The Religion Discussion

[Slartibartfast]

So I guess we are just going to agree that the bible contradicts itself and move on to debunking Islam. Habit7 you have yet to convince me that the bible is consistent with itself.

Precisely true..the Quran is without doubt the Only unchanged book from its origin.

That is very impressive documentation but not something I would boast about. There is a word people use to indicate changes made in a book. They call them "updates"

Btw I real like this

Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” Matthew 15:10-11

I will admit that amongst the billshit and lies (of which there is no shortage of in the bible) there are some good proverbs. A lot of the ideas that don't mention God like this one are actually worth knowing in my opinion. I will give you that one Habit7

[Habit7]

Anyone can wake up one morning and say: “You know what... today I’ll call myself a Christian!”

Then tomorrow wake up and say: “Today I’ll call myself a Muslim!”

Does that make them apart of the Actual TRUE religion and what is really stands for?

I agree with you that one's profession of faith doesn't mean that they are subservient to the teachings of that religion, but ultimately it is whether or not they conform to its sacred writings

But a Christian is measured by the essential claims of the Bible and at the end of the day, God will prune his vineyard and reap His harvest.

But likewise when you are counting "the fasting growing religion" you are in including Shiites also, who dont fall under your Sunni Muslim umbrella.

You went from humbly admitting your error in interpreting the Quran to calling out who is misguided. Gain some ground before you start back on the attack.

So I guess we are just going to agree that the bible contradicts itself and move on to debunking Islam. Habit7 you have yet to convince me that the bible is consistent with itself.

Dude, you have a different understanding of the word 'inconsistent.' You tried to make the case that God creating light and day 1 was in consistent with creating heavenly light bodies on day 4. I showed you that from day 1 God was the source of light but from day 4 the heavenly light bodies were given to perform that role. Furthermore, to add to consistency, on the new Earth, God is again going to be the source of light and there will be no need of heavenly light bodies (Revelation 21:23) just like on day 1.

The truth claim of the Bible's consistency is still in your court to disprove.

[maj. tom]

lol

[Slartibartfast]

Dude, you have a different understanding of the word 'inconsistent.' You tried to make the case that God creating light and day 1 was in consistent with creating heavenly light bodies on day 4. I showed you that from day 1 God was the source of light but from day 4 the heavenly light bodies were given to perform that role. Furthermore, to add to consistency, on the new Earth, God is again going to be the source of light and there will be no need of heavenly light bodies (Revelation 21:23) just like on day 1.

The truth claim of the Bible's consistency is still in your court to disprove.

How about we just stick to this definition of inconsistent for now http://bit.ly/UMiJiy

You showed me that the bible said from day 1 God was the source of light but you said you yourself said that you don't understand how.

I'm giving you a chance and saying that it's OK if you don't know how, just show me where I can find the information on it. (It's like the big bang theory, I would be lying if I told you I understood it but I can show you where to read up more on it so that you may try to understand it for yourself... this is merely an example and not part of the argument btw).

Have you ever had someone say that you "brighten their day"? Or have you ever heard the phrase "you are the light of my life"? (I sure I could find a tabanka song with this line in it somewhere) Do you think when people are using such phrases they are speaking about the natural luminescence of the person in question, or, do you think that there is a chance it might be a metaphor of some kind? The wording of some of those quotes you give are very similar to the metaphors I showed you above. I admit that the wording makes sense to me if it is to be taken as a metaphor, but then that would still lead to the inconsistency of the bible saying that God created light on the first day but created the source of that light on the forth day (i.e. creating light on the forth day). Refer to my definition of "inconsistent" you will see that the day for creation of light was not the same throughout. Btw we are still on page 1 of the bible.

[flvrufdwk]

'Love one another.'

[Habit7]

Well if you employ a hermeneutic that is metaphorical then whatever problems that ensue whether inconsistency, fallibility, etc. may be a product of your own creation.

From the onset I said Genesis was a historical narrative to be interpreted literally, as it has been interpreted literally by Jesus (Mark 10:6, Luke 11:50–51, Matthew 24:38–39, John 3:14, John 6:32–33, 49, Luke 17:28–32, Matthew 10:15, Luke 4:25–27, Matthew 12:40– 41) and Peter (2 Peter 3:3-7). A literal interpretation as is the intent of the author, brings no inconsistencies.

But if you eisegete the text (insert a meaning that is not there) rather than exegete the text (draw out a meaning that is there) you will make the mistake you are making like interpreting it like a tabanca song or liken it to a scientific theory when it is a historical narrative.

[New_SPECIES]

But if you eisegete the text (insert a meaning that is not there) rather than exegete the text (draw out a meaning that is there) you will make the mistake you are making like interpreting it like a tabanca song or liken it to a scientific theory when it is a historical narrative.

It's not strange to me that you Preach one thing when it comes to defending yourself...

But is guilty of this same thing when you speak about other religions!

[Slartibartfast]

Well if you employ a hermeneutic that is metaphorical then whatever problems that ensue whether inconsistency, fallibility, etc. may be a product of your own creation.

From the onset I said Genesis was a historical narrative to be interpreted literally, as it has been interpreted literally by Jesus (Mark 10:6, Luke 11:50–51, Matthew 24:38–39, John 3:14, John 6:32–33, 49, Luke 17:28–32, Matthew 10:15, Luke 4:25–27, Matthew 12:40– 41) and Peter (2 Peter 3:3-7). A literal interpretation as is the intent of the author, brings no inconsistencies.

But if you eisegete the text (insert a meaning that is not there) rather than exegete the text (draw out a meaning that is there) you will make the mistake you are making like interpreting it like a tabanca song or liken it to a scientific theory when it is a historical narrative.

I was merely suggesting that it would make sense if taken metaphorically, however render the text inconsistent. If you say it's literal then so be it. I have no argument there.

But that still brings us back to the how. I am saying it is impossible and therefore the text must be inconsistent you are saying you don't know and therefore the text is consistent. How would you like me to leave this issue alone for now and move on to some text that you understand

[Habit7]

I want you to read the Bible and see that like so many others, you have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, you could repent of your sins and trust in Christ as your saviour.

Until then, borrowing and parroting arguments made by skeptics that were raised and defeated hundreds of years ago, will just continually prove the Bible consistency and your estrangement from God.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

But you could come with another text if you want.

[Slartibartfast]

I want you to read the Bible and see that like so many others, you have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, you could repent of your sins and trust in Christ as your saviour.

Ummm... ok then.

Until then, borrowing and parroting arguments made by skeptics that were raised and defeated hundreds of years ago, will just continually prove the Bible consistency and your estrangement from God.

1. Because an argument was defeated a hundred years ago does not mean it can be defeated today due to the fact that science is ever expanding.
2. If it even was ever defeated (again just quoting the bible is only half of the answer, you need to explain what is quoted)
3. Slow down buddy. When we make it past page one we can start debating the existence of God

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14
What if they are just plain foolishness. Who gets to decide what foolish is. God? Jesus? If any of these two are your answer we will get to the existence of God later.

But you could come with another text if you want.

Ok here is a really simple one that we can both agree should be taken literally

Matthew 26:7
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

Mark 14:3
3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Luke 7:38
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

John 12:3
3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

I'm guessing she poured it on both his head and feet and each disciple just wrote which part they thought was relevant?

[RBphoto]

[Habit7]

I'm guessing she poured it on both his head and feet and each disciple just wrote which part they thought was relevant?

Yes

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. I just bullshitted that part but Ok. Hold on I'll try a few more later when I get a chance.

[Habit7]

Well I have more important things to do, take a rest and come back when you dont want to disprove your own premise.

[youtube]64V09tTIjR4[youtube]

this could have been more credible if it wasnt from CBN and Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, a cursory reading of the Quran, Hadiths and Islamic history starting from Muhammad would put to rest any notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

[rocknrolla]

u have no evidence. but faith in a philosophy. a theory!

[rocknrolla]

Romans 1:20-22

New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

[RBphoto]

Well I have more important things to do, take a rest and come back when you dont want to disprove your own premise.

[youtube]64V09tTIjR4[youtube]

this could have been more credible if it wasnt from CBN and Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, a cursory reading of the Quran, Hadiths and Islamic history starting from Muhammad would put to rest any notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

CBN?? Shite. I thought that was CBS...lol. Got me there... I have to put foot in mouth and appologize..my bad for not watching more than 2 mins of it to the end. And no, those things you told me to read confirms that Islam is a religion of war. Quote one of those cursory verses or I will have to say "you lie".

[New_SPECIES]

You went from humbly admitting your error in interpreting the Quran to calling out who is misguided. Gain some ground before you start back on the attack.

Firstly....I never admitted to "misinterpreting” the Quran.
I admitted to wrongfully associating a particular group of people who supposedly “crucified” Jesus.
My misinformation was not gathered from the Quran it was just a personal error.
Unfortunately, I'm not like you... who's perfect with every word that is uttered and every sentence that is typed!

You see a hoop and u ready to jump through it!
Expected....

Secondly.... I never “called out” those misguided people, it is you who claimed that your version of Christianity is the right one and obviously that would mean that the others (under the Chirstian Umbrella) are misguided.
If you claim that your way is the right way and others are clearly doing something else (under Christianity) then to you they are misguided... (2+2=4).

Until then, borrowing and parroting arguments made by skeptics that were raised and defeated hundreds of years ago, will just continually prove the Bible consistency and your estrangement from God.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Again you are accusing others of doing exactly what you are guilty of...

You fed up "Borrow and Parrot" arguments that Christian skeptics “raised and defeated hundreds of years ago”, for example your argument of “Allah deceived the people”...

Then you quote your book... which even speaks out against your own actions... as a defence for yourself!

You are exactly what you are accusing others of, hopefully one say the veil over your eyes will be removed and you will come to the realization!

Before you preach something, check it against your own actions before you embarrass yourself and show others, a hypocritical appearance.

Even the issues that I raised with you are stuff that was continuously brought to the table in these arguments.

But the problem is that, you (and others) are trying to come to a conclusion on every "issue" that is brought up, when really it is just your view on that particular topic!

Well I have more important things to do.......

When I told you this statement in the past (pages) you accused me of backing out of an issue that I could not defend...etc

Now you (obviously) have something to do, but no one dares to tell you that, right?

Then you “throwing talk” about people hiding etc...


When you said this:

It is just as easy to look up contradictions in the Bible as it is to look up its answers...

It is because, Every Single Topic that is raised here was already brought up over and over for centuries and what resolution had really come out from it?

None!

But yet still you all claim that issues have been raised here (on 3NE 2NR) and have been already dealt with and conclusions were already made!

What scholars and highly educated people of various religions couldn’t resolve you (and others) claim that “it has been dealt with”... and therefore it has been “written off”...

As young people does say.....“Whatever does float yuh boat!”

[Habit7]

^^^ad hominem

[New_SPECIES]

^^^ad hominem

In no way I am making a personal argument against you...

I was quoting things you are saying in your defence to others to show how it is not consistent to what you accuse me of.. that's all!

If you take them as something personal then, it's up to you.

You can clearly notice that on other threads, I would quote you and agree with points that you would make on various topics, because I think that you (unlike many others) make valuable contributions with your posts.

I can't agree with you in a religion discussion though, simply because we both have different beliefs and choose to follow different scriptures.

You see, that is why many "old people" use to say... "don't ever discuss two topics, Religion and Politics".

They say that simply because many people take these things personally rather that just looking at it as that person's view.

These kinda discussions can even create enemies among friends.

With that in mind, I really only have one more post (hopefully) to make on this thread to close it off from my side...

[Habit7]

Well make it in response to this viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=16440#p7377933

[New_SPECIES]

Well make it in response to this viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=16440#p7377933

Aright... Let me waste a little more time then...


HABIT7 stated (since he quotes from Christian websites, as usual):

that GOD can sometimes Control SATAN to make man commit sin...

So I asked the following questions:


My First Question:

(1) If God can occasionally “control satan” then why allow satan to cause his creation to commit sin?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- The evil that already exist in man causes him to reproduce (out of evil lust)...
- Since man was then born as a result of evil lust that was within his parents, he is now born in sin...
- Since this sin is now accomplished then it brings about death...

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
• According to Habit7 the natural act of reproduction is an act of evil
• We commit sin by having children
• We cause sin on our children by having sex with our wife (due to lust for them).



My Second Question:
(2) If God can occasionally “allow” satan to do what he desires then why bestow punishment on man for sins that God “allowed”?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- God allowed satan to influence Job to commit sin so that eventually God could make him the Governor of Egypt
- God allowed satan to influence the people to “crucify” Jesus as part of his plan.

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
So one minute Habit7 said that Jesus is God but now he said that God allowed satan to influence the people to crucify Jesus (which is God himself)....
So although Jesus is God (or the best of men), he would allow satan make the people torture and kill himself for the people to think that he is a saviour.
And you say the Allah is the best of deceivers?
Sounds like you are saying that God / Jesus allowed himself to be killed to fool the people..

It is just impossible for me to respond to something as Wack as that... sorry!


My Third Question:
(3) If God does occasionally “control” or “allow” satan, then what is “Free Will” to do right or wrong?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- We (mankind) do not have free will...
- We (mankind) have corrupted will...
- We (mankind) always want to do evil, long before satan arrive...

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
• According to Habit7 mankind doesn’t have the ability to choose a right decision over a wrong one since we don’t have free will.
• Mankind was somehow only created with an inclination toward evil and it doesn’t have anything to do with satan
• Although God built us to have sex and reproduce, the act of sex is a sin, and the act of reproduction is an outcome of sin (since it is a by-product of lust).


You really want me to understand that Nonsense and give a response?

I just want 2NRs to see the crap you really talking!

[RBphoto]

^^^ That right there is why religion is shite.

[Habit7]

Habit7 Answer (summarized):

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:

This is my feeble example of a counterargument that address the opponents point:

The Quran does give reference to the Bible and many verses are the same in the Bible and the Quran.

This last clause is not true. There is no place where the Quran quotes the Bible which precedes it.

But what creates the misguidance in Christianity is that they Wrote Over the Bible after the man died!

Contemporary Muslims make this claim but the Quran doesnt. Muhammed assumes the Gospels are from Allah and they corroborate Islam. He told the Christians to read it (the Bible they possessed at that time) and it would confirm what he is saying. Subsequently, literate Muslims read the Gospels and found the Quran contradicting it and then summarized that it must have been changed. However, the Bible was in complete form and in broad distribution 400 yrs before Islam. No one changed it.

Original Bible – A statement preached while Jesus was Alive: “Don’t Eat Pork”

Jesus said: “Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” Matthew 15:10-11
Your food doesnt condemn you, your deeds do.

[Skuld]

Good infographic here.

[Slartibartfast]

[maj. tom]

i would like to reiterate my lol.




lol.

[ruffneck_12]

Satan is real ppl, and he is not a bad guy

just learn to accept him nah jeez

[Slartibartfast]

This is my feeble example of a counterargument that address the opponents point:

Yeah we saw all of those things already. Why don't you treat what New_SPECIES said as a new argument. He has raised a lot of good points that we are all extremely interested in finding out the answer for. Let me quote it below so that others don't have to scroll too far to see what you are answering

HABIT7 stated (since he quotes from Christian websites, as usual):

that GOD can sometimes Control SATAN to make man commit sin...

So I asked the following questions:


My First Question:

(1) If God can occasionally “control satan” then why allow satan to cause his creation to commit sin?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- The evil that already exist in man causes him to reproduce (out of evil lust)...
- Since man was then born as a result of evil lust that was within his parents, he is now born in sin...
- Since this sin is now accomplished then it brings about death...

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
• According to Habit7 the natural act of reproduction is an act of evil
• We commit sin by having children
• We cause sin on our children by having sex with our wife (due to lust for them).



My Second Question:
(2) If God can occasionally “allow” satan to do what he desires then why bestow punishment on man for sins that God “allowed”?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- God allowed satan to influence Job to commit sin so that eventually God could make him the Governor of Egypt
- God allowed satan to influence the people to “crucify” Jesus as part of his plan.

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
So one minute Habit7 said that Jesus is God but now he said that God allowed satan to influence the people to crucify Jesus (which is God himself)....
So although Jesus is God (or the best of men), he would allow satan make the people torture and kill himself for the people to think that he is a saviour.
And you say the Allah is the best of deceivers?
Sounds like you are saying that God / Jesus allowed himself to be killed to fool the people..

It is just impossible for me to respond to something as Wack as that... sorry!


My Third Question:
(3) If God does occasionally “control” or “allow” satan, then what is “Free Will” to do right or wrong?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- We (mankind) do not have free will...
- We (mankind) have corrupted will...
- We (mankind) always want to do evil, long before satan arrive...

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
• According to Habit7 mankind doesn’t have the ability to choose a right decision over a wrong one since we don’t have free will.
• Mankind was somehow only created with an inclination toward evil and it doesn’t have anything to do with satan
• Although God built us to have sex and reproduce, the act of sex is a sin, and the act of reproduction is an outcome of sin (since it is a by-product of lust).


You really want me to understand that Nonsense and give a response?

I just want 2NRs to see the crap you really talking!

[Slartibartfast]

This is my feeble example of a counterargument that address the opponents point:

Yeah we saw all of those things already. Why don't you treat what New_SPECIES said as a new argument. He has raised a lot of good points that we are all extremely interested in finding out the answer for. Let me quote it below so that others don't have to scroll too far to see what you are answering

HABIT7 stated (since he quotes from Christian websites, as usual):

that GOD can sometimes Control SATAN to make man commit sin...

So I asked the following questions:


My First Question:

(1) If God can occasionally “control satan” then why allow satan to cause his creation to commit sin?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- The evil that already exist in man causes him to reproduce (out of evil lust)...
- Since man was then born as a result of evil lust that was within his parents, he is now born in sin...
- Since this sin is now accomplished then it brings about death...

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
• According to Habit7 the natural act of reproduction is an act of evil
• We commit sin by having children
• We cause sin on our children by having sex with our wife (due to lust for them).



My Second Question:
(2) If God can occasionally “allow” satan to do what he desires then why bestow punishment on man for sins that God “allowed”?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- God allowed satan to influence Job to commit sin so that eventually God could make him the Governor of Egypt
- God allowed satan to influence the people to “crucify” Jesus as part of his plan.

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
So one minute Habit7 said that Jesus is God but now he said that God allowed satan to influence the people to crucify Jesus (which is God himself)....
So although Jesus is God (or the best of men), he would allow satan make the people torture and kill himself for the people to think that he is a saviour.
And you say the Allah is the best of deceivers?
Sounds like you are saying that God / Jesus allowed himself to be killed to fool the people..

It is just impossible for me to respond to something as Wack as that... sorry!


My Third Question:
(3) If God does occasionally “control” or “allow” satan, then what is “Free Will” to do right or wrong?

Habit7 Answer (summarized):
- We (mankind) do not have free will...
- We (mankind) have corrupted will...
- We (mankind) always want to do evil, long before satan arrive...

This is what Habit7 is really saying.............. You try to understand.....:
• According to Habit7 mankind doesn’t have the ability to choose a right decision over a wrong one since we don’t have free will.
• Mankind was somehow only created with an inclination toward evil and it doesn’t have anything to do with satan
• Although God built us to have sex and reproduce, the act of sex is a sin, and the act of reproduction is an outcome of sin (since it is a by-product of lust).

I agree that him answering the questions for you can be seen as him "putting words in your mouth" so you can just go ahead and answer the three questions for yourself and/or show us where the answers stated by New_SPECIES was wrong