Pages: 1 2

 

2007-01-31 16:44:11
Fen321
Member
+54|6923|Singularity
The Bible itself tells you how it originated via the name, it means LIBRARY. Hence its not just one book, but a collection of books whom human beings had to put together and where error can arise.

To be honest neither side will be able to "prove" they are correct because like topal said its all based on myth. I had the opportunity to visit one of the Islamic societies here in my home town just to get a better understanding of Islam. Having listened to their explanations and their rational what's to stop another "prophet" coming down in a few hundred years and restarting the whole gambit? Both Christianity and Islam stated they were the last of the prophets *sigh*.

I did learn some interesting things, for example, Islam means peace. So its kinda funny now to have a non-translated term used with the word terrorist. So essentially we are all talking about peaceful terrorist lol.

Islam was not spread by the sword or at least not any more than Christianity or any other religion to this day...except i would be hard pressed to find Buddhist / Zen practitioners killing others for their beliefs, but hey there are always exceptions .
2007-01-31 16:44:12
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

Stingray24 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:


Having read the Bible, you know God stated Jesus is His Son.
?? Passage please...
Matthew 3:16-17

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!"
Aren't we all his sons?  So, technically, Jesus is our brother.
2007-01-31 18:09:37
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6871|The Land of Scott Walker
Gal. 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

From that verse it seems to me that all those who have faith in Christ are the children of God.
2007-01-31 18:16:09
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7132

sergeriver wrote:

Jesus reinterpreted by the Qur'an is singled out, again and again, as a prophet of very special significance. Uniquely among prophets he is described as a miracle of God, an aya; he is the word and spirit of God; he is the prophet of peace par excellence; and , finally it is he who predicts the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) and thus, one might say, is the harbinger of Islam.  In the twelfth century, Jesus was once again reclaimed by Muslim polemics, once again reinvented, if you prefer, in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims against his alleged followers. In the battle for the legacy of Jesus, there was no doubt whatsoever in Muslim eyes that the true Jesus belonged to Islam.  It can safely be shown that Islamic culture presents us with what in quantity and quality are the richest images of Jesus in any non-Christian culture. No other world religion known to me has devoted so much loving attention to both the Jesus of history and to the Christ of eternity.  This tradition is one that we need to highlight in these dangerous, narrow-minded days. The moral of the story seems quite clear: that one religion will often act as the hinterland of another, will lean upon another to complement its own witness. There can be no more salient example of this interdependence than the case of Islam and Jesus Christ. And for the Christian in particular, a love of Jesus may also mean, I think, an interest in how and why he was loved and cherished by another religion.

It doesn't seem a Religion of intolerance, hate and terrorism.
It is not the religion.  It is just some of the fanatical terrorists teaching the religion.  You go back about 1,000 years and see what some of the christians were doing in the name of god and it would make you sick(The Crusades), and yet christianity itself is basically a pacifist religion.
2007-01-31 18:18:21
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7197|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

iamangry wrote:

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.
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.
Those Muslims and their Crusades and Inquisition...
The primary comparison was drawn between Christ and Muhammed, not Christianity and Islam (aside from the subsequent mention of the religions themselves). As for their followers, well, humans will be humans.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-31 18:19:58)

2007-01-31 19:09:50
iamangry
Member
+59|7071|The United States of America

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

iamangry wrote:

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?
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. 

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.
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.

Also, lets not forget that the Bible doesn't include all of the known writings about Jesus; that means it's incomplete.
Ok, that's fine.  I will not disagree with you there.  However, there is something I would like you to do for me.  Show me any piece of ancient text that says Jesus killed people.  I've shown you that Muhammed did most certainly use violence as a means to create a powerful religion, but you all retort by saying that it doesn't matter because the record on Jesus is incomplete.  So I implore you instead to find for me a place that documents Jesus using violence as a means to create the religion to which he is credited.  That is all I was trying to say in the beginning, is that Jesus did not use violence.  So what if the record is incomplete, the lack of completeness does not imply that he did use violence.
2007-01-31 21:47:12
vedds
Member
+52|7180|Christchurch New Zealand
Im quoting myself from another thread here, simply because it succinctly explains the difference between Mohammed and Jesus.

From this thread

vedds wrote:

What I said was that there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam.
Terrorists CAN use the Koran to justify their actions because of the content, Mohammed was a warrior, He killed people. Jesus was not. A Christian can never turn to an example of Jesus killing anyone and transliterate that to a current circumstance. However the Hadiths do detail Mohammed waging war, a radical muslim can take verses from the Koran and convince themselves that God wants them to Kill in his name, not neccesarily because this is the intent but because of the nature of the Islamic Prophet. The New Testament does not contain an equivalent of Jesus advocating or partaking in a killing. A radical Christian who kills because they think that is what god wants, cannot console themselves that Jesus ever did so, or advocated killing. They are acting categorically against the teachings of their prophet.That is a fundamental difference between the religions.
same thread

vedds wrote:

One thing I would like some clarification on is the status of Jesus in Islam. I understand that he is the 2nd of 3 Prophets(I think) and that Mohammed is the final Prophet. However according to the Bible Jesus claimed to be the "son of God", Is there not a paradox for Muslims? How could the second Prophet claim to be the son of god If he were not. Surely a liar cannot be a Prophet?  What of the Resurrection? Please note I am genuinely interested in the interpretation & this is not meant as a challenge.
This is in relpy to another post, slightly OT but the same thread as above and the similar idea.

vedds wrote:

I have absolutely no doubt that Islam inspires killings(whether that is trough misinterpretation is irrelevant). However I also have no doubt that it is also a convienient excuse for some who simply want to wreak havoc. I am also certain that moderate Muslims do not do enough to combat the Radicals (examples are Madrassa where chidren are indoctrinated with anti-western sentiment. There are plenty in Pakistan apparently.) As I said before, I believe it is the nature of Mohammed that creates this scenario, along with the somewhat less organised nature of Islam. The Position of the Catholic Church, for example, is clear because of the strict hierachy in place that mandates the churches position. This scenario is what has led to a questioning of the churches actions in the past (E.G.the Inquisition) and also allows the leadership to mark down clearly the position of the Catholic church.(it is important that you note i used "Catholic") many other Christian groups have similar organisations to set the "rules" globally. Now, I am the first to admit that my knowledge of Islam is sketchy, But I understand that there is not as strict a structure around the position of the different groups within Islam, for Example Religious edicts(the infamous Fatwa) can be issued by an untold number of people at any time.  It is this nature that can leave the door wide open for people to believe that they are truly fulfilling God's wishes by killing someone.(I am using God & Allah interchangably for brevities sake) Now I am aware that there are people of every other religion with exactly the same mindset, However, There are more of them in Islam than Christianity & it is the nature of Islam & Mohammed that leads to this.

Slightly off topic but there is a song by Roger waters that sums this phenomena up well. What God Wants P1
I think its an interesting commentary on the human desire to confer divine approval on their own desires.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard