The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

Also, the scholars will know the scholars. Think about it.

2) Since you are not a scholar, it therefore suggest, from your earlier discourse, that you cannot recognize a scholar, am I right to say this? I am only going off what you told me so far.
There are scholars who stray from the straight path. My point is that they will not be known by the true scholars upon the Quran and Sunnah. There is a grouping called Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community.
For example, there is a Permanent Committee for Academic Research and the Issuing of Islamic Rulings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_ ... _Committee


In this answer you quoted some random stuff (exapmle:There is a grouping called Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community.) you have not answered the question asked, so i will ask the question again, Can YOU recognize a scholar?
[color=#FF0000]I can recognize sufficient to benefit from true scholars and not be misguided by scholars of deviant groups.
In addition, if I follow the link i see that the Permanent Committee for Academic Research and the Issuing of Islamic Rulings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is made up of sunni muslim scholars, does it mean that you take you follow these sunni scholars? [/color]
Yes, I follow the "Sunni" scholars. The deviant beliefs have put some others outside of the fold of Islam. The Messenger of Allah said to "follow his sunnah and the sunnah of his rightly guided caliphs".

The scholars say little of their own, what is just necessary to explain to the person. They quote from the Qur'aan and Hadith. The early generations of scholars have already explained the Qur'aan and collections of hadith.

3) Are there any stipulated requirements (passing an examination of some sort) that one must have in order to prove that he/she is a scholar and if so where and how does one go about acquiring these requirements?

Scholars learn knowledge DIRECTLY from their teacher who would have learnt from his and so on. There is a certificate called an Ijazah which certifies that the student sat with and learnt from his teacher. Traditionally, there was not an actual certificate as the student studied for many years with the teacher and the "award" of the Ijazah could be verified by witnesses, very much the same way that Prophetic narrations (hadith) were transmitted.

Some info to understand further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijazah



@AdamB Could you please answer my questions Sir.

Who is a Scholar?

The words ‘aalim (scholar), faqeeh and mujtahid all carry the same meaning: they refer to one who strive to reach the shar‘i ruling and who has the ability to derive shar‘i rulings from the evidence.

This means that he has to acquire the tools (pre-requisites) of ijtihaad. No one can be described in these terms (‘aalim, mujtahid or faqeeh) except one who meets the pre-requisites of ijtihaad.

The scholars paid attention to these pre-requisites so that the door is not open to just anyone, old or young, to say about the religion of Allah that of which he has no knowledge.

But we will content ourselves with just two reports from which we will demonstrate what these pre-requisites are.

-1-

The first report was narrated from al-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) and what he said may be summed up in five points, listing five pre-requisites:

(i)

He should have knowledge of the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

This does not necessarily mean that he should have memorised the Sunnah; rather it is sufficient for him to be able to find reports in their places and be familiar with the contents of the books of Sunnah, foremost among which are the well-known compilations of the Sunnah (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Nasaa’i and Sunan Ibn Maajah), and so on.

He should also know what is saheeh (sound) and what is da‘eef (weak) in the texts of the Sunnah.

(ii)

He should have knowledge of the issues of consensus (ijmaa‘)

(iii)

He should be well versed in the Arabic language.

It is not stipulated that he should have learned it by heart; rather he should be able to understand the meanings and structure of the language.

(iv)

He should have knowledge of usool al-fiqh (basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence), including analogy (qiyaas), because usool al-fiqh is the foundation for deriving rulings.

(v)

He should have knowledge of what abrogates and what is abrogated (al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh).

See: Irshaad al-Fuhool, 2/297-303

-2-

The second report was narrated from Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him):

He mentioned the pre-requisites of the mujtahid without differing greatly from what al-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned, but he put it more clearly and said:

Ijtihaad is subject to several conditions, including the following:

(i) He (the mujtahid) should have knowledge of the shar‘i evidence that he needs for the purpose of ijtihaad, such as verses of the Qur’aan and hadeeths that speak of rulings.

(ii) He should have knowledge of the matters pertaining to the soundness or weakness of hadeeths, such as the isnaad, the men in the isnaad and so on.

(iii) He should be aware of what abrogates and what is abrogated (al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh) and issues on which there is consensus (ijmaa‘), so that he will not issue a ruling on the basis of something that has been abrogated or that is contrary to scholarly consensus.

(iv) He should have knowledge of various matters affecting the ruling, such as reports of specific meanings, reports that set limits, and so on, so that he will not issue a ruling that is contrary to that.

(v) He should have knowledge of the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh that has to do with verbal evidence, such as what is general and what is specific, what is absolute and what is restricted, what is mentioned in brief and what is mentioned in detail, and so on, so that his rulings will be in accordance with what is indicated by that evidence.

(vi) He should have the ability to derive rulings from the evidence.

End quote from al-Usool fi ‘Ilm al-Usool, p. 85, 86; Sharh (commentary thereon), p. 584-590.

It should be pointed out that referring to the Sunnah now is much easier than it was before, because of the books that have been written on the Sunnah.

The one who fulfils these conditions is a scholar (‘aalim) who can derive shar‘i rulings from the evidence. Anyone who does not fit this description cannot be described as a ‘aalim, faqeeh or mujtahid.

It should also be noted that these words (‘aalim, mujtahid and faqeeh) are technical terms, as it were; according to the scholars they have specific meanings and pre-requisites. So it is not permissible to use them readily about anyone who speaks about Islamic rulings or teaches Islamic material in schools and universities, or who works in the field of da‘wah (calling people to Allah). A man may be a daa‘iyah, calling people to Allah, and putting a great deal of effort into that, without having reached the level of being a scholar (‘aalim).

We ask Allah, may He be exalted, to teach us that which will benefit us and increase us in knowledge.

And Allah knows best. [/quote]


After your answer I still do not know if there is some form of quality control (examination) for the above mentioned requirements. As such I am kindly asking that you answer the question.

I thank you for your time Sir. [/quote]

[AdamB]

Thank you Bluefete & Duane. Once more you seem to be the only other level-headed persons in here! Is it because you are sincere, that you call a spade a spade?

What is wrong with the sight of others in here who can't seem to understand the concept of real historical evidence and credible sources of information?

I try my best to call a spade a spade

but I am still asking you: You talk about real historical evidence and credible sources of information.
What makes the Bible or the Gita not credible?

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.

The Qur'aan:
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.

The Bible:
Old Testament:
Modern biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians - Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others - who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books: according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that, they claimed, made Mosaic authorship improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods of textual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.

Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the higher criticism (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the lower criticism); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document.

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.

Gita:
Theories on the date of composition of the Gita vary considerably. Scholars accept dates from fifth century to second century BCE as the probable range. Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.[4] Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, a Gita scholar, on the basis of the estimated dates of Mahabharata, Brahma sutras, and other independent sources, concludes that the Bhagavad Gita was composed between fifth and fourth centuries BCE.[5] The actual dates of composition of the Gita remain unresolved.

[MG Man]

WOW..........and you STILL didn't answer duane's question

[megadoc1]

the man quote wiki and call it a day lol....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

Adam b I see your post and raise you this .......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran
tell me if we getting anywhere

[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.

[Bizzare]

the man quote wiki and call it a day lol....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

Adam b I see your post and raise you this .......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran
tell me if we getting anywhere

u won. the quran criticism page longer

[megadoc1]

lol...just realized that his post was built from both of them,just that he posted the lines that was in his favor

[Kasey]

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.

WWWHHHHHOOOOOAAAGGGGAAAADDDOUI!!!! Ah rollin with da one!!!!! LOL!!!!

[pioneer]

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?

[pioneer]

http://godisimaginary.com/

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Quran.htm

^^^ mind = blown@ quotes from the koran

[maj. tom]

^^ give it up pioneer.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
-Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985.)


And rational, logical thinking beings understand and therefore respect those aspects of Psychology. On the other side of the coin, religion has not explained a lot of whys or hows for many centuries which have lead to much bigotry, chest-beating and blood-shed.

So despite the overwhelming evidence or contradiction, there are always going to be such individuals who have become totally dependant on the idea of god and religion and the afterlife, and they just cannot refute those ideas in as much as we cannot refute the speed of light. Sounds odd, but again it is understood why in the branch of science called Psychology.

(by the way, if islam was so aligned with science, why did the flying donkeylet that transported the acid-trip-high-as-a-monkey-on-fermented-fig-juice mohammed to the levels of heaven travel at or faster than the speed of light? I have heard this story many times from many imams. Oh...that's right, Special Relatively wasn't even proposed until 1905. So what about the physical reality and location of heaven... we didn't find it on the Gemini or Apollo flights. Of course the entire story of the Night Journey is so questionable in the first place, and yet people keep believing these stories. If you have not read this story yet, please do and you will find yourself in total harmonic lulz. This is just the word of this one man, no witnesses or proof, he didn't even bring back a feather or fig leaf. And just take note how many people have been committed to psychiatric hospitals who have claimed similar stories and experiences.)

I don't think you should be alarmed. In a thousand years the world will be different, and they will look back at us as equally as we look back at the Greeks and their Mt. Olympus.

[sensiman]

Just keep in mind:

[sweetiepaper]

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?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

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?

In 200BC in Greece when Posiedon and Zeus and Hades were thought to be Gods, because that is what religion in those days taught, everyone considered to be very real and not at all a myth.

Today as religions change, as they always have, we relegate the older beliefs as myths.

Egyptians ruled the world for thousands of years, they were the most advanced civilization of their time and they practiced their religion for well over 3000 years. Christianity has been around for 2000 years or less if you consider that it only really started around the 1st century and only began to spread around the 4th century with Constantine. So that's 1600 years?

Who knows what mankind will believe or pray to in the next 1000 years.
Already the fairly new religion of Scientology claims Xenu, according to the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology scriptures hold that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.
Sounds silly? It doesn't sound silly to followers of the Church of Scientology such as Ton Cruise and John Travolta, but they find the Adam and Eve story is hilarious.

See the quote below

I don't think you should be alarmed. In a thousand years the world will be different, and they will look back at us as equally as we look back at the Greeks and their Mt. Olympus.

unfortunately I lack maj.tom's succinct style

[Bizzare]

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?

This doesn't make sense to me. It isn't just ONE concept of God that stood throughout history without being classified as a myth. Multiple ideas of "Gods" and multiple ideas of "religions" stood throughout history and guess what? Each of these teachings of God and it's religion all deem the other as being untrue, in other words just a fable.

Only one religion could be the right one if any were right at all, because they all teach intolerance of the other. So how come multiple religions and numerous ideas of "God" stood throughout history without being classified as a myth if only one can be the truth? Does that mean that all the different teachings, according to you, are valid because they have not been classifieds as myths and stood throughout history?


What I'm saying is, basing the validity of a belief on whether it has been classified a myth or not throughout history isn't worthy. You don't know what science will prove in the future. Remember "the earth was flat" once upon a time and science proved it to be otherwise? If science didn't, man would still believe that it is.

Science is currently unable to disprove many of religion's teachings. Give science some time. I too believe that there is a God. Maybe in the future people would be laughing at this generation's folklore - which we call religion, just like we younger educated ones laugh at what the older people believed

[DFC]

this one time during my travels, i was searching for truth, answers, and reason for existence, so i found out where God was staying, and i climbed up the mountain and reached his place.

I entered his Magnificent Palace, roman pillars, marble tiles, Imported furniture, big screen tv's everywhere. He even had a ps3, and this was a few months before Sony announced they had ps3.

I finally got to meet him, i knelt down in reverence, and noticed his adidas slippers. He embraced me and i heard bells and the angels sang....and i felt so good.
He told me how glad he was to see me and thanks for coming, and we discussed alot of topics like war, poverty, humanity, and finally it was time to leave.
I thanked him for his time and all the knowledge he gave me, and we embraced again and then i left the palace in a daze. It was only when i reached the bottom of the mountain that i realised my wallet was missing. !!!

[Bizzare]

**tears

[megadoc1]

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?

This doesn't make sense to me. It isn't just ONE concept of God that stood throughout history without being classified as a myth. Multiple ideas of "Gods" and multiple ideas of "religions" stood throughout history and guess what? Each of these teachings of God and it's religion all deem the other as being untrue, in other words just a fable.

this wont make sense to you because your statement that follows is not a true statement!
most religions never called another one a myth or fable but the term "false god " is strongly used and still that don't classify a religious belief as a myth .... if I worship a tree as a god the tree is real but its not the real God or creator of the universe but that does not make the tree or my worship to it a myth it is simply what I believe to be my God

Only one religion could be the right one if any were right at all, because they all teach intolerance of the other. So how come multiple religions and numerous ideas of "God" stood throughout history without being classified as a myth if only one can be the truth? Does that mean that all the different teachings, according to you, are valid because they have not been classifieds as myths and stood throughout history?

ahh .. so here we see where you got things mixed up.you have the Idea that as long as one religion discredits another it is considered a myth that's not the case my friend...we are dealing with the concept of God and whether its a myth or not,God is the subject here not the concept which varies amongst other religious groups.like my tree for example

What I'm saying is, basing the validity of a belief on whether it has been classified a myth or not throughout history isn't worthy. You don't know what science will prove in the future. Remember "the earth was flat" once upon a time and science proved it to be otherwise? If science didn't, man would still believe that it is.

again he is not querying if a belief or concept is a myth but the idea of a God.....you sure don't know what science will prove but science is not a god or religion so why put faith in it? you put faith in God but you must wait on science to produce facts don't mix them,the earth being flat was a religious belief? why are you so bent on mixing faith and observation?

Science is currently unable to disprove many of religion's teachings. Give science some time. I too believe that there is a God. Maybe in the future people would be laughing at this generation's folklore - which we call religion, just like we younger educated ones laugh at what the older people believed

you are depending on science in the wrong places bro

[pioneer]

To me the Greek gods and the Titans etc makes more sense.


I think the Greeks were right.

[bluefete]

Through Faith comes Evidence

Hebrews 11 (King James Version)

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

[megadoc1]

To me the Greek gods and the Titans etc makes more sense.


I think the Greeks were right.

kool! what happened to me is that I read the bible and saw
how God for the sake of his people challenged most of these gods to show how they were not gods at all from pharaoh all the way down or up if you wish
and God so cool eh in some places he begged them to do something, anything at all, even do evil and nada came out of them..now dais a boss

[Chimera]

what happened to me is that I read the bible and saw

.....Who wrote this bible again?

[Bizzare]

megadoc1, in what ways did God prove his existence to you?

[megadoc1]

what happened to me is that I read the bible and saw

.....Who wrote this bible again?

oh.... don't beat up on that if it means nothing to you ok!

megadoc1, in what ways did God prove his existence to you?

amm.. I heard the gospel and I believed since then we have been working out some stuff

[Bizzare]

So you just believed without any sort of proof?

[megadoc1]

So you just believed without any sort of proof?

this question does not make sense! If I had proof I would not need to believe
you are mixing believing and knowing..read blufete's post above

[Bizzare]

So you just believed without any sort of proof?

this question does not make sense! If I had proof I would not need to believe

Guys do you see what this guy just wrote !!!
HAHAHAAHAHAAH.............
I don't need to ask any of the questions I was about to. It's either you nuts or need to learn the English language and read the bible over again

[Bizzare]

do edit yuh post now dan. lololol
You're saying that you do not have to believe the sun is hot cuz you have proof that it is. hahaahah... u r carayzay !!!

[TrinbagoMan]

Bizarre, i dont think you understand what he wrote.

He just admitted that there is no proof or evidence to anything he believes. Typical religious person.

[megadoc1]

do edit yuh post now dan. lololol
You're saying that you do not have to believe the sun is hot cuz you have proof that it is. hahaahah... u r carayzay !!!

you just proved that you have no idea about the concept of faith or religion give d spike a call