his neighbors (Mohammed's attack on a Meccan convoy). Christianity never fought any battles while Jesus was alive, while the road to Islam's survival was paved with blood. Hell, it was the Christians who took the muslims in during their darkest hour (the exodus from Medina to Ethiopia). Now you're right though, Islam is inherently a religion of peace... so long as it doesn't feel threatened. The Quran says to use Jihad against the enemies of Islam as a last resort, but talk of defending oneself with killing inherently makes a religion violent IMO. Jesus says the opposite, love thine enemy and thine neighbor, which is why I call it a peaceful religion.
The bible has more editions than war and peace, the fuck are you really reading and more importantly what the fuck are you interpreting?
Last edited by m3thod (2007-01-31 12:33:33)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
How about Jesus ripping off god by professing himself as the son of god?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Still a ripped off version of the bible used by Mohammed to gain power. I don't get why they still call Jesus a prophet in the Koran when Jesus said himself multiple times that he was the son of god.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
80 zillion years ago? Good perception of time you have there. Age of the universe: 10-15 billion years, but apparently we've been invading countries far longer than that.m3thod wrote:
What part of the "bible is edited" did you not understand? How do you know those are Isa's words? Or rather some blood thirsty Christan editing your great book to invade some far flung country 80 zillion years ago?
The bible has more editions than war and peace, the fuck are you really reading and more importantly what the fuck are you interpreting?
On topic: What part of "thats a specious argument" do you not understand. Charlemagne was a warrior, you think he would have edited the bible (if he edited the bible) to justify his conquests. That, and like you said there are several versions of the bible. Lets look at one that would have been untouched by Charlemagne... like the Eastern Orthodox bible. It still says "love thine neighbor and thine enemy" (just in greek). Ok, now King James... same thing. How about any protestant bible... same thing. Old bibles and new bibles all have that important undertone. Do you mean to tell me that Charlemagne changed EVERY bible in the western world? I doubt it. So what if the bible has changed, that doesn't destroy the credibility of the document, nor the message it was meant to convey.
Well technically if "humans are made in God's image" Aren't all of us sons of god?
Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.m3thod wrote:
How about Jesus ripping off god by professing himself as the son of god?
?? Passage please...Stingray24 wrote:
Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.m3thod wrote:
How about Jesus ripping off god by professing himself as the son of god?
Not to me he didn't.Stingray24 wrote:
Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.m3thod wrote:
How about Jesus ripping off god by professing himself as the son of god?
I'll hold out till then.
I can't remember that in the Bible, but it's been a while since I've read it all the way through and you probably know it far better than I.
You still miss the point. The Bible was put together from many writings, it was not an original text. The fact of the matter is that you are assuming that everything that was translated was translated properly, and written into, what would become the Bible, unaltered. They also didn't have spell checkers or book editors back then, so without viewing the actual documents from which the Bible's writings were taken, there is no way to be sure that it is accurate.iamangry wrote:
80 zillion years ago? Good perception of time you have there. Age of the universe: 10-15 billion years, but apparently we've been invading countries far longer than that.m3thod wrote:
What part of the "bible is edited" did you not understand? How do you know those are Isa's words? Or rather some blood thirsty Christan editing your great book to invade some far flung country 80 zillion years ago?
The bible has more editions than war and peace, the fuck are you really reading and more importantly what the fuck are you interpreting?
On topic: What part of "thats a specious argument" do you not understand. Charlemagne was a warrior, you think he would have edited the bible (if he edited the bible) to justify his conquests. That, and like you said there are several versions of the bible. Lets look at one that would have been untouched by Charlemagne... like the Eastern Orthodox bible. It still says "love thine neighbor and thine enemy" (just in greek). Ok, now King James... same thing. How about any protestant bible... same thing. Old bibles and new bibles all have that important undertone. Do you mean to tell me that Charlemagne changed EVERY bible in the western world? I doubt it. So what if the bible has changed, that doesn't destroy the credibility of the document, nor the message it was meant to convey.
Also, lets not forget that the Bible doesn't include all of the known writings about Jesus; that means it's incomplete.
Matthew 3:16-17cpt.fass1 wrote:
?? Passage please...Stingray24 wrote:
Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.m3thod wrote:
How about Jesus ripping off god by professing himself as the son of god?
Edit: Mt. 17:5 also, "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-01-31 14:24:54)
I don't place much faith in talking birds. Nothing a half decent illusionist/ventrilloquist couldn't replicate.Stingray24 wrote:
Matthew 3:16-17cpt.fass1 wrote:
?? Passage please...Stingray24 wrote:
Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.
Talking birds?
Don't get me wrong i have faith but i dont buy a Isa is the son of god.Stingray24 wrote:
Matthew 3:16-17cpt.fass1 wrote:
?? Passage please...Stingray24 wrote:
Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.
Edit: Mt. 17:5 also, "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Indeed.Stingray24 wrote:
Talking birds?
Well I don't buy that God gave Mohammed the "real" holy text. I'm sure we mean no disrespect to others, but we're both well aware that our beliefs are antagonistic to each other.m3thod wrote:
Don't get me wrong i have faith but i dont buy a Isa is the son of god.Stingray24 wrote:
Matthew 3:16-17cpt.fass1 wrote:
?? Passage please...
Edit: Mt. 17:5 also, "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
+1 for originality . . . I have never heard that interpretation of that passage.Bertster7 wrote:
Indeed.Stingray24 wrote:
Talking birds?
i totaly agree with iamangry on this subject. i mean the bible is the oldest book around (and the one that sold the most in history). how can one be sure that the bible is truly unaltered when the people that were said to have written it have never been found up to date. not to mention that it was originally written in latin, and then translated into French English and other languages. whos to say that the scribes that translated the Bible misinterpreted something they were reading or just wrote it in such a way as to manipulate the common people to believe certain things, such as the female is source of our situation in the world....Adam and Eve.sure theres lots of hypothesis about where Jesus is buried or where the remains of Noah's arc are but have never been found. and isnt God just the need of the human being to believe, especially in times of distress, in something all powerful that is controlling the situation. no one has ever proven that God exists at all.
now in not trying to destroy the Bible in anyway just make people think before blindly accepting things that are written down even if its the Bible, actually more importantly because its the Bible. it is in my opinion one of the biggest marketing schemes that our civilization has ever seen
now in not trying to destroy the Bible in anyway just make people think before blindly accepting things that are written down even if its the Bible, actually more importantly because its the Bible. it is in my opinion one of the biggest marketing schemes that our civilization has ever seen