juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, truth is relative?
What is true for me is not true for you?
So if I don't like gravity, I can jump out the window and fly?
Listen to yourself....
Is that why it took another 3000 years and an Einstein to figure it out?
What a pitty Einstein wasn't aware of this. All that work, all that research, all those headaches,.... What a waste of time. He could have just read 4 verses of the OT and be done with it!!!
You say that I'm not listening and then simply repeat exactly what I concluded....
Your criteria / methodology to pick the bible above the quran is "I like it more".
If you can't realise the irrationality of this, then the discussion is over.
I'll illustrate with an example as a last attempt to make you understand the sheer ridiculousness of your statement:
"I pick geocentrism over heliocentrism because I like it better that everything orbits the earth"
Everything you think it might be true NOW.
That is why to choose the Bible. It's message is not given by man.
This WILL work if you are not a rocket scientist. I don't think this recognition will interfere anything on your daily life. But if it builds up your faith, then it is good.
This not sense does make.
How did you come up with these questions and why must a religious text answer these questions in order to be even a candidate to be considered as credible?
Is the truth of a statement really dependend on your emotional response to said statement?
Nailed it in the bolded part.
Now, go the extra mile to reach the finish line and draw the obvious conclusion.
You have a strange definition of the word "truth".
Apparantly, to you "truth" is whatever you happen to believe (or "like").
What a load...
Was I too subtle in my sarcasm?
Wauw. Just.... wauw.
The irrationality is strong in this one.
This is just one more piece of evidence that you absolutely don't care wheter or not you are justified in your beliefs. You just care about holding them. Because you "like" them.
It's sickening, really.
PS: faith is bad thing. A very bad thing. Faith = gullibility. It only leads to poor decision making.
It is a personal demand.
I want to know the answer of these questions in order to build up faith to that doctrine. It applies to ME.
Obviously, Muslims and Buddhists and many other Christians do not agree. But I do not care about them. It is MY concern.
Since you are not arguing any more, then suit yourself.
That is why to choose the Bible. It's message is not given by man.
And that which is actually true (really true) is subject to your "personal demands"?
And you consider this a reliable methodology to differentiate truth from fiction?
Indeed. You only care about your own emotional state. You don't care about what others believe. You don't care about what is actually true. You don't care about holding rational beliefs.
You only care about believing whatever you happen to like at that particular time.
Great. You'll achieve great things living that irrationally. (that's sarcasm again)
There's nothing to argue about. Discussion with you is futile. When someone flat out states that he doesn't care about what is true and only cares about what he "likes", then there is no point in discussing any subject.
Here is what we are dealing with; some are motivated to find the truth, even if the truth is hard to take. Others are motivated to find comfort, even if it means ignoring the truth.
I know much more truth than you do.
It is a personal demand. I want to know the answer of these questions in order to build up faith to that doctrine. It applies to ME.
Obviously, Muslims and Buddhists and many other Christians do not agree. But I do not care about them. It is MY concern.
I know much more truth than you do.
I know much more truth than you do.
Syd the Human said:Whe does a Holy Text have to have more than one author? I mean I understand with science, but why religion? Does the number of people who follow it matter? If there were only thirty Christians total during the time of Jesus, would you stop being a Christian? If the Qur'an is Allah inspired, why does it matter that there is only one person?
That actually supports the fact that morality is something that all people, regardless of religion, have through observing others and through instruction from others.
Why does that even matter? Didn't the Christian god help people when they went to kill others? If anything it would show that Allah is correct and the Christian god is not. Jesus died a gruesome death while Mohammad gained personal gain and military power. I mean, wouldn't a god reward those that did him good service?
As you said, there are people who have not had any contact with Christianity, so how would they have faith in the Christian god? They would follow the religion that they were raised with, which in the Christian religion would be a false god sending them to hell.
dogmahunter said:Why not?
Anyhow, I like your attempt at answering. I think it's the best one yet. Still not satisfied though.
This is a misunderstanding imo.
The NT is all centered around Jesus and was written by his followers (well, most likely followers of his followers... of his followers). The quran actually isn't any different. It's centered around Muhammed and was written by his companions.
Here's why...
If Jesus is really a prophet (or god or whatever), then the NT is "just" a record of the interpretation of his teachings by the authors of the NT, most of which (if not all of them) didn't meet the guy.
However, if Muhammed is really a prophet, then the Quran is actually a record dictated by the guy himself. Not a record of the interpretation of his teachings by his companions. But literally a word for word account dictated by the prophet himself.
And idd, this is actually a big source of the confidence muslims have. This is exactly the argument given by muslims as to why the quran is more credible.
You feel like god owes you an intuitive teaching? If not, then this is not really interesting. In either case though, this point is bordering the "I like the bible better" argument I have heared several times in this thread.
Hmm. Seems to me you are judging muhammed by non-quranic sources while judging jezus by biblical sources.
How about the contemporary witnesses of jesus? Well, there aren't any.
This doesn't seem fair to me. Either you judge both by non-scriptural standards or you judge both by scriptural standards.
Also, jesus "died"? Think about this for a second... The dude is supposed to be god. The human body he inhabited is just one body. He could create a trillion billion more bodies. And he didn't even stay dead. He stood up again and turned out to be immortal. So saying that "he even died!" doesn't seem to hold any weight. Even the "personal gain" thing doesn't hold any weight.
In christian doctrine, this guys is god himself. What personal gain would he need? He is already immortal, he is all powerfull, he is all knowing.... Seems kind of logical that he wouldn't need any earthly power or military. Muhammed is another story. He's just a man. He didn't have superhero powers. So to amass followers, he couldn't perform magic tricks. It seems logical that some earthly power would be bestowed upon him so that he would have the means to spread his message. So this is not an argument imo.
Yeah, but there's a difference if you die because you preach, or if you preach to get rich and then die under different circumstances.Having said that, in all religions people die for their faith.
We are now leaving the topic of this thread. But your last sentence contradicts the rest of your paragraph. Why would anyone who's never heared of abrahamic religions have love for "the lord"?
Anyhow... to conclude...
Eventhough it was more subtle then certain other answers, I feel that your reasoning is guilty of double standards and indeed, judging the quran/muhammed through bible-believing goggles.
Muslims say the exact same thing. Star Trek fans even say such things.
Your emotional response is not the same as actual knowledge.
I know it wasn't your point. But this little fact renders your point rather meaningless.
1. your "personal beliefs" are not really relevant here.
2. a "local" flood ha? you mean like the one in Fukishima, Japan? or the one from Sumatra a couple years ago? So... just another flood like there have been so many?
3. what you believe about floods is besides the point. You made a claim about being "closer to the actual events". Following that logic, the epic of gilgamesh clearly is more credible then the Noah story, since it is "closer to the actual events". Point being that your own argument goes against your own claims.
This thread is not about what muslims say or about what christians say. It's about an objective assessment of both the bible and the quran.
Where in the quran does it say anything about this? And what exactly does it say?
You still fail to think it through. As I told SenatorCheese, the books of the bible were not written by the "prophets" themselves. They are not dictated by the "prophets" themselves. Rather, they are the result of the interpretation of the teachings of the "prophets" by the followers of said prophets, the vast majority of which (if not ALL of them) never met any of these "prophets".
Whereas the quran is supposed to be the result of the "prophet" himself dictating it word for word. Part of the claim of this "corruption" is exactly that: they are the understandings of the followers, not of the "prophets" themselves.
An objective assessment of both books requires looking at them from both angles, not just your biased view as a bible-believing christian.
I said extant sources. As for when they were actually first written, only the letters of Paul and possible Galatians are thought to have been written around 50 AD. All the others are from 70 to 150 AD. The oldest extant sources are from 130 AD till about later 3rd or beginning 4th century.
Which OT sources are contemporary with the events? And what's your evidence for this?
The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of the Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571. Most scholars today accept the basic authenticity of the book, but see in it significant additions by a "school" of later followers of the original prophet.[6] While the book exhibits considerable unity and probably reflects much of the historic Ezekiel, it is the product of a long and complex history and does not necessarily preserve the very words of the prophet.[7]
Yes. Including scripture that is not included in the bible today.
My point is about when the bible as it is known today was compiled. When it was decided which scriptures are included and which aren't.
See above. The vast majority was written much later.
And even 50 AD... in those days "20 years later" would constitute a generation later. Remember, we are talking about a time where the average life expectency was only about a third of what it is today. But let's assume that perhaps those few were written by someone contemporary with the events. I have no problem with that.
Sidenote: the quran was written in full by the very companions of Muhammed.
So if contemporary authors adds credibility, then the quran wins hands down on that point.
Not without having a methodology that can tell the difference without using the books themselves. You're judging the quran with bible-believing goggles.
You rule out the option that the simply were written down wrong in the first place. And that the original itself was already corrupt.
This is actually a point that muslims make. That the bible is merely the interpretation of the followers and not the actual teaching of the prophets themselves.
What is it about the bible that gives it more credibility then the quran?
Why do you believe the Bible and not the quran?
No, but it does prove that the Muslim claim that the pre-Koran scriptures were all distorted/corrupted is false.
The point was that the Koran and Muslims claim something (the texts had changed significantly since they were first written, in certain specific ways) which we know to not be true.
Let's say we have a historical event, for example, World War II.
Now there are several books about World War II, which all basically agree on the events and details, and were written during or shortly after the events in question.
Then you have another book, which was written several hundred years after World War II, when no one living remembers it, and no direct records survive. This book states several things that are in complete contradiction to the previously known facts (for example, it might say something like the Americans and Germans were allied against the Russians and Japanese). The authors and supporters of this book say that all of those previous books are wrong, and their version tells what really happened.
Which one would you find to be more reliable?
Not necesserally;I'm just saying that, from a historical perspective, isn't it more likely that the source written the closest to the actual events in question is more likely to be correct?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?