Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[JEDIYoda]

Evidence, where is it?

here we go again same old evidence stuff again....lolol

 

[JEDIYoda]

God chose Muhammed as his next Prophet, after Jesus. Are you saying it was a bad choice?

That is not correct in Christianity! That is strictly a Muslim thing!


First, the Holy Bible is the source for Christian faith and doctrine and Muhammad is not mentioned in these Scriptures. How can Christians give an honest evaluation about a person who is never mentioned in their sacred writings? If asked to comment on Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, Peter or Isa Al-Masih they can give a clear answer. When Muhammad was born in 570 AD, Christianity had spread widely but in their Holy Scriptures they found no mention of Muhammad.

Second, so much of what was taught by Muhammad as divine revelation contradicts the Bible. How can Christians embrace his teaching? Obviously they will choose the older divine revelation which is supported as fact in other historical references. For example, the Bible teaches and Christians believe that Isa Al-Masih died on the cross (secular historians corroborate this fact); yet the Koran states Isa Al-Masih did not die on the cross (Sura 4:157-158). To add to the confusion, some Koranic verses (Sura 19:33; 5:117) seem to indicate that Isa Al-Masih did die. What source of truth should Christians choose? They will trust the clear historical narrative as given in their Holy Scriptures.

Hence Christians have no clear answer to the above question. Muhammad is not mentioned in their Scriptures and many of his teachings are not in harmony with these Scriptures (e.g. jihad, polygamy and haj commands). Indeed some of Muhammad’s teachings do agree with the Bible; but when they contradict the Scriptures, Christians must reject them.
http://www.isaandislam.com/muhammad/how-do-christians-view-the-prophet-muhammad.html

 

[Ancalagon44]

That is not correct in Christianity! That is strictly a Muslim thing!


First, the Holy Bible is the source for Christian faith and doctrine and Muhammad is not mentioned in these Scriptures. How can Christians give an honest evaluation about a person who is never mentioned in their sacred writings? If asked to comment on Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, Peter or Isa Al-Masih they can give a clear answer. When Muhammad was born in 570 AD, Christianity had spread widely but in their Holy Scriptures they found no mention of Muhammad.

Second, so much of what was taught by Muhammad as divine revelation contradicts the Bible. How can Christians embrace his teaching? Obviously they will choose the older divine revelation which is supported as fact in other historical references. For example, the Bible teaches and Christians believe that Isa Al-Masih died on the cross (secular historians corroborate this fact); yet the Koran states Isa Al-Masih did not die on the cross (Sura 4:157-158). To add to the confusion, some Koranic verses (Sura 19:33; 5:117) seem to indicate that Isa Al-Masih did die. What source of truth should Christians choose? They will trust the clear historical narrative as given in their Holy Scriptures.

Hence Christians have no clear answer to the above question. Muhammad is not mentioned in their Scriptures and many of his teachings are not in harmony with these Scriptures (e.g. jihad, polygamy and haj commands). Indeed some of Muhammad’s teachings do agree with the Bible; but when they contradict the Scriptures, Christians must reject them.
http://www.isaandislam.com/muhammad/how-do-christians-view-the-prophet-muhammad.html

So much of what is taught in the New Testament directly contradicts the Old Testament. The covenant that Jesus made in order to save Man's souls with God is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and directly contradicts it actually. Do you observe the Sabbath or abstain from eating pork or shellfish?

So if the Old Testament can be superseded, then why not the New?

The New Testament does not mention Muhammed, but then the Old Testament does not mention Jesus. So why do all the Jews not believe in Jesus?

Muhammed existed, it is possible for a new holy book to supersede the old and even change the rules. And he acknowledged that Jesus came before him. Why do you not acknowledge Muhammed as a Prophet of God? Are you questioning God's wisdom in choosing Muhammed?

 

[AViking]

I just think Jesus has more appealing qualities than Muhammad; he didn't try to make enemies, was humble, choose to forgo money and fame and gave more attention to less fortunate people, and race didn't matter to him. I don't see those qualities in Muhammad, though like I say, I wouldn't call him a bad guy. Secondly, Jesus' influence far-reaches that of Islam's prophet.

No, this doesn't prove Jesus' divinity, but at least he has qualities that are attractive to almost anyone, and would reflect at least the type of God people would want to exist.

Doesn't sound like you're familiar with Islam or Muhammad but that's ok.

Regardless if you grant people the ability to choose who they believe in what is wrong with choosing neither? Not a question only for you but there is a lot of bullshit being thrown around here that one must subscribe to Jesus and Christianity or you're wrong.

Logically and factually you have been proved very inconsistent and even wrong but that doesn't deny you the right to practice whatever religion you want. However if you recognize your faults and all these problems that exist with your religious beliefs you should be able to grant other people the right to not believe in any of it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So much of what is taught in the New Testament directly contradicts the Old Testament. The covenant that Jesus made in order to save Man's souls with God is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and directly contradicts it actually. Do you observe the Sabbath or abstain from eating pork or shellfish?

So if the Old Testament can be superseded, then why not the New?

The New Testament does not mention Muhammed, but then the Old Testament does not mention Jesus. So why do all the Jews not believe in Jesus?

Muhammed existed, it is possible for a new holy book to supersede the old and even change the rules. And he acknowledged that Jesus came before him. Why do you not acknowledge Muhammed as a Prophet of God? Are you questioning God's wisdom in choosing Muhammed?

Your questions have been answered......concerning Muhammed.
Anything is possible but the short answer is NO a new Holy book has not been written that supersedes or negates the Christian Bible......which for the record -- has either 66 or 68 books depending on your what you believe!

courtesy Wikipedia--

The Old Testament is the Christian term for the Hebrew Bible, a collection of religious writings by ancient Israelites[1] that form the first section of the Christian Bible, to which were added a second collection of writings referred to as the New Testament. The books included in the Old Testament (the Old Testament canon) varies markedly between Christian denominations; Protestants accept only the books of the official Jewish Hebrew Bible canon as their Old Testament but divide it into 39 books, while Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian churches accept a considerably larger collection of writings in their Old Testament canon.[2]

The Old Testament was compiled and edited by various men[3] over a period of centuries, with many scholars concluding that the Hebrew canon was solidified by about the 3rd century BC.[4][5]

The books can be broadly divided into several sections: 1) the first five books or Pentateuch (Torah), 2) the history books telling the history of the Israelites, from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon; 3) the poetic and "Wisdom" books dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world; 4) and the books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God.


As far as your other questions they have been hashed and rehased over and over in other threads.....

The short answer is I personally find no contradictions! You need to remember the old testament was written under the law mainly for Jews..........the new testament was written under what Christians call Grace. yet there are those who will argue what I just said...so be it....you cannot convince those who want proof even if you show them proof..lol


Sure Mohammed existed....but again the importance of Muhammed is a Muslim thing...Not a Christian thing!

Just like Buhda existed.......
Anything is possible! As far as another book being written -- Not for Christians! Maybe Muslims.....
Actually the old testament does mention Jesus indirectly...no it does not mention the name of Jesus but it does make mention of a savior....

Also your questions concerning pork and shell fish and the Sabbath have nothing to do with anything we are talking about!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by JEDIYoda View Post
That is not correct in Christianity! That is strictly a Muslim thing!


First, the Holy Bible is the source for Christian faith and doctrine and Muhammad is not mentioned in these Scriptures. How can Christians give an honest evaluation about a person who is never mentioned in their sacred writings? If asked to comment on Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, Peter or Isa Al-Masih they can give a clear answer. When Muhammad was born in 570 AD, Christianity had spread widely but in their Holy Scriptures they found no mention of Muhammad.

Second, so much of what was taught by Muhammad as divine revelation contradicts the Bible. How can Christians embrace his teaching? Obviously they will choose the older divine revelation which is supported as fact in other historical references. For example, the Bible teaches and Christians believe that Isa Al-Masih died on the cross (secular historians corroborate this fact); yet the Koran states Isa Al-Masih did not die on the cross (Sura 4:157-158). To add to the confusion, some Koranic verses (Sura 19:33; 5:117) seem to indicate that Isa Al-Masih did die. What source of truth should Christians choose? They will trust the clear historical narrative as given in their Holy Scriptures.

Hence Christians have no clear answer to the above question. Muhammad is not mentioned in their Scriptures and many of his teachings are not in harmony with these Scriptures (e.g. jihad, polygamy and haj commands). Indeed some of Muhammad’s teachings do agree with the Bible; but when they contradict the Scriptures, Christians must reject them.
http://www.isaandislam.com/muhammad/...-muhammad.html

 

[Ancalagon44]

Your questions have been answered......concerning Muhammed.
Anything is possible but the short answer is NO a new Holy book has not been written that supersedes or negates the Christian Bible......which for the record -- has either 66 or 68 books depending on your what you believe!

But then how can the new testament supersede the old? I mean, why is it that the Jews do not believe in the new testament? You dont believe in the Quran, the Jews do not believe in the new testament. Yet the Jews know that Jesus existed, and you know that Muhammed existed.

Sure Mohammed existed....but again the importance of Muhammed is a Muslim thing...Not a Christian thing!

Remember that Jesus was born and raised a Jew, and at one point, there were no Christians, only Jews. Muhammed is of importance to Muslims now, but at one point, there were no Muslims, just like at one point there were no Christians. So to say that he is of importance to Muslims only, is missing the point. Its circular reasoning - its like saying I'm not a Muslim because I'm not a Muslim. Why are you not a Muslim? Why is Muhammed not of importance to you?

Actually the old testament does mention Jesus indirectly...no it does not mention the name of Jesus but it does make mention of a savior....

And the Bible mentions the Second Coming, and future prophets, does it not?

Also your questions concerning pork and shell fish and the Sabbath have nothing to do with anything we are talking about!

My point is that a new book (ie the new testament) can change things. The old testament expressly forbade pork and shellfish, yet you do not follow those laws. Why? Therefore, the Quran can change the New Testament.

 

[soulcougher73]

here we go again same old evidence stuff again....lolol

You should be a lawyer or judge or be on full time jury duty.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think this was a good thread to start off with, but when you add folks whose sole purpose is to bash Christians for the reasons why they're Christians, or launch ad hominem attacks in other words, the quality of discourse goes right back to into the abyss.

Thanks PwrEngeineer, Cerpin, Sandorksi, crashtest, and even soulcaugher and others for trying to stay civil...

:thumbsup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

You should be a lawyer or judge or be on full time jury duty.

I have been many times. You don`t follow the letter of the law if circumstances say otherwise.....or if you believe otherwise. What seems to be obvious evidence to some to others is not so obvious and not necessarily due to intellect.
Then we go the other way -- which is to say that perhaps what is being presented to some is alack of evidence yet evidence abounds to those and again this is an individual thing...to those willing to search....but again that word evidence in reality is not what it is cracked up to be......

 

[jhbball]

I think this was a good thread to start off with, but when you add folks whose sole purpose is to bash Christians for the reasons why they're Christians, or launch ad hominem attacks in other words, the quality of discourse goes right back to into the abyss.

Thanks PwrEngeineer, Cerpin, Sandorksi, crashtest, and even soulcaugher and others for trying to stay civil...

:thumbsup:

lol. I know, having your beliefs challenged can be difficult.

 

[ThinClient]

here we go again same old evidence stuff again....lolol

Still waiting for you to provide any shred of evidence whatsoever that your god is real, that the Bible is anything more than a book of fairy tales, or that Christ was divine.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[ThinClient]

I think this was a good thread to start off with, but when you add folks whose sole purpose is to bash Christians for the reasons why they're Christians, or launch ad hominem attacks in other words, the quality of discourse goes right back to into the abyss.

Thanks PwrEngeineer, Cerpin, Sandorksi, crashtest, and even soulcaugher and others for trying to stay civil...

:thumbsup:

Here we go with the victimization of Christians defense.

 

[spittledip]

But then how can the new testament supersede the old? I mean, why is it that the Jews do not believe in the new testament? You dont believe in the Quran, the Jews do not believe in the new testament. Yet the Jews know that Jesus existed, and you know that Muhammed existed.



Remember that Jesus was born and raised a Jew, and at one point, there were no Christians, only Jews. Muhammed is of importance to Muslims now, but at one point, there were no Muslims, just like at one point there were no Christians. So to say that he is of importance to Muslims only, is missing the point. Its circular reasoning - its like saying I'm not a Muslim because I'm not a Muslim. Why are you not a Muslim? Why is Muhammed not of importance to you?



And the Bible mentions the Second Coming, and future prophets, does it not?



My point is that a new book (ie the new testament) can change things. The old testament expressly forbade pork and shellfish, yet you do not follow those laws. Why? Therefore, the Quran can change the New Testament.

The New Testament doesn't supersede the Old Testament, it fulfills it. Christ fulfilled the law perfectly. His life fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law and his death fulfilled the punishment for breaking the law.

The law has both ceremonial and moral components. The ceremonial components are symbolic of God's holiness. The moral components of the law cover actions/attitudes/thoughts that are actually good or evil and are not symbolic like the ceremonial.

Also, Jesus clarified the law- he revealed the heart of the law beyond the "do this, don't do that". In other words, He made it clear that it is impossible for man to follow the law.

MAtt 5:17-20:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is not to say that righteousness comes through following the law, nor is this what He was saying (following the law never produced righteousness). Also this is not to say that the law no longer defines what is moral.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Of course I do, but I do also realize that some are simply uncomfortable with anything that breaks our still incomplete knowledge of the laws nature.

Laws of nature are never "broken." The universe is under no obligation to abide by our so-called "laws" of nature. The universe's behavior comes first, and our "laws" (better described as scientific models) come after.

Only when our knowledge becomes complete can we call something "false", or we'd be claiming a universal negative with no evidence to back that.

You can't seriously believe that. We don't need to know everything to know that things like F = ma are true to such a reliable degree that if any phenomenon were claimed to represent an exception it would deserve extraordinary scrutiny before it was recognized as valid.

For that matter, how would you even know if we finally knew "everything"?

For that matter again, there are persuasive arguments that it is in fact impossible in principle to know everything.

A brief example I read somewhere:

John Locke related this story about the Dutch ambassador and the king of Siam: While describing his country, Holland, to the king, the ambassador mentioned that at times it was possible for an elephant to walk on water. The king rejected the idea and felt that the ambassador was lying to him. However, the ambassador was merely describing something that was beyond the king’s personal experience. The king did not realize that when water freezes and becomes ice, it can support the weight of an elephant. This seemed impossible to the king because he did not have all the facts. [Italics mine]

Do you really think this is the same thing as suggesting that there was a man that could stay dead for three days in the desert and come back to life?

Is this to say miracles did happen? Absolutely not! But before you assert that they're "unreasonable" to believe, I think what should be established is a complete understanding of the laws of nature.

Do you realize that the theory of gravity is incomplete?

If I told you that I lept over the Empire State Building unaided, is it your contention that it is reasonable to accept my claim at face value on the basis that we don't know everything that there is to know about gravity? Or is it in fact more reasonable to doubt that claim until some extraordinary evidence is presented to substantiate the claim?

"Just one black swan undoes the theory that all swans are white.” One exception can cause science to re-evaluate everything it "knew" about that law, hence, why I say its more prudent not declare miracles are unreasonable to believe.

Simply preposterous. It is one thing to believe that there is room for phenomena which are unexplainable by our current physical models, but it is yet another to lend credence to specific miracles like those described in the Bible (and no-where else) without any substantial evidence beyond some writings by notoriously superstitious and scientifically ignorant peoples.

 

[devhda]

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

 

[JEDIYoda]

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

which proves what?

 

[Kadarin]

which proves what?

It suggests that "gods" are an arbitrary concept; belief in "god X" vs "god Y" are equally pointless from his point of view.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It suggests that "gods" are an arbitrary concept; belief in "god X" vs "god Y" are equally pointless from his point of view.

no proof..just that it suggests...I get it .....

 

[sandorski]

no proof..just that it suggests...I get it .....

Yes, now why is yours different?

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, now why is yours different?

It is because it follows the same "my god being made-up means yours is" atheistic pseudo-logic, when in actuality, we (meaning modern-day believers) didn't introduce God into the world scene anyway.

If this is the best you guys have, then I really feel sorry for the future of non-believers when asked to provide any non-emotional reason for the their rejected of a God/gods.

 

[sandorski]

It is because it follows the same "my god being made-up means yours is" atheistic pseudo-logic, when in actuality, we (meaning modern-day believers) didn't introduce God into the world scene anyway.

If this is the best you guys have, then I really feel sorry for the future of non-believers when asked to provide any non-emotional reason for the their rejected of a God/gods.

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[PingviN]

If this is the best you guys have, then I really feel sorry for the future of non-believers when asked to provide any non-emotional reason for the their rejected of a God/gods.

You have about the same [lack of] reasons to believe in your God as any other religious people have to believe in theirs. If you reject Allah, Vishnu or Odin you probably need to be able to justify it in order to be taken serious by someone who is not religious. We (atheists) expect arguments based on reasoning and evidence, you (religious people) do not. I guess, in a somewhat sad way, believing in something is enough for some.

I don't need a deity in my life. I have no reason to believe in a deity. Science offers very rational explanations to the complexity of life and the universe. I don't need Santa Claus, I don't need Jesus and I don't need a cosmic designer. If you want to argue the existence of these, you'll need to prove it. That doesn't mean I demand a signed photo of Santa giving Jesus a hug in my back yard.

 

[Greenman]

You have about the same [lack of] reasons to believe in your God as any other religious people have to believe in theirs. If you reject Allah, Vishnu or Odin you probably need to be able to justify it in order to be taken serious by someone who is not religious. We (atheists) expect arguments based on reasoning and evidence, you (religious people) do not. I guess, in a somewhat sad way, believing in something is enough for some.

I don't need a deity in my life. I have no reason to believe in a deity. Science offers very rational explanations to the complexity of life and the universe. I don't need Santa Claus, I don't need Jesus and I don't need a cosmic designer. If you want to argue the existence of these, you'll need to prove it. That doesn't mean I demand a signed photo of Santa giving Jesus a hug in my back yard.

All religion has is faith, which appears to be something you won't accept. It seems to me that ends the discussion.

 

[PingviN]

All religion has is faith, which appears to be something you won't accept. It seems to me that ends the discussion.

I have no problem accepting faith in a deity as the foundation of any religion, I don't accept faith as something that is unquestionably sane and based on rational thought.