The Religion Discussion

[megadoc1]

yuh see you cannot compare one Christian to another you, compare them to the word of God,

Why not? Who says you can't? You do it all the time, judging who is a Satan-worshiper, who should shut-up...

compare them to the word of God

you sir, after 100+ pages, are clearly of unsound mind to retort to the same cyclical, illogical hootnanny! wtf man? are you even trying to make a valid point or learn something??

probably you are lost because we were talking about christians here
and when we are talking about christians or Jesus or God the bible is our best
and only source for reference.
do you have a suggestion?
I see you get caught up quite easily when d spike attempted to take things out of context

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

yuh see you cannot compare one Christian to another you, compare them to the word of God,

Why not? Who says you can't? You do it all the time, judging who is a Satan-worshiper, who should shut-up...

compare them to the word of God

you sir, after 100+ pages, are clearly of unsound mind to retort to the same cyclical, illogical hootnanny! wtf man? are you even trying to make a valid point or learn something??

he is not willing to learn anything more than what the Bible teaches.

[megadoc1]

Duane thats a big lie
how do you know what I am not willing to learn?
I tort you guys liked facts? yet you make the most of assumptions.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ yes we do like facts

you are unwilling to believe any alternative to what you know bible teaches, true or false?

[Rooki3]

wow, another thread filled with personal ideologies, the race is one to impose them on others!!

[megadoc1]

^ yes we do like facts

you are unwilling to believe any alternative to what you know bible teaches, true or false?

yes that is true but it is because I have experience some things, things that the bible teaches personally,I myself tested what was said and saw the results of what was spoken (just like in those vids) so the alternative will be telling me that I am wrong but through my experience I know better
also anything else will be saying that Jesus is a liar because it goes against his very words, so you see, my position is Jesus because he is the truth and that what makes anything else a lie
I hold on to truth ,I hold on to Jesus
I have experience truth ,I have experience jesus
in your last post you said

he is not willing to learn anything more than what the Bible teaches.

learn and believe are two different things
I can learn something but I do not have to believe it especially when I know it is a lie

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ yes I meant "believe" instead of "learn"

the rest of what you wrote there is pure circular logic.

you said you "tested" what the bible said and concluded that it was correct.
What variables and constants did you apply to come to this conclusion?
One sided testing will never result in an unbiased result.
Have you tested other religious beliefs to the extent and level of belief that you have tested Christianity?

[megadoc1]

^ yes I meant "believe" instead of "learn"

the rest of what you wrote there is pure circular logic.
this statement is circular logic because you keep saying it without being able to prove it and what I speak about is an everyday experience something I have proven to me, so here we are, you with your theory and I with my experience
you said you "tested" what the bible said and concluded that it was correct.
correct
What variables and constants did you apply to come to this conclusion?
they were explained a few pages aback
One sided testing will never result in an unbiased result.
very true but how can you have an unbiased result if you were testing truth against false ?
Have you tested other religious beliefs to the extent and level of belief that you have tested Christianity? I never tested Christianity!!! I tested the word of God and saw that it is truth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ what?

1. You said the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. THAT is circular logic!!!
You don't even know what circular logic IS!!!!???

2. You START off your testing by first branding one item as false. What kind of testing is that? LOLOLOL. That is NOT testing; instead what you did was you tried one, it seemed to work, so you label it as the only working one and wrote-off the rest as false and not working. That is NOT testing, so please stop lying and saying that you tested it.

3. I asked if you tested other religions with the same level of belief that you tested Christianity and you side stepped the entire question.

Please answer it.

[sMASH]

mega do not know what circular logic is, he think it means repeating.

[megadoc1]

^ what?

1. You said the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. THAT is circular logic!!!
no!!! you said I said that
I said the bible is right because I have experiences based on it
You don't even know what circular logic IS!!!!???

2. You START off your testing by first branding one item as false.lol .. assumptions again, were you there? What kind of testing is that? LOLOLOL. That is NOT testing; instead what you did was you tried one, it seemed to work, so you label it as the only working one and wrote-off the rest as false and not working.
all because this is your theory, now can you prove it ? I would like to see that That is NOT testing, so please stop lying and saying that you tested it.so how did you come to that conclusion ? because you said/feel so ?


3. I asked if you tested other religions with the same level of belief that you tested Christianity and you side stepped the entire question.again I never tested Christianity ,I tested Jesus Christ based on his word and found it to be truth,

now tell me why should I put my faith in a stone to see if I would be curse just as the word says ? if a father told his son that he will be severely punished if he stole, should he steal something to see if he will be punished and how severe it could be? I think its rather foolish to break God's law (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) in an attempt to prove him a liar but because of what Jesus requires of us, we are now able to see and experience what actually happens to the ones who did so.
however, the things that I have tested are the things he (Jesus) instructed me to do.
its like when I was young and my father told me, if I put a black eye pea in the ground it will grow into a tree bearing black eye peas and I believed but when I tested it I saw that It is true, he also told me never put my hand in the furness

Please answer it.

remember I have moved from the realm of faith and into the realm of experience, through my faith but you are stuck with your theory,now can you put that into practice to prove my experiences wrong?
it maybe easy to say but I guarantee, that is all to it.

[sMASH]

where do u get the 'words' of jesus christ (pbuh)?
did u practise other religions before christianity?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I said the bible is right because I have experiences based on it

So what of other people's experiences? Since the beginning of your ramblings I have said that other people have had experiences that show THEIR religion being right... So for the millionth time, what makes you right and them wrong?

lol .. assumptions again, were you there?

You said yourself that "how can you have an unbiased result if you were testing truth against false ?". So How can you say something is false at the BEGINNING of your testing of it?

I really wonder if you have any reading comprehension skills.

so how did you come to that conclusion ? because you said/feel so ?

Amusing yourself does not work as a diversionary tactic. How can you say that you are testing something when you have already given yourself the result you want? It's not a matter of what I feel, you seem to not understand what scientific testing is!

again I never tested Christianity ,I tested Jesus Christ based on his word and found it to be truth,

And again I ask, have you ever tested anyone else's word with the same level of faith?

remember I have moved from the realm of faith and into the realm of experience, through my faith but you are stuck with your theory,now can you put that into practice to prove my experiences wrong?
it maybe easy to say but I guarantee, that is all to it.

I've never said your experiences were wrong or never occurred.
Please stop with the red herrings and the diversionary tactics and answer the question
"what makes you right and them wrong?"
and
"have you ever tested anyone else's word with the same level of faith?"

[megadoc1]

I said the bible is right because I have experiences based on it

So what of other people's experiences? Since the beginning of your ramblings I have said that other people have had experiences that show THEIR religion being right... So for the millionth time, what makes you right and them wrong? because my lord Jesus said they were false gods and I have seen their fruit myself and the persons who have been in bondage to them I have seen delivered by my God and their god ,I have seen them under subjection to the name Jesus Christ, so lets put it this way you may know them when they thought they were right I get to know them when they found truth

lol .. assumptions again, were you there?

You said yourself that "how can you have an unbiased result if you were testing truth against false ?". So How can you say something is false at the BEGINNING of your testing of it?who said it was at the beginning of my testing ? where is the sense in that ?

I really wonder if you have any reading comprehension skills.
no actually you are proving scripture correct again keep it up

so how did you come to that conclusion ? because you said/feel so ?

Amusing yourself does not work as a diversionary tactic. How can you say that you are testing something when you have already given yourself the result you want? It's not a matter of what I feel, you seem to not understand what scientific testing is! remember it is you who are making up this argument, now can you prove it ?

again I never tested Christianity ,I tested Jesus Christ based on his word and found it to be truth,

And again I ask, have you ever tested anyone else's word with the same level of faith?
No! but I have seen people delivered from someone else's word and I know a few well ,maybe they will be best to give you answers based on their experience (testimony) but I doubt you would want to listen

remember I have moved from the realm of faith and into the realm of experience, through my faith but you are stuck with your theory,now can you put that into practice to prove my experiences wrong?
it maybe easy to say but I guarantee, that is all to it.

I've never said your experiences were wrong or never occurred.
Please stop with the red herrings and the diversionary tactics and answer the question
"what makes you right and them wrong?"my experiences based on the word of God
and
"have you ever tested anyone else's word with the same level of faith?"NO!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

"have you ever tested anyone else's word with the same level of faith?"

NO!

Finally an answer
Thank you.

How can you say then that you tested it properly, when you have completely left out testing the other variables (religion) with the same constant (faith).

[megadoc1]

"have you ever tested anyone else's word with the same level of faith?"

NO!

Finally an answer
Thank you.

How can you say then that you tested it properly,I never said this I said I tested Jesus based on his word when you have completely left out testing the other variables (religion) with the same constant (faith).

catch ya I know yuh wanted to come with that
you see the people who who where part of the other religion are the ones who can tell you both their experiences
before coming to Christ and after they come to Christ
I do not need to test there If I have witness their fruit before which turns out just as Jesus described

again duane you are trying to put your theory to my experiences which are based on the word of God

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ catch me? LOL

how do you know their faith in the other religion was as strong as yours?
And your testing is tainted as you use YOUR experience to prove your belief and use someone else's experience to prove their belief is wrong; where is the constant?

again, failed testing practices.

[megadoc1]

^ catch me? LOL

how do you know their faith in the other religion was as strong as yours?
how would you know if their faith were stronger than mine?
And your testing is tainted as you use YOUR experience to prove your belief and use someone else's experience to prove their belief is wrong; where is the constant?
no partner don't try that you are in error

again, failed testing practices.

what about your failure at logic

"The Law of Non-Contradiction states that both a proposition, A, and its denial, not-A, cannot be true within the domain of a single "theory", ........
you said

So what of other people's experiences? Since the beginning of your ramblings I have said that other people have had experiences that show THEIR religion being right... So for the millionth time, what makes you right and them wrong?

then

I've never said your experiences were wrong or never occurred.

it becomes illogical when you acknowledge both

[sMASH]

mega uses the word 'test' when what he means is more like 'try'. he did not really scientifically test any thing. he tried that way and in his opinion, it worked, so he stuck to it.

christians, imho, frequently use varied words for dramatic effect to make what they say more appealing, like using the word 'edify'. i did not know that it meant, and my cousin said it meant the same as educate. whether or not they are the same, he thinks its the same.

he tested 'the word of jesus' . he did not test, but he tried, and he gets 'the word of jesus' from the bible, which are really the words of matthew, mark, luke, john, paul, etc. etc.etc. they saw what jesus did, and people wrote what they interpreted from their experiences.

oh, i'm sorry, most of those writings were not first hand accounts neither.

[megadoc1]

all because you said so

[sMASH]

yes, and u cannot prove me wrong neither.
the onus is on me to say what i want, and the onus on u is to prove me wrong.

ha ha,,,,, ladidada
*how u does put the laughin smilies again?*

hoss man, u is a simple minded fellah juss like me. but u must be ah lil more humble and respectful.
not every time somebody say religion or spirit means u hadda share what u believe in.
because it have more intellectually capable and learned persons out there who knows the history, the logic, the dynamics, the politics of many things, who may not want to be subjected to an online jehovia witness preaching, and also may believe in something different from u, and have mannnnnnny reasons why they would not subscribe to ur theology

i believe that god did not beget, nor was begotten, nor needed to be be begotten.
i believe that god is 1. singular, unitary, indivisible, with nothing else higher nor closely lower in power.
i believe he does any thing at will, and is already close to every one (closer to u than ur jugular vein), so there is no need to search for him, so u dont find him.

because of these, this makes the idea of god having a son seem unnecessary to me. it make the idea or a trifecta, triune, trinity seem unnecessary. it makes the idea of god or another spirit having to appear to u or to infest us seem unnecessary in order to believe.
also, it kinda sounds like if god does all of this with great effort, and u do sumthing with great effort only if u really want it, or u need it. so it kinda sounds like if god is needy.

whereas the concepts i have reaffirms that god is most powerful, that he does not need any thing, nor exerts great effort in doing any thing.

..... what did ur god do after the creation in 6 days; he rested on the 7th,, what did mine do, he went back to his throne to oversee his work.
..... what did ur god do to dispel original sin; he killed his own son,,, what did mine do, he simple forgave them, and it was not even a sin in the first place

Big Bang?

When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Qur'an does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start of it all. In fact, the Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, come together, and form into shape, following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe.

The Qur'an further states that Allah created the sun, the moon, and the planets, each with their own individual courses or orbits. "It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33).

Expansion of Universe

The Qur'an also does not rule out the idea that the universe is continuing to expand. "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). There has been some historical debate among Muslim scholars about the precise meaning of this verse, since knowledge of the universe's expansion was only recently discovered.

now these things sound really close to what science explains so far. science could be wrong about this and come up with a different theory in time.

something which caught my interest.
in 21:33, it says that the bodies swim in their orbits. this was long being used by critics to say that space is a vacuum and a swimmer would be in a substance.
we have argued that the bodies stay in their courses like a swimmer in their lane, just a metaphor for the maintenance of a path.
but, recently some scientists, when studying the mass of very distant galaxies or arrangements of bodies, found the distribution pattern of the matter to be inconsistent with the amount of matter measured/ estimated. their theory now is that the vacuum between the bodies is not actually vacuum, but actually matter,,, but of a different nature. only with this theory was was the distribution pattern consistent with mass/gravity. if that is actually true, then the bodies do swim in an orbit.

On that Day, We shall roll up the skies as a writer rolls up [his] scrolls. We shall reproduce creation just as We produced it the first time: this is Our binding promise. We shall certainly do all these things. Quran - 21:104

this is another one which stuck out. the 'roll up the skies'....

it was supposed that this was just to demonstrate how easy it was to destroy everything and re create it at will.

but stuff i came across in the field of space/time continuum, some really outlandish, groundbreaking, nerve wracking, theories are being investigated. it develops from 'string theory' (which i really dont conceptualize). it starts where the smallest particles are not circular but strings and they vibrate. then every thing is made up of strings. the space time continuum is a plane of strings like a sheet. sometimes it curves back on itself. there are many of them like parallel worlds, and some of them intersect each other. ( but i do not understand string-theory, so i may be inaccurate here) it is actually more complicated where electrons exist in more than one place at the same time, as if moving to and from dimensions

now, if this is so, i can see how creation can be 'rolled up'. also, how easy it is to make another.

[bluefete]

Computer finally fixed and internet finally back on.

I have much reading to catch up on but I think I will start with this doozy:

Vatican labels the ordination of women a 'grave crime' to be dealt with in the same way as sex abuse

By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 1:24 AM on 16th July 2010

Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared yesterday.

New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests.

Church officials in Rome insisted that the new version of Canon Law showed it was 'very, very serious in its commitment to promote safe environments'.

But it had the appearance of an own goal by Pope Benedict XVI in his attempt to cool the scandal over Catholic cover-ups of child abuse by paedophile priests.

Victims' groups protested that criminal offences against children should be given far greater weight than doctrinal arguments over whether women can be ordained.

The Vatican move also appeared badly-timed as it followed the debate in the Church of England over appointing women bishops that won worldwide publicity at the weekend.

The new rules mean that priests can be defrocked or excommunicated for paedophile offences, sexual abuse of mentally handicapped adults or attempting to ordain women.

Acquiring, possessing or distributing child pornography will be regarded as an offence on the same level as physical abuse of children.

Erring priests will be punished by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department once known as the Inquisition.

In the past a complex system of church tribunals would take months or even years to deal with a paedophile priest. However, from today priests will be dealt with summarily by church leaders.

Doctrinal official Monsignor Charles Scicluna said: 'This gives a signal that we are very, very serious in our commitment to promote safe environments and to offer an adequate response to abuse.'

But including the ordination of women in the same category of religious crime suggested that the Vatican may still have underestimated the impact of recent abuse scandals.

Pope Benedict was drawn personally into the sex abuse row in March when he was accused of intervening, while a Vatican official in the 1990s, to protect an American paedophile priest from being unfrocked.

The ordination of women priests is seen as a major offence by few outside the Roman Catholic hierarchy and many Catholic worshippers believe their church's ban is wrong.

But the Vatican, together with the Catholic wing of the Church of England, believes that since Christ chose no women disciples, it is wrong for women to assume leadership in the Church.

Campaigners for abuse victims were heavily critical of the new rules.

Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who took the Church to court in Ireland during the 1990s, said: 'The first thing the Church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities.

'That's far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not. The Church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club.'

Barbara Dorris, of the Survivors' Network for Those Abused by Priests, said the new rules 'can be summed up in three words: missing the boat'.

Under fire: Pope Benedict (file photo)

Defensive: Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Vatican's sex crimes prosecutor, talks to the media at the Vatican today

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... abuse.html

Why do they hate women so much???

Is this of God??? Is this from God???

[bluefete]

How about this one? Which came first - the chicken or the egg? We know that God created the chicken first.

But someone had to "eat ah food" too so they conjured this supposed conundrum.

Well they have finally figured out what God believers knew thousands of years ago. Well Duh!!!!!!!

They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:02 AM on 14th July 2010

It has been the ultimate philosophical and scientific mystery for centuries - until now, that is.

Scientists yesterday claimed to have cracked the riddle of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

The answer, they say, is the chicken. Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.

Therefore, an egg can exist only if it has been inside a chicken.

The protein - called ovocledidin-17, or OC-17 - acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell.

This hard shell is essential to house the yolk and its protective fluids while the chick develops inside.

Scientists from Sheffield and Warwick universities used a super computer to 'zoom in' on the formation of an egg.

The computer, called HECToR and based in Edinburgh, revealed that OC-17 is crucial in kick-starting crystallisation - the early stages of the creation of a shell.

The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which make up the shell.

Calcite crystals are found in numerous bones and shells but chickens form them quicker than any other species - creating six grams (0.2oz) of shell every 24 hours.

Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University's Department of Engineering Materials, said: 'It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first.

'The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process.

'It's very interesting to find that different types of avian species seem to have a variation of the protein that does the same job.'

Professor John Harding, from the same department, said the discovery could have other uses.

'Understanding how chickens make egg shells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues towards designing new materials and processes,' he said.

'Nature has found innovative solutions that work for all kinds of problems in materials science and technology - we can learn a lot from them.'

The discovery was revealed in the paper Structural Control Of Crystal Nuclei By An Eggshell Protein.

Scientists have discovered that eggs can only have been laid by chickens, thus solving the puzzle

THE REAL QUESTION FOR SCIENTISTS NOW SHOULD BE - "WHERE DID THE CHICKEN COME FROM?"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z0tlIyRytO

[d spike]

But the Vatican, together with the Catholic wing of the Church of England

Ehhh? The Church of England has a Catholic wing????

[d spike]

^ catch me? LOL

how do you know their faith in the other religion was as strong as yours?
how would you know if their faith were stronger than mine?
And your testing is tainted as you use YOUR experience to prove your belief and use someone else's experience to prove their belief is wrong; where is the constant?
no partner don't try that you are in error

again, failed testing practices.

what about your failure at logic

Look who's talking about logic! Even in the above statement you stumble in the dark of illogic...
Obviously, their faith in their former religion is weak (compared to yours, relatively speaking) if they abandoned it. You haven't left your religion, so your faith (if faith can be quantified in such a crude manner) is stronger than theirs.

[d spike]

mega uses the word 'test' when what he means is more like 'try'. he did not really scientifically test any thing. he tried that way and in his opinion, it worked, so he stuck to it.

christians, imho, frequently use varied words for dramatic effect to make what they say more appealing, like using the word 'edify'. i did not know that it meant, and my cousin said it meant the same as educate. whether or not they are the same, he thinks its the same.

he tested 'the word of jesus' . he did not test, but he tried, and he gets 'the word of jesus' from the bible, which are really the words of matthew, mark, luke, john, paul, etc. etc.etc. they saw what jesus did, and people wrote what they interpreted from their experiences.

oh, i'm sorry, most of those writings were not first hand accounts neither.

all because you said so

No... because he's right.

[Chimera]

[megadoc1]

^ catch me? LOL

how do you know their faith in the other religion was as strong as yours?
how would you know if their faith were stronger than mine?
And your testing is tainted as you use YOUR experience to prove your belief and use someone else's experience to prove their belief is wrong; where is the constant?
no partner don't try that you are in error

again, failed testing practices.

what about your failure at logic

Look who's talking about logic! Even in the above statement you stumble in the dark of illogic...
Obviously, their faith in their former religion is weak Faith in something false has the same effect as no faith at all . (compared to yours, relatively speaking) if they abandoned it. You haven't left your religion, so your faith (if faith can be quantified in such a crude manner) is stronger than theirs.

it is a sad
when a brilliant man like you keep taking things out of context

I said

what about your failure at logic ?

"The Law of Non-Contradiction states that both a proposition, A, and its denial, not-A, cannot be true within the domain of a single "theory", ........
you said

So what of other people's experiences? Since the beginning of your ramblings I have said that other people have had experiences that show THEIR religion being right... So for the millionth time, what makes you right and them wrong?

then

I've never said your experiences were wrong or never occurred.

it becomes illogical when you acknowledge both

[megadoc1]

mega uses the word 'test' when what he means is more like 'try'. he did not really scientifically test any thing. he tried that way and in his opinion, it worked, so he stuck to it.

christians, imho, frequently use varied words for dramatic effect to make what they say more appealing, like using the word 'edify'. i did not know that it meant, and my cousin said it meant the same as educate. whether or not they are the same, he thinks its the same.

he tested 'the word of jesus' . he did not test, but he tried, and he gets 'the word of jesus' from the bible, which are really the words of matthew, mark, luke, john, paul, etc. etc.etc. they saw what jesus did, and people wrote what they interpreted from their experiences.

oh, i'm sorry, most of those writings were not first hand accounts neither.

all because you said so

No... because he's right.

then he should be able to answer this ent?

http://www.carm.org
The Qu'ran says the Bible is not corrupt

The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be acording to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

* Torah - "We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1
* Psalms - "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).
* Gospel - "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

We see that the Qu'ran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Qu'ran since the Qu'ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered:

* "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
* "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).
* "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).

When Muhammed (570 - 632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time the Bible, which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is "When and where was the Bible corrupted, since the Qu'ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah's words cannot be changed?"

[d spike]

^ catch me? LOL

how do you know their faith in the other religion was as strong as yours?
how would you know if their faith were stronger than mine?
And your testing is tainted as you use YOUR experience to prove your belief and use someone else's experience to prove their belief is wrong; where is the constant?
no partner don't try that you are in error

again, failed testing practices.

what about your failure at logic

Look who's talking about logic! Even in the above statement you stumble in the dark of illogic...
Obviously, their faith in their former religion is weak (compared to yours, relatively speaking) if they abandoned it. You haven't left your religion, so your faith (if faith can be quantified in such a crude manner) is stronger than theirs.

it is a sad
when a brilliant man like you keep taking things out of context

I have no idea what a "sad" is... but it is rather amusing when arrogant ignorance falls flat on its face... Your response is a perfect example of "taking things out of context", for that 'squat n' squeeze' material you just reproduced wasn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the question of:

^ catch me? LOL

how do you know their faith in the other religion was as strong as yours?
how would you know if their faith were stronger than mine?

I might as well point out to you that you still haven't answered Duane:

And your testing is tainted as you use YOUR experience to prove your belief and use someone else's experience to prove their belief is wrong; where is the constant?
no partner don't try that you are in error

That nonsense does not constitute an answer. He is not in error. Obviously, you use the word "test" without even knowing one is.

I've never said your experiences were wrong or never occurred.

You keep flapping on and on about how others here have to prove you wrong. You specifically pointed out "your experiences" and implied that their existence were questioned. Duane simply stated that wasn't the point. As usual, you missed that.