The Religion Discussion

[Bizzare]

Some have to reach a life and death situation to call out to a God. And in this religious society we live in, overtime it became hardwired in us to respond to helpless situations with "Oh God". Some will turn to a God over something as simple as a job cut. As I mentioned before, the idea of a being with much greater power is very comforting to us. That could have stemmed from being parented as a kid. It's hardwired in animals and humans alike to look to a greater source of power in times of despair.

I do question those who believe that God doesn't exist. In fact, I use to question those alone. It's only recently I question religious believers the way I do. And lets be honest, you can't blame a human for not believing in one who claims to have created us, which means he himself gave us the nature of doubt, hides himself, then requires that we have faith.

So I think it's fairer to question those who believes, no?

[marlener]

True.But God reveals himself to us everyday but we often choose to credit as I said them to nature,chance,science,folly and such.I wasn't pointed to God by my parent though,I actually accepted God before one that eventual did and e other never did.We live in a religious society but not a Godly society and there is a difference,you are not going to ask me to explain that are you. I am not offended by ur straight forward questions and I will respond to those I can that are not trying to be funny,attacking or just be arrogant.

[megadoc1]

Megadoc1, do you believe in healing. Cuz I know there are Christians that don't. They believe either only Jesus could have done miracles or they only occurred in the olden days, although the bible says otherwise.... oh well.... so do you?

well I do and I have done it this myself but even if someone sees this, it does not grantee that they would believe.

[Bizzare]

Megadoc1, do you believe in healing. Cuz I know there are Christians that don't. They believe either only Jesus could have done miracles or they only occurred in the olden days, although the bible says otherwise.... oh well.... so do you?

well I do and I have done it this myself but even if someone sees this, it does not grantee that they would believe.

The bible says by his stripes we were healed - meaning all sicknesses were already paid for and we are free of such. The bible said when Christians lay hands on the sick, they shall recover. Every where Jesus went he healed the sick immediately according to the bible.

Therefore, modern day healing should be the epitome of proof when it comes to the proving the bible to be the truth. God made a promise. Why do we see Christians praying for healing yet they die of certain sicknesses. According to the bible, a Christian should not succumb to sicknesses because that was already paid for. Sickness should never be triumphant over our body. A Christian should be able to cast away sickness in the body as soon as it comes upon them. Are you telling there aren't Christian with faith the size of a mustard seed. Cuz there is none performing miracles as Jesus did although he said that there will be those who will do greater?

How come we don't see healing with our own eyes just as Jesus did in his days. How come we don't see blind eyes open, deaf begin to hear, the dumb begin to speak etc..... Someone prays for the common cold or flu, feels better two days later and relates it to the prayer.

Is the power not great enough to open a blind eye at least?

[megadoc1]

Megadoc1, do you believe in healing. Cuz I know there are Christians that don't. They believe either only Jesus could have done miracles or they only occurred in the olden days, although the bible says otherwise.... oh well.... so do you?

well I do and I have done it this myself but even if someone sees this, it does not grantee that they would believe.

The bible says by his stripes we were healed - meaning all sicknesses were already paid for and we are free of such. The bible said when Christians lay hands on the sick, they shall recover. Every where Jesus went he healed the sick immediately according to the bible.

true I believe this as well

Therefore, modern day healing should be the epitome of proof when it comes to the proving the bible to be the truth.

healing is as a result of the believers faith in christ but to use this as proof all you would end up with is convinced sinners not believers

God made a promise. Why do we see Christians praying for healing yet they die of certain sicknesses. According to the bible, a Christian should not succumb to sicknesses because that was already paid for. Sickness should never be triumphant over our body. A Christian should be able to cast away sickness in the body as soon as it comes upon them.

agreed!

Are you telling there aren't Christian with faith the size of a mustard seed. Cuz there is none performing miracles as Jesus did although he said that there will be those who will do greater?

correction! you are not seeing miracles but that does not mean its not happening maybe you are in the wrong place I must say that I cannot make the same claims you made

How come we don't see healing with our own eyes just as Jesus did in his days. How come we don't see blind eyes open, deaf begin to hear, the dumb begin to speak etc..... Someone prays for the common cold or flu, feels better two days later and relates it to the prayer.

correction! you not seeing it ..but you cant speak for me!

Is the power not great enough to open a blind eye at least?

who's power?

[marlener]

The verse was refering to ours sins as it says in the first part of the text,I am not sure if you are making reference to 1 Peter 2:24 or Isaiah 53:5 but they both says the samething.In reference to healing,itbis mention in the bible as one of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:4-31,the passage also goes on to say that all cannot be healers or teachers or prophets.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

we have faith in things and God and when he provides proof is strenghten our faith in him

setting aside the dictionary meanings and consideration that faith is not needed when there is proof

May I ask what proof He provides?

But you have heard persons say that there is no God haven't you? Are you fair to them as well in asking them what proof they have?

Burden of Proof, go look it up.

If you say unicorns exist then the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on the person who you are trying to convince. They do not need to prove that they do not exist.

Let me put it another way: You cannot say "no one has proven unicorns don't exist, therefore they must be real!"

I find that some people are annoyed that Christians have hope or some faith in a God that they don't believe exist.

I don't think they are annoyed at first. From what I've seen, I think atheists are amazed at what religious people believe in and their conviction and faith (in things they have no proof of). Probably just as amazed as you would be of someone telling you, with all their heart, that they have faith that rainbows are made by unicorns.

I think atheists and agnostics only get annoyed when religious people turn away from logic in their arguments and apologetic discourse.

Strangely though some will call out to a God they don't believe exist if they are in a life and death situation

It is logical to assume that an atheist would call God's name in a life and death situation purely as a figure of speech such as "oh lord" or "oh god mih dog dead".

From what I gather, atheists don't think about God any more than you think about unicorns making rainbows.

Also if an atheist were to truly and sincerely call to God in a time of life and death or despair, then they really were not an atheist and they were just pretending to be.

Let me put it another way, as a Christian, if you were in a life and death situation, you would not call the name of Allah, Lakshmi or call on Superman to save you - since none of those things you have faith in. So an atheist would not call on a God that he/she does not have faith in.

understand?

[megadoc1]

The verse was refering to ours sins as it says in the first part of the text,I am not sure if you are making reference to 1 Peter 2:24 or Isaiah 53:5 but they both says the samething.In reference to healing,itbis mention in the bible as one of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:4-31,the passage also goes on to say that all cannot be healers or teachers or prophets.

the spiritual gifts such as healing in 1 Corinthians and it context is different from the one we are discussing
else we would have the bible contradicting this verse
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

and this verse
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father

I think 1 cor speaks about the gift of healing in a specific manner, like the ability or specialty to deal with one or more form of illness

but the verse in Isaiah speaks about us being healed already but if you look around there is no such proof for that as there are sick people but thru faith we bring this to reality

[d spike]

Are you willing to admit that what you meant to say is:
this question does not make sense! If I had proof I would not need to have faith

or are you going to stand by that foolish statement you just made that goes like:
this question does not make sense! If I had proof I would not need to believe

are you trying to save face using semantics? lol

Don't be silly, megadoc. Personally, he should have asked you this first, instead of banging away at you... but this is exactly what he meant, and here, he is right. In your effort to stress your point, you misused the word. Why not just admit your error, instead of dragging this argument out.

[marlener]

Well I am not sure how to do de separating thing so I am going to deal with the questions from the bottom up if it is not a problem,I can't say how often atheists think about God but I have actually seen more than once persons who openly claim to not believe in God pray when in an accident or family on death's door. I really can't say who's really an atheist and who is not but I did ask on his thread.
Well some Christian also get upset when they see agnostic and atheist turn away from what they consider in ur face proof of God's working,Justas what the atheist consider logic,I am not annoyed though.
I was just asking whether he is fair to the agnostics and atheist in allowing them to share their views as well as any proof they they have and he said yes he had,so he had given each group a listening ear, not to prove anything to Bizzare because he had already stated his position.
God deals with people differently depending on the doubts and questions they have and their spiritual conditon,the way he has dealt with me and provided proof may not be applicable to another.
P.S ipad charging time.Be back tomorrow. God's willing.

[Bizzare]

since we have an example up there^, who decides what is and what isn't literal in the bible. Who decides the meaning of a passage that isn't meant to be taken literally. Every denomination of Christianity has declared certain scriptures literal and others aren't. It's the reason for so many denominations..... How do you know your translation is the truth

[megadoc1]

Are you willing to admit that what you meant to say is:
this question does not make sense! If I had proof I would not need to have faith

or are you going to stand by that foolish statement you just made that goes like:
this question does not make sense! If I had proof I would not need to believe

are you trying to save face using semantics? lol

Don't be silly, megadoc. Personally, he should have asked you this first, instead of banging away at you... but this is exactly what he meant, and here, he is right. In your effort to stress your point, you misused the word. Why not just admit your error, instead of dragging this argument out.

wow! if you say so then I must admit I was in erorr
but tell me ..must God provide proof to me before I believe him?

[Bizzare]

C'mon megadoc1, you knew all along that your choice of wording was poor.
Using d spike's English intelligence allowed you to "jokingly" admit to your error without damaging your Christian ego.

[d spike]

I see this nonsense about "having proof to support one's belief" with regards to religion has returned.
Believing that there is a God is not like believing the world is round. It is quite easy to confuse the two. If there is something that we can prove to exist, we "believe" in it. However, there is something called "Faith", which enables us to believe in something we have no proof of. Accepting that there is a divine being in existence requires Faith.

So, while one can believe that the moon is not made of cheese, by producing proof...
one can also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, simply because of Faith.

To accuse believers of "using" faith as an excuse as to why they cannot produce proof of their God's (or Gods') existence simply shows a lack of understanding of both religion and faith...

[megadoc1]

C'mon megadoc1, you knew all along that your choice of wording was poor.
Using d spike's English intelligence allowed you to "jokingly" admit to your error without damaging your Christian ego.

nah man I was not concerned about my wording but I was focused on the fact that you think that God needs to provide proof before I put faith in him ..I did suggest that you call d spike up though... because I respect the fact that he is fair and has the great ability to teach while refuting and such, as for christian ego who told you I care about that?
but I would really like to hear d spikes take on this

So you just believed without any sort of proof?

ohh there it is just above..thanks d spike

[d spike]

..must God provide proof to me before I believe him?

The only reason why I view this query in trepidation is because of who is asking it.
Are you asking for your own benefit? (I highly doubt this.)

You seemed to have learned the meaning of the word "believe"... well, apart from that tangle with Bizarre.

Christians accept that Faith is a gift from God. It is this that allows them to believe in the Divine, and all aspects of Him, and "see" His fingerprint in His Creation, as well as recognize His miracles.

If God has to provide you with Proof, then clearly, you lack the gift of Faith.


To answer your question, God does not have to provide proof in order for you to believe in him, but I guess you would need proof to believe anyone. (In other words, did you mistakenly leave out the word "in" in your question, between "believe" and "him"?)

[Bizzare]

d spike it isn't nonsense..... We are no longer discussing the medium through which you obtained your belief - whether it be proof or faith. We are discussing how valid is faith as a means of believing in something. Proof is a valid means of believing, no argument there. To me, history proved faith to be invalid as a means of believing in something.

Using your example, once upon a time it did take faith to believe that the world was round/flat and it did take faith to believe that the moon was/wasn't made of cheese. Whether the word faith was used or not to describe such blind belief, it is the same concept. Basically hope and belief in the unproven/unseen. Now Science and technology has PROVEN otherwise. Not through faith, but through proof.

It is indeed the same for religion.

[d spike]

d spike it isn't nonsense..... We are no longer discussing the medium through which you obtained your belief - whether it be proof or faith. We are discussing how valid is faith as a means of believing in something. Proof is a valid means of believing, no argument there. To me, history proved faith to be invalid as a means of believing in something.

Using your example, once upon a time it did take faith to believe that the world was round/flat and it did take faith to believe that the moon was/wasn't made of cheese. Whether the word faith was used or not to describe such blind belief, it is the same concept. Basically hope and belief in the unproven/unseen. Now Science and technology has PROVEN otherwise. Not through faith, but through proof.

It is indeed the same for religion.

There are a certain amount of planets circling our sun and most have names. Just because there was a time when you didn't know them, doesn't mean they didn't exist. The existence of an aspect of our reality doesn't depend on your knowledge of it.

Confusing science with religion is a sad mistake that has cost many their lives in the distant past. Nowadays, it just makes you look silly, as most folks know better...

Religion and science are concerned with totally different and separate aspects of the human experience. Sometimes there is an overlapping of one into the other, and if the wrong one attempts to take precedence, then error creeps in.

Proof is a valid means of believing, no argument there. To me, history proved faith to be invalid as a means of believing in something.

Clearly you are a student of science, and that is something to be commended. However, there are other fields of study other than science. A man might be an excellent cook, but that doesn't mean he will be able to design and build a space-station.
All history has proved is that one does not confuse science and religion.

If you wish to mix theology with biology, chemistry and physics, then you are only taking a backward step - which means history hasn't taught you anything.

In the field of science, proof is required for belief. Where religion is concerned, faith is necessary.
To conclude, you might not see such a thing as nonsense, but AdamB makes the same mistake as you... and look at the results!

Science is closely tied to mathematics—a very abstract experience, while religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive. For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate and may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.

The reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.

[AdamB]

d spike it isn't nonsense..... We are no longer discussing the medium through which you obtained your belief - whether it be proof or faith. We are discussing how valid is faith as a means of believing in something. Proof is a valid means of believing, no argument there. To me, history proved faith to be invalid as a means of believing in something.

Using your example, once upon a time it did take faith to believe that the world was round/flat and it did take faith to believe that the moon was/wasn't made of cheese. Whether the word faith was used or not to describe such blind belief, it is the same concept. Basically hope and belief in the unproven/unseen. Now Science and technology has PROVEN otherwise. Not through faith, but through proof.

It is indeed the same for religion.

What is your definition of FAITH? If you replace the word "faith" in your statement above with the (or a) dictionary meaning, you will see how silly or nonsensical it sounds.

We are discussing how valid is faith as a means of believing in something.

We are discussing how valid is firm belief in something as a means of believing in something.

The faith or belief is already established and firm, so after that you want to question validity? That's like questioning the validity of Keshorn's Gold medal, the one that he won at the Olympics in front of the whole planet.

Or is it that you can't fathom the validity of something which you do not possess?!

[AdamB]

cred·i·ble
   [kred-uh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.





New Testament
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers.

And you think Reimarus is credible? Really???
I wonder what he would have had to say about the Koran and Islam...
This was a guy who believed that no scripture, nor prophet was required. He upheld Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation.


And this guy:

Maurice Bucaille states in The Bible, The Qur'an and Science that "The Quranic Revelation has a history which is fundamentally different from the other two. It spanned a period of some twenty years and, as soon as it was transmitted to Muhammad by Archangel Gabriel, Believers learned it by heart. It was also written down during Muhammad's life. The last recensions of the Quran were effected under Caliph Uthman starting some twelve years after the Prophet's death and finishing twenty-four years after it. They had the advantage of being checked by people who already knew the text by heart, for they had learned it at the time of the Revelation itself and had subsequently recited it constantly. Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity.

Of course, YOU would find this guy credible...
He converted to Islam, in 1976, and then promptly published that book of his, "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science".
Which freshly-laundered convert has ever had anything negative to say about their recently adopted scriptures? Please...
In his book, he argued that the Qur'an contains no statements contradicting established scientific facts. Bucaille argued that the Qur'an is in agreement with scientific facts, while the Bible is not.

Big whoop. One would have to be an idiot to acclaim a centuries-old religious text as a modern scientific treatise.

Bucaille concludes his work by claiming that the Qur'an is the words of God. Big surprise ending there... If he were a Catholic or a Buddhist, then I could understand your quoting him...

My mistake. I forgot your attempt at rebuttal consists of using first the "Ctrl key + C" followed deftly by the "Ctrl key + V"...
Next time, research your answers before you display them - blindly posting stuff can make you look far less educated than you had hoped for.

Are you saying that Wikipedia is biased in favour of Islam??
Megadoc, I used the same source for all.
Did anyone performing a critical unbiased study of religious scriptures make a statement like this concerning any other scripture?Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity

How can we ascertain that this doctor / man of medical science (who was a christian before converting to Islam) made his study / observations unbiased, THAT LED TO HIS ACCEPTANCE OF ISLAM? What did he have to gain? What did he see that he could benefit from Islam did Christianity didn't offer? Salvation on a silver platter was rejected by him?
http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/b/bucaille-mn.htm

My point is the authenticity of the various religious scriptures from the point of view of real historical documented evidence.

THE SINCERE HEART WILL FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF TRUTH!!

[d spike]

cred·i·ble
   [kred-uh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.





New Testament
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers.

And you think Reimarus is credible? Really???
I wonder what he would have had to say about the Koran and Islam...
This was a guy who believed that no scripture, nor prophet was required. He upheld Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation.


And this guy:

Maurice Bucaille states in The Bible, The Qur'an and Science that "The Quranic Revelation has a history which is fundamentally different from the other two. It spanned a period of some twenty years and, as soon as it was transmitted to Muhammad by Archangel Gabriel, Believers learned it by heart. It was also written down during Muhammad's life. The last recensions of the Quran were effected under Caliph Uthman starting some twelve years after the Prophet's death and finishing twenty-four years after it. They had the advantage of being checked by people who already knew the text by heart, for they had learned it at the time of the Revelation itself and had subsequently recited it constantly. Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity.

Of course, YOU would find this guy credible...
He converted to Islam, in 1976, and then promptly published that book of his, "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science".
Which freshly-laundered convert has ever had anything negative to say about their recently adopted scriptures? Please...
In his book, he argued that the Qur'an contains no statements contradicting established scientific facts. Bucaille argued that the Qur'an is in agreement with scientific facts, while the Bible is not.

Big whoop. One would have to be an idiot to acclaim a centuries-old religious text as a modern scientific treatise.

Bucaille concludes his work by claiming that the Qur'an is the words of God. Big surprise ending there... If he were a Catholic or a Buddhist, then I could understand your quoting him...

My mistake. I forgot your attempt at rebuttal consists of using first the "Ctrl key + C" followed deftly by the "Ctrl key + V"...
Next time, research your answers before you display them - blindly posting stuff can make you look far less educated than you had hoped for.

Are you saying that Wikipedia is biased in favour of Islam??

My goodness. You NEED to read what you are writing... I suspect you just look for key words and react to those, rather than actually undertaking the task of READING what is before you.
First you quoted from a Wikipedia article named "Biblical criticism". Then you quote from a rabid convert. YOUR research was biased - not the source...

How can we ascertain that this doctor / man of medical science (who was a christian before converting to Islam) made his study / observations unbiased

Are you serious?? the man wrote this book SOON AFTER his conversion to the very religion his book supports... that is your idea of an unbiased study??? This certainly explains a lot about your way of thinking.

THE SINCERE HEART WILL FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF TRUTH!!

And the fool will follow the chorus that chants the same babble that he does... as it makes him comfortable.

[AdamB]

cred·i·ble
   [kred-uh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.





New Testament
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers.

And you think Reimarus is credible? Really???
I wonder what he would have had to say about the Koran and Islam...
This was a guy who believed that no scripture, nor prophet was required. He upheld Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation.


And this guy:

Maurice Bucaille states in The Bible, The Qur'an and Science that "The Quranic Revelation has a history which is fundamentally different from the other two. It spanned a period of some twenty years and, as soon as it was transmitted to Muhammad by Archangel Gabriel, Believers learned it by heart. It was also written down during Muhammad's life. The last recensions of the Quran were effected under Caliph Uthman starting some twelve years after the Prophet's death and finishing twenty-four years after it. They had the advantage of being checked by people who already knew the text by heart, for they had learned it at the time of the Revelation itself and had subsequently recited it constantly. Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity.

Of course, YOU would find this guy credible...
He converted to Islam, in 1976, and then promptly published that book of his, "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science".
Which freshly-laundered convert has ever had anything negative to say about their recently adopted scriptures? Please...
In his book, he argued that the Qur'an contains no statements contradicting established scientific facts. Bucaille argued that the Qur'an is in agreement with scientific facts, while the Bible is not.

Big whoop. One would have to be an idiot to acclaim a centuries-old religious text as a modern scientific treatise.

Bucaille concludes his work by claiming that the Qur'an is the words of God. Big surprise ending there... If he were a Catholic or a Buddhist, then I could understand your quoting him...

My mistake. I forgot your attempt at rebuttal consists of using first the "Ctrl key + C" followed deftly by the "Ctrl key + V"...
Next time, research your answers before you display them - blindly posting stuff can make you look far less educated than you had hoped for.

Are you saying that Wikipedia is biased in favour of Islam??

My goodness. You NEED to read what you are writing... I suspect you just look for key words and react to those, rather than actually undertaking the task of READING what is before you.
First you quoted from a Wikipedia article named "Biblical criticism". Then you quote from a rabid convert. YOUR research was biased - not the source...

How can we ascertain that this doctor / man of medical science (who was a christian before converting to Islam) made his study / observations unbiased

Are you serious?? the man wrote this book SOON AFTER his conversion to the very religion his book supports... that is your idea of an unbiased study??? This certainly explains a lot about your way of thinking.

THE SINCERE HEART WILL FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF TRUTH!!

And the fool will follow the chorus that chants the same babble that he does... as it makes him comfortable.

Dspike,
The man made a scientific study that took TIME (months / years). You are saying that he accepted Islam and then the next morning he published his book!! Do you deny that he was a christian before he accepted Islam?

I ask you then to direct us to unbiased studies of the foundation (scriptures) of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism in the light of real documented historical information, language and preservation. What do the men of substance say about them?

Muslims are critical of Jews because they had the knowledge (scriptures) but did not follow (were disobedient), taking their Rabbis as LORDS instead of Allah (making permissible what was prohibited and making prohibited what was permissible).

Muslims are critical of Christians because they innovated and strayed from the religion of GOD brought to them by Jesus, following misguidance not substantiated by firm knowledge.

This is the reason why I have kept asking for your evidence of your creed FROM YOUR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES. Everything that forms the true and correct religion of Islam has its proofs from our valid sources aka our napkin but if you can't even prove yours even from YOUR napkin, then certainly that is a sad state of affairs.

Knowledge is the foundation of truth. You know the old saying, "He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him."

This is applicable to everyone as made evident by THE MATRIX (virtual reality). The question is "WHO IS DECEIVING WHOM?"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Muslims are critical of Jews because they had the knowledge (scriptures) but did not follow (were disobedient), taking their Rabbis as LORDS instead of Allah (making permissible what was prohibited and making prohibited what was permissible).

Muslims are critical of Christians because they innovated and strayed from the religion of GOD brought to them by Jesus, following misguidance not substantiated by firm knowledge.

This is the reason why I have kept asking for your evidence of your creed FROM YOUR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES. Everything that forms the true and correct religion of Islam has its proofs from our valid sources aka our napkin but if you can't even prove yours even from YOUR napkin, then certainly that is a sad state of affairs.

what makes one proven and valid and the other not?

[AdamB]

I have a question that's been on my mind

Throughout history we have witnessed how easily stories are classified as myths and fables etc etc. We can simply look at our local folklore for an easy example.


How come, "god" and the multiple religions holding their claims to god wasn't classified as a myth?

Because God is not a myth, He never was.

Knowledge of God runs deeper than mere folklore and fairytales.
You are asking why God wasn't classified as a myth, which means you have implicitly agreed that the idea of God has transcended such stories.
The fact that God is not classified as a myth, is in itself, an admission of the superiority of the validity of the 'stories' pertaining to God which allows it to stand apart from mere folklore.

Your question comes after this fact, and you want to know why this is so.
Maybe this question stems as a result of the way you determine whether things are valid or not. eg. whether it is a credible source, trustworthy person, lack of personal experience etc.

Do you think God should be classified as a myth? If yes, why?

tran·scend
   [tran-send] Show IPA

verb (used with object)
1. to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed: to transcend the limits of thought; kindness transcends courtesy.

2. to outdo or exceed in excellence, elevation, extent, degree, etc.; surpass; excel.

3. Theology . (of the Deity) to be above and independent of (the universe, time, etc.).

[AdamB]

Muslims are critical of Jews because they had the knowledge (scriptures) but did not follow (were disobedient), taking their Rabbis as LORDS instead of Allah (making permissible what was prohibited and making prohibited what was permissible).

Muslims are critical of Christians because they innovated and strayed from the religion of GOD brought to them by Jesus, following misguidance not substantiated by firm knowledge.

This is the reason why I have kept asking for your evidence of your creed FROM YOUR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES. Everything that forms the true and correct religion of Islam has its proofs from our valid sources aka our napkin but if you can't even prove yours even from YOUR napkin, then certainly that is a sad state of affairs.

what makes one proven and valid and the other not?

That's why I say, "REFER IT BACK TO THE SCRIPTURES!"

Are we capable of performing or referring to independent, historical, unbiased critical studies of the various scriptures? To me this is the most important to establish authenticity and validity of following. To others it may not matter, but then would they be standing on firm ground?

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results, which is a common comment on this thread...NOTHING NEW SURFACING...so try something different for a change?!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ independent, historical, unbiased critical studies sounds like the scientific method to me

SCIENCE - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Using that method, scientists discovered that humans evolved from single cell life forms and we share common descendants with other modern primates.

"Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo. They originated in Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago."

That does not support the Adam and Eve story the Muslims, Jews and Christians claim.

So how do you continue from there?

[AdamB]

^ independent, historical, unbiased critical studies sounds like the scientific method to me

SCIENCE - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Using that method, scientists discovered that humans evolved from single cell life forms and we share common descendants with other modern primates.

"Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo. They originated in Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago."

That does not support the Adam and Eve story the Muslims, Jews and Christians claim.

So are we then to compare scripture not by which one is right, but rather by which one is less wrong?

Are we go over this again? Scientists have NOT DISCOVERED that EVOLUTION did actually happen! It is a mere theory.

And even if it were correct, then could it not have been THE MEANS BY WHICH GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALL POWERFUL chose to create HIS CREATION. (HE didn't just say "alaakazaam" and POOF, everything appeared and were not subject to change).

Quran 41:9-12 He created the earth in 2 Days, placed therein mountains, blessings and sustenance in 4 Days and then HE rose over (towards) the heaven (Universe) when it was "smoke", then HE COMPLETED AND FINISHED FROM THEIR CREATION as seven heavens in 2 Days.

http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_miracles.php

What I am saying is that they are not mutually exclusive!

[AdamB]

^ independent, historical, unbiased critical studies sounds like the scientific method to me

So how do you continue from there?

Not the science of SCIENCE per se but the science of determining historical facts / information which would include scientific methods like carbon dating of artefacts, etc.

I remember on the History Channel they said that there was no evidence of the existence of Jesus except the disputed "Shroud of Turin". Also there was a crucible which a Jewish collector tried to link to Jesus but it was a fabrication.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... m-leprosy/

[Crucial]

For the narrow-minded who believe God created the universe:

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ independent, historical, unbiased critical studies sounds like the scientific method to me

SCIENCE - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Using that method, scientists discovered that humans evolved from single cell life forms and we share common descendants with other modern primates.

"Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo. They originated in Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago."

That does not support the Adam and Eve story the Muslims, Jews and Christians claim.

So are we then to compare scripture not by which one is right, but rather by which one is less wrong?

Are we go over this again? Scientists have NOT DISCOVERED that EVOLUTION did actually happen! It is a mere theory.

And even if it were correct, then could it not have been THE MEANS BY WHICH GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, THE ALL POWERFUL chose to create HIS CREATION. (HE didn't just say "alaakazaam" and POOF, everything appeared and were not subject to change).

Quran 41:9-12 He created the earth in 2 Days, placed therein mountains, blessings and sustenance in 4 Days and then HE rose over (towards) the heaven (Universe) when it was "smoke", then HE COMPLETED AND FINISHED FROM THEIR CREATION as seven heavens in 2 Days.

http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_miracles.php

What I am saying is that they are not mutually exclusive!

you are the one going over this again

You misunderstand the meaning of the term scientific theory and you are confusing it with the word hypothesis.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Perhaps God started the process of evolution and we evolved from the single celled organisms that He breathed life into, but then scripture doesn't suggest that. Scripture clearly talks about animals different from man and man was created and Eve was created from Adam.

It is mutually exclusive when you want to literally follow scripture.
Where does the story of the serpent and the apple fit in?