The Religion Discussion

[turbohead]

one of the tings with islam is that we have sound traditions and saying from the prophet(saw) which are authentic. his every movement was the Quran so following him is to live by the Quran. the companions of the prophet muhammed(saw) they saw it fit to record these traditions in books called hadith. they spent their entire lives sorting these hadith to ensure that no faults enter into books. as for the companions of jesus we cant say the same as they didnt do so to preserve the religion.

[d spike]

spike, is ur pc that slow or ur net connection? cause i lookin to sell meh Eee pc net book. is a small 10" laptop with a 160 gig hdd, wifi, and every thing wukin... $1200

think about it, u could crank vids, well at least standard quality and not high deff.

Ummm...
Don't get me wrong, thanks for your offer... but I am not a computery kinda guy. I am quite happy with what my rattletrap PC can do. I enjoy the written word.
Besides, why should I spend all that... so that I should be able to finally what Swaggart has to say???? Good grief.

[DFC]

one of the tings with islam is that we have sound traditions and saying from the prophet(saw) which are authentic. his every movement was the Quran so following him is to live by the Quran. the companions of the prophet muhammed(saw) they saw it fit to record these traditions in books called hadith. they spent their entire lives sorting these hadith to ensure that no faults enter into books. as for the companions of jesus we cant say the same as they didnt do so to preserve the religion.

How do you know that they are authentic?
Proof of authenticity?

Also you said the prophet's companions record his saying in a book?

How is this different from the Gospels, which were written by disciples of Jesus?

[turbohead]

which gospels written by jesus disciple's? mark, john, luke, mathew and paul was nowhere around in jesus' time

[DFC]

which gospels written by jesus disciple's? mark, john, luke, mathew and paul was nowhere around in jesus' time

oh yeh u may be right there.
lol i had a brain lapse.


But anyways...how do you know the prophet's words are authentic?

[d spike]

one of the tings with islam is that we have sound traditions and saying from the prophet(saw) which are authentic. his every movement was the Quran so following him is to live by the Quran. the companions of the prophet muhammed(saw) they saw it fit to record these traditions in books called hadith. they spent their entire lives sorting these hadith to ensure that no faults enter into books. as for the companions of jesus we cant say the same as they didnt do so to preserve the religion.

Interesting statement... but an errant one, I'm sorry to say.

Let's look at it this way:

one of the things with Christianity is that we have sound traditions and sayings from the prophets/Messiah which are authentic. The important things they said/did are in the Bible so following them is to live by the Bible. The companions of the Messiah saw it fit to ensure that these things were orally transmitted to the following generation, who recorded these traditions in books called the gospels. Many spent their entire lives sorting these gospels to ensure that no faults enter into books.

I am sure most religions can say the same for their scriptures.

as for the companions of jesus we cant say the same as they didnt do so to preserve the religion.

I would dearly love to hear you give a proper and plausible explanation for that remark... whoever the "we" is, they certainly don't know the specific and well-documented history - or, more likely, choose to ignore it.

It's very easy to discredit something you either do not believe or know much about. This sort of narrow-mindedness is dangerous, no matter what religion one follows.
Why the need to discredit another religion anyway? What's your beef?

[d spike]

which gospels written by jesus disciple's? mark, john, luke, mathew and paul was nowhere around in jesus' time

oh yeh u may be right there.
lol i had a brain lapse.

No, he's not right. He is either preying on your ignorance of the facts, or he is simply ignorant of those facts as well.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...
Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus.
Mark was one of the "Seventy Disciples" who were sent out by Jesus to saturate Judea with the gospel after his crucifixion. He later became Peter's interpreter. (St. Mark's Gospel is considered to be told from Peter's point of view.)
Luke was a companion of Paul, and he would have known Jesus' disciples and mother, which would explain pertinent information that his gospel contains.

Assumptions based on bias, rather than knowledge, creates a dangerous form of assertive ignorance - shun it.

[megadoc1]

one of the tings with islam is that we have sound traditions and saying from the prophet(saw) which are authentic.

turbohead can you answer these for me ....
what about all the other versions of the quran,that was invalidated by
Uthman ibn Affan - 644 - 656 ......about 19 years after the death of Muhammad ?
why aren't they authentic?
why were they burnt?
supposed the ones burnt were the authentic ones.... what then?
why were there variations in the first place?
who gave the authority to "standardize" the quran ?
based on the Shi'ites beliefs it seems that Islam was highjacked by "first" caliph abu bakr and crew

Shī'ah Muslims believe that just as a prophet is appointed by God alone, only God has the prerogative to appoint the successor to his prophet. They believe that God chose 'Alī to be the successor, infallible and divinely chosen. Thus they say that Muhammad, before his death, appointed Ali as his successor.

Ali was Muhammad's first cousin and closest living male relative, as well as his son-in-law, having married his daughter Fatimah. 'Ali would eventually become the fourth Muslim caliph.

When Muhammad died, 'Ali and Muhammad's closest relatives made the funeral arrangements. While they were preparing his body, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and Abu 'Ubayda met with the leaders of Medina and elected Abu Bakr as khalifa ("caliph"). 'Ali and his family were dismayed, but accepted the appointment for the sake of unity in the early Muslim community.[

It was not until the murder of the third khalifa, 'Uthman, that the Muslims in Medina invited 'Ali to become the fourth khalifa.

so how can we know if they were up to any good in the first place ?
why were they all murdered?
by fellow muslim brethren?
the quran was amended to suit the Abrahamic faith, who oversaw this?**

[MG Man]

^^^that doh make your book any less ridiculous eh

[megadoc1]

perhaps .. but that's not the issue here, the guy made a claim that the koran have a "sound" history
probably without looking at its history himself
and thats what I am working on...
no where did I seek to validate the bible by questioning him on his claim of the koran
at this point I have no interest in defending the bible or anything he or anyone says about it
I am more interested in how far they would go to support their claim...........peace

[brainchild]

I wanna know why we believe people involved in the compilation of these religious text were incorruptible? Whether imam, priest, king, queen or what these people were in positions of power and did their very best to keep it so, therefore any number of things could have been altered....dat is if the books contain any truth at all.

If being religious is about being honest why can't ppl come out and say "hey i don't know if it's true, but i believe it and support it till d end...cos it works for me!"

[d spike]

I wanna know why we believe people involved in the compilation of these religious text were incorruptible?

Is the use of the pronoun "we" correct here? Otherwise, you could just ask yourself

Whether imam, priest, king, queen or what these people were in positions of power and did their very best to keep it so, therefore any number of things could have been altered

The implication here is that the authors would attempt the "altering". Why would someone write something, and then alter it? (Bear in mind why these writings were authored in the first place.) Most of the scriptures I have studied were the "lifetime" work of their authors... Whatever alterations that might have been done would have been attempted after the demise of the original author - in order to pass it off as the original.

dat is if the books contain any truth at all.

Fundamentalists have bandied the word "truth" around so much that many forget it's actual meaning in relation to religion. In this sense, "truth" doesn't mean "historically true" as much as "right". (And being right is not exclusive to good n' holy folk, eh... even a busted clock is right twice a day )

If being religious is about being honest why can't ppl come out and say "hey i don't know if it's true, but i believe it and support it till d end...cos it works for me!"

Simply because such an act requires true faith... and as I have been suggesting all along, these howling, yowling believers are subconsciously trying to make up for their LACK OF FAITH by publicly placarding such a faith. The same thing applies to all those Christian bumper stickers on cars driven by most unchristian-like drivers.

[megadoc1]

If being religious is about being honest why can't ppl come out and say "hey i don't know if it's true, but i believe it and support it till d end...cos it works for me!"

religion is faith based so why do you want the religious to state the obvious?

here goes .......
what I believe in, I did/do* not know if its true but I believe it to be the truth
... so I put my faith in it and I will do so till the end.....
however in my life much of what I have put my faith in so far, has proven itself to be true
day by day, my response to such occurrence are ........"AMEN"

* the the things that i believe in that are yet to be proven!!!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ people put their faith in money, business, friends and they have proven to be true as well

what you are referring to is BLIND faith - which, after all, is aptly named.

[megadoc1]

am.... money ,buisness and friends are not considered religion
logic check?

[d spike]

Believing in what cannot be proven is faith.
However, there is more to it than that. Faith must be allowed to grow, to develop. This only happens when doubt is allowed to exist. When one questions what one believes and one then finds answers, one's faith is affirmed... it grows. Doubt is part of the journey of faith.
Faith is not affirmed by pounding pulpits, clapping and screaming testimonies... no matter how this makes one feel - faith and emotions are two entirely different things.
So while it may seem that faith defies logic, it actually thrives on it.

A living faith ebbs and grows... a faith that cannot grow is dead or false - most likely it is just an emotion, which would certainly explain the behaviour of fundamentalists who believe they can "affirm their faith" by loud public actions. This is blind faith - refusing to question, ignoring the logic.

A living faith gladly allows questioning, as it knows the joy of realizing growth when the answers are found. Blind faith ignores questions, believing it is right because it believes it is right.

[d spike]

which gospels written by jesus disciple's? mark, john, luke, mathew and paul was nowhere around in jesus' time

oh yeh u may be right there.
lol i had a brain lapse.

No, he's not right. He is either preying on your ignorance of the facts, or he is simply ignorant of those facts as well.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...
Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus.
Mark was one of the "Seventy Disciples" who were sent out by Jesus to saturate Judea with the gospel after his crucifixion. He later became Peter's interpreter. (St. Mark's Gospel is considered to be told from Peter's point of view.)
Luke was a companion of Paul, and he would have known Jesus' disciples and mother, which would explain pertinent information that his gospel contains.

Assumptions based on bias, rather than knowledge, creates a dangerous form of assertive ignorance - shun it.

Why the silence?
Seems like some folks, though they claim to seek the truth...


...can't handle the truth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

am.... money ,buisness and friends are not considered religion
logic check?

you are saying that you have faith in religion then? I thought your faith was with God?

besides I said nothing of religion - I was talking about faith
something does not need to be a religion for one to have faith in it.

logic check?

[MG Man]

I put my faith in John Lennon (UHBP)

[mediahouse]

my faith is with the peoples party

[MG Man]

i urinate with disgust in the general direction of PPP

[megadoc1]

am.... money ,buisness and friends are not considered religion
logic check?

you are saying that you have faith in religion then? I thought your faith was with God? my faith in God, is what you and most here understand as religion, I speak so you can understand where I am coming from but if you want to play around with word have fun ...I don't have time for that ...sorry.

besides I said nothing of religion - I was talking about faith
this whole ched is about faith duh......
something does not need to be a religion for one to have faith in it.
so are you agreeing with me now that my faith in God is not a religion?

logic check?
coherence check ?

[brainchild]

I wanna know why we believe people involved in the compilation of these religious text were incorruptible?

Is the use of the pronoun "we" correct here? Otherwise, you could just ask yourself
Point taken...so correction...religious followers

Whether imam, priest, king, queen or what these people were in positions of power and did their very best to keep it so, therefore any number of things could have been altered

The implication here is that the authors would attempt the "altering". Why would someone write something, and then alter it? (Bear in mind why these writings were authored in the first place.) Most of the scriptures I have studied were the "lifetime" work of their authors... Whatever alterations that might have been done would have been attempted after the demise of the original author - in order to pass it off as the original.
I'm not talking about writing then changing, but biased writing in the first place...not to mention alterations that were issued by King James most notably and thru the interpretations of religious leaders

dat is if the books contain any truth at all.

Fundamentalists have bandied the word "truth" around so much that many forget it's actual meaning in relation to religion. In this sense, "truth" doesn't mean "historically true" as much as "right". (And being right is not exclusive to good n' holy folk, eh... even a busted clock is right twice a day )

If being religious is about being honest why can't ppl come out and say "hey i don't know if it's true, but i believe it and support it till d end...cos it works for me!"

Simply because such an act requires true faith... and as I have been suggesting all along, these howling, yowling believers are subconsciously trying to make up for their LACK OF FAITH by publicly placarding such a faith. The same thing applies to all those Christian bumper stickers on cars driven by most unchristian-like drivers.

[brainchild]

If being religious is about being honest why can't ppl come out and say "hey i don't know if it's true, but i believe it and support it till d end...cos it works for me!"

religion is faith based so why do you want the religious to state the obvious?

here goes .......
what I believe in, I did/do* not know if its true but I believe it to be the truth
... so I put my faith in it and I will do so till the end.....
however in my life much of what I have put my faith in so far, has proven itself to be true
day by day, my response to such occurrence are ........"AMEN"

* the the things that i believe in that are yet to be proven!!!!

Much respect for that statement Mega...but i wasn't asking for the religious to simply declare this at random, but when arguing/defending that for which they have no proof.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

am.... money ,buisness and friends are not considered religion
logic check?

you are saying that you have faith in religion then? I thought your faith was with God? my faith in God, is what you and most here understand as religion, I speak so you can understand where I am coming from but if you want to play around with word have fun ...I don't have time for that ...sorry.

besides I said nothing of religion - I was talking about faith
this whole ched is about faith duh......
something does not need to be a religion for one to have faith in it.
so are you agreeing with me now that my faith in God is not a religion?

logic check?
coherence check ?

since you've started posting here you behave as though you have super powers. "I speak so you can understand"... really?.

You and your group have only created your own religion, called it Champion Dynamics and claim it as the only true Christianity, claimed Catholics are not Christians and everyone else's beliefs are wrong. You claim you can cast out demons and heal the sick with your powers - THAT is what YOU have faith in, regardless of what you want to believe or call it.

[VexXx Dogg]

[VexXx Dogg]

[VexXx Dogg]

[VexXx Dogg]

[VexXx Dogg]