theophilus

Magus55

First of all, the Bible doesn't tell Christians to burn witches or lead Crusades. They may have believed its in the name of God but its not Biblical, and all religions have evil people, even Christianity.
Second, Christians don't follow the Old Testament explicitly, its a history of their Jewish roots. Christians abide by Jesus' teachings, in which Crusades are in complete disobedience to Jesus' teachings. "Love they neighbhor as you love yourself", hardly the teachings that lead to a Crusade.

Where as here is Islam.

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira:

Muhammad said if someone leaves Islam, to kill him
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima. Also, see Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64, Narrated 'Ali.

"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. .." Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah.

Now which would lead to flying building into planes, Jesus: "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" or Allah: "What is the next best deed?", "To participate in Jihad for Allah's cause". Some Christians do horrible things because they are just evil like many humans. Muslims do evil things because Allah explicitly tells them to.


And to little boys:

Koran 52:24
Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

Koran 56:17
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

Koran 76:19
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

Homosexuality is glorified in Islam as seen by this Arabian poet, Abu Nuwas:

O the joy of sodomy!
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils


How anyone can compare Jesus to Allah i will never know. Maybe Theophilus will shed some light on this.

WinAce

Deuteronomy 13:6-9

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.



:banghead: :banghead:

Wyz_sub10

This page is but a few paragraphs, and speaks little to my first point. It says "At many times in the past, scholars have assumed the Bible to be inaccurate until new archaeological evidence necessitated a reversal of scepticism on the point in question."


What scholars? All scholars? Most scholars? It does provide an example from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Sir William Ramsay, mentioned in this piece, was a chemist. He had nothing to do with archaeology.

Sir William Albright, also mentioned, was a devout Christian and son of a missionary.

I'm not sure what you think this article is saying, but it certainly doesn't speak to the point I made.

This page presents less evidence than the first one. Firstly, the shift of 1,000 years is an assumption on his part. There is *no* reason whatsoever to think that this is what happened. He assumes the ‘1’ was cut off. Why?

Secondly, the trail of Israelites in the desert has *not* been found. If there is a new calibration between his introduced date and other evidence, it will need to be presented. I have a hard time buying that several discovering maintaining the *relative* dates of the bible were made, and no one proposed that the timeline simply needed to be shifted.

Consider too that even if we did accept Aardsma's shift by a thousand years, that worsens the situation for the accounts of the Philistines, and the kingdoms of Arad and Edom, making them an additional 1,000 years too early.

So the dozen historical books of the bible are not intended to be historical accounts? The bible uses more genealogy and descriptions of time intervals than any comparable book. Basically, you are dismissing these are irrelevant in one fell swoop. On what basis do you make this decision?


I'm assuming you mean 'Ptolemy'. Are you referring to the Egyptian kings? Surely you're not referring to the geographer.

What we know of Egyptian history (and it's quite a bit) is not based on the notes of any one source. Like all credible history, it's an amalgam of information from various sources. Historians and archaeologists seek to identify those pieces of evidence that corroborate. The biblical accounts of history are compared to Egyptian accounts, accounts from Sumerian and Akkaidian cultures, compared with artefacts found.

The second article is an interesting theory, but you basically supplied me with a perfect example of my initial point - how Christian archaeologists develop ad hoc theories in an attempt to reconcile myth with evidence.

Wyz_sub10

Ex 32:27 "Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "

Nu 25:4 "The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD , so that the LORD's fierce anger may turn away from Israel."

De 7:2 "and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

Jo 10:40 "So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD , the God of Israel, had commanded."

Rationalize these statements however you like. A crusade by any other name...

Okay, to the New Testament it is…

Mt 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."

Mt 10:35-36 "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own family."

I just wanted to add this, in terms of you faulty polygamy in Islam:

2Sm 5:13 – “After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.”

Are the words in parentheses yours? If so, they are unnecessary. I can read the words for myself. Your comments are simply suppositions of what you think the text means, and they reveal your bias.

‘Jihad’ means “striving” or “determined effort”. Jihad can be accomplished through teaching and personal sacrifice. It does not imply warfare, as per traditional Islamic teachings. Like the Crusades of middle age Europe, ‘Jihad’ is being used today by corrupt men trying to manipulate the masses to their evil ends. You seem to suggest this was the case with the Crusades as well.

Read here if you like: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/jihad.htm

BTW, don’t expect me to defend Islam. I’m only saying that it differs little in practice from Christianity in middle age Europe.

I think I’ve provided enough examples of similar barbaric actions in Christianity.

Well, seeing as you misrepresent the meaning of ‘jihad’, it cannot be used to show that Islam condones such things. But seeing as you mention teachings re: killings, what percentage of Christians in the US do you think favour the death penalty?

You are quick to note the attack on the WTCs. That was a horrible occurrence facilitated by religion, I agree. But it was far more political than religious. The US is pushing toward war with Iraq. In such a war, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis will die. Bush has stated that he believes god is on his side (in fact, count the number of times Bush refers to god in his war speeches).

Bottom line – god, allah, yhwh – all have been and will continue to be used as justifications for war and murder. It’s all the same to me.

I’m missing the part where the men are supposed to be joyfully having sex with these boys. Where does it state that? You were very clear in your previous post that it was a direct sexual reference. I don’t see that here. Maybe it is a sexual reference. Who knows?

I looked up these quotes myself. Interestingly enough, 52:24 makes no reference to sex, 56:17 is written “Round about them shall go youths never altering in age”, and 76:19 reads “And round about them shall go youths never altering in age; when you see them you will think them to be scattered pearls.”

It’s clear that these 3 passages are all the same, but in different areas of the Koran. I don’t see the sex connection. Like I said, maybe it’s there. But I think you’re seeing what you want to see.

Who cares what this poet thought? How many Christian priests have molested little boys? How many times has the church covered up these transgressions?

Maybe you think homosexuality is worse than paedophilia. I have no problem with consenting adults relating to each other as they like. But I have a big, big problem with kids being abused, and the people who should be dealing with the situation are protecting the abusers.

Wyz_sub10

Well, this was in response to Magus55, but you're welcome to "deal with it".

This only works if 1) the context is clear, 2) the reader understands the use of metaphors. I'm not doubting context is important, but let's look at the Jonah example to deal with this further...

What you are saying is - everything important is clear, anything that could be misunderstood is not as important.

The problem with that is that anything ambiguous, inconsistent or contradictory will serve to cast doubt on everything else.

Mark says blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. In Acts (and elsewhere) it says that all sins are forgivable. Seeing as redemption is a main theme (as you note), this presents a problem.

In Genesis, the order of creation and the means to create Adam are ambiguous. You might say that I just don’t understand. But that would betray your claim that the main themes, including creation, are unambiguous. Maybe there's something metaphorical at work here? Maybe it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means? Seems important to me, though, that this be clear.

Interesting. I have heard scholars say that this is a metaphor. In the Aramaic language, "to be swallowed by a big fish," meant to be in a bad predicament or a bad situation.

I chose that example specifically. The metaphor makes much more sense to me as being correct than the literal translation.

Both are paternal, and clearly so.

Luke makes no mention of Mary, and Matthew is clear that Jacob is the father of Joseph.

Matthew lists Jacob --> Joseph --> Jesus
Luke lists Heli --> Joseph --> Jesus

No it wasn't....and I'm quite sure.

I concede that the dominant view of western nations was Christianity, and therefore, biblical morals would have helped to shape the view of the nation. But the laws, authorities and rights were not based on the laws, authorities and rights of bible. Things like voting had no relevance to biblical morals. The relationship of the individual states had no foundation from the bible.

That's definitely incorrect. You may want to discuss your latter statement in Evolution/Creation and you will see how morality can develop biologically.

It is definitely not an argument for god of the bible, any more than saying we all breath oxygen is an argument for the god of the bible. It is non-sequitur reasoning.

Rather, what this demonstrates is that neither Judeo-Christian teachings nor "the revelation of god" are necessary requirements for social morality and order.

First, I said he doesn't interact with his creations.

Second, take your argument up with Magus55. Those were his words, not mine.

Not at all. For future reference, if you take it upon yourself to jump into a conversation and pick up the ball, please have the read what has been said before.

Magus55 was clear in stating that there are qualities that god approves us and will reward us for. It stands to reason, therefore, that these qualities can be linked back to god - i.e. he is the source, he embodies them, he espouses them. Ergo, a connection between these instructions and god.

BTW, in a latter point I did note that Maguss55 has notions of right or wrong that developed independent of what is specifically mentioned in the bible.

So, yes. I *do* think that "right" as meaning completely independent of the bible. It is not universal, however.

I don't know how something is explained "atheistically". I don't explain anything through the denial of god.

I'm not sure that you know I haven't that (but I suppose it's no secret to reveal I haven't), but if no one has or can, then what's the point?

Still, I won't deny that I have sinned vis-à-vis Christian teachings. But that's another topic, isn't it?

Wyz_sub10

Well that's 3 big posts for me, so I'll sign off for the night.

I don't want to dominate this thread, so please jump in from all sides people.

TollHouse

Good catch.

My, what a horrible, horrible religion that Islam is ...

... oh wait, you pulled that from the Bible?!

That's quite the dilema for Magus55. I wonder if he's just as a critical of his own religion as he is of others?

(I doubt it)

Tercel

Okay, I will. Since I've read arguments on this subject about 100 times over the past couple of years, I'm going to inductively assume you're not going to amaze with with any actual evidence.


No, my "notion" is based on a rather simple a priori analysis of the topic. Of course, I can only conclude that with our current methods there is nothing we can do to get evidence on the matter. Hypothetically, I suppose it's possible that someday we will develop some sort of amazingly advanced technology allowing us to do things I never dreamed of that will allow us to gather actual evidence. Maybe one day we'll be able to analyse every single event right down to the tiniest quantum level all over the brain and show conclusively that nothing from outside is interfering with the action of the matter. (Though chances of ever being able to do this given apparent quantum indeterminism seems slim-to-nothing) Maybe one day we'll have such thorough knowledge of how brains work that we'll be able to construct them from the ground up, improve them, program them, understand ever facet of them completely and utterly in a similar way as we understand computers now, and know that no non-material explanation is needed. Maybe. One day.

Chances are (if you and Clutch are anything like the other 99% of atheists I've watched debate this topic) you don't really understand any dualistic type theories of the mind or what they predict. You observe that the findings of Neuroscience are consistent with a materialistic interpretation so you claim them as "evidence" for such a position without realising that they are also perfectly consistent with a dualistic interpretation too. If you bothered to analyse the dualistic hypothesis you'd see that the predictions it makes are all but indistinguishable from the materialistic hypothesis. Hence why I can confidently say a priori that you simply cannot have the evidence you are claiming to have. (The fact that I have debated this enough to be pretty certain I know exactly what evidence you think you have, and why it isn't evidence, is almost irrelevant)

Tercel

Okay, I'm shocked. God's simpleness and elegance as a suitable hypothesis for the first cause is, I think, the single most important inital consideration on the question there is.
I don't have a heap of time at the moment, so I'll do a copy+paste for you. It might not address your question exactly, but hopefully you can get some answers out of the material, and if you have any specific queries you're welcome to ask.