PDA

View Full Version : Christians and Muslims - the same God?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


spinecracker
07-14-2005, 01:21 PM
There is much debate raging about Islamic terrorists, but I would like to ask people what are their thoughts on a question that does not seem to be asked - Is the God (Allah) of Islam the same God of Jews and Christians? Pope John Paul II seemed to think they were, and was actively seeking greater contact between Catholics and Muslims. When asked, George Bush said that he believed that it was the same God for the 3 beliefs. Many leaders in the Evangelical Church are of the same opinion. But what do you think? I have my opinions, but I would like to hear what other people have to say. I am not asking this question to offend, only to create open debate of this important issue.

This is a very important matter for us in these days. If Christians, Jews and Muslims share the same God, there is a chance of reconciliation between the faiths, and thus an end to the hostilities. If not, be prepared for bloodshed that is only going to get worse.

Kevin Leavitt
07-14-2005, 02:07 PM
What difference does it make if they "fundamentally" can't seem to get along.

I think a big part of the problem from my personal belief systems is not so much that they inately believe that they have the same god, but that they believe that they are separate and distinct from god and the earth.

I would have to go on for pages and pages about the fundamental flaws of dogmatic, fundamentalist, separatist beliefs/philosophies and how they psychologically, if even not intentionally cause personal conflict, that leads to social conflict.

The real problem is that most religions don't see themselves as part of the problem, but that there actions are justified and sanctioned by a higher power.

Until we all see the interdependence of ourselves and the connections we have at a interpersonal level...nothing else will really matter.

Why is it that both me and my brother growing up could accept the fact that we had the same parents, but still fought like cats and dogs daily????

I think the popularity of aikido stems from the fact that it is really a great allegory that demonstrates cooperative effort, and the options available for resolving conflict through mutual cooperation, understanding, and constant practice. We grow to realize that if we look close enough at ourselves that we are as much a part of our "bad aikido" as our partners are.

It is not the belief in god nor disbelief, or the even required that we agree on that we share the same god..but that we all intrinsically understand our relationship and responsibility to each other on a interpersonal level that transcends time, space, and religion.

This to me is much more important that any belief in god or religion. I believe this is what God wants from us :)

Dirk Hanss
07-14-2005, 03:25 PM
If you believe in only one God, they must have the same one. Otherwise you would recognise the existence of at least one other god.

For atheiststs it must be the same "nothing".

So the question is only relevant for people, who know about many gods. For those I can say, yes they have the same sources and many descriptions are very similar, so SHE is probably the same. There are only different interpretations of love and neighbors.

Clear enough?

Dirk

James Davis
07-14-2005, 04:21 PM
I've read that muslims acknowledge judaism and christianity as the other two religions that are "of the book". I don't really know for certain what this entails. I've known muslims that were cool to me, and then there are the violent ones we're hearing about on TV. I think muslims are just like other religious people; some are mean and some are nice.

None of this stuff is totally clear, huh? :confused: :(

We should concentrate on things we all have in common. :)

Jim ashby
07-14-2005, 04:34 PM
I once read a quote "Religious war is the same as killing people to prove who has the best imaginary friend". If these three groups all kill each other AND they all have the same imaginary friend, then I despair of the human race.

DustinAcuff
07-14-2005, 05:11 PM
Robert, to answer your question the answer is kinda sorta not really. I'm no expert on the subject but this is how I understand it ( and I apoligize to anyone whom I offend in the process).

Christians and Jews believe in the same God, Yaweh (spelling?) in Hebrew or Jehova as translated for the KJV. Same person here, but the debate is over the role of Jesus.

The Muslim faith is a little fuzzy, I am not sure if they came to be with Issac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham, when God cursed the Middle East or the peoples therein to fight forever, or if it was the issue of Jesus failed to accomplish his mission and so God sent Mohammad to conquer most of the known world, or possibly both.

I don't think Muslims Christians and Jews all worship the same God mostly because the God described in both the Bibles is a very diffrent God and sets down very diffrent laws than the God of the Muslims.

I am really not sure where the break occurs or why, but there is a break. The funny thing about religion is that before Jesus and the fall of Rome Judiasm and Christianity didn't exhist and if I am correct Islam came about somewhere around 1000 AD.

Very intresting post Robert and I would love to see this become a full blown discussion.

Neil Mick
07-14-2005, 07:19 PM
I once read a quote "Religious war is the same as killing people to prove who has the best imaginary friend". If these three groups all kill each other AND they all have the same imaginary friend, then I despair of the human race.

Yes, exactly.

dan guthrie
07-15-2005, 12:20 AM
Which reminds me of a joke:

The pope's secretary bursts into the room, "Your holiness, I've got good news and bad news."

"Well," the pontiff asks, "what's the good news?"

"God's on the phone and He wants to talk to you!"

"What's the bad news?"

"He's calling from Salt Lake City."

On a serious note: there's only one God. But like the story of the elephant being desribed by different blind men there are many different opinions on the subject. An elephant doesn't become a wall just because a blind man thinks he's one.

For purposes of this discussion could we define atheism as the belief that there is no God and agnosticism as not being sure/waiting for evidence either way? I think this definition makes atheism a "faith," i.e. belief in something which isn't proven. I think most - if not all - agnostics mistakenly call themselves "atheists." Just my two cents.

kocakb
07-15-2005, 12:56 AM
Hi Robert;

to your question; has Islam the same God of Jews and Christians, yes it has. There is only one God...

the difference is; in Islam, we believe that Jesus is the prophet of God - not son and nothing else...and in Koran; there is written that Jesus is one of the prophets of God and Muhammed is the last prophet, born about 600 years later after Jesus.

during the time, the content of the Gospel (book of Christians - spelled correctly !!!) has been changed many times. Koran has been sent to people to be the last book because of the changes of the Gospel - and Koran has not been changed since over 1500 years (it is the same with every letter as it was for ~1500 years). We believe that the God will protect its content forever.

So, we believe in Jews and Christians and Jesus and have the same God ("there is one God and Muhammed is the last prophet" is the main idea) and there are lot's of things written in Koran about Jesus...

Hope that I could help you to answer your question.

Kindest regards,
and happy training,
Blent

deepsoup
07-15-2005, 03:58 AM
The funny thing about religion is that before Jesus and the fall of Rome Judiasm and Christianity didn't exhist and if I am correct Islam came about somewhere around 1000 AD.

Judaism didn't exist before Jesus ?!?

Dirk Hanss
07-15-2005, 04:49 AM
Hi Robert;

to your question; has Islam the same God of Jews and Christians, yes it has. There is only one God...

the difference is; in Islam, we believe that Jesus is the prophet of God - not son and nothing else...and in Koran; there is written that Jesus is one of the prophets of God and Muhammed is the last prophet, born about 600 years later after Jesus.

during the time, the content of the Gospel (book of Christians - spelled correctly !!!) has been changed many times.

Hi Blent,

up to here there is quite little to argue, I 'd just say you're right.

Koran has been sent to people to be the last book because of the changes of the Gospel - and Koran has not been changed since over 1500 years (it is the same with every letter as it was for ~1500 years). We believe that the God will protect its content forever.

I guess it is commonly agreed, that the Koran is based on an older version of the Bible or Gospel, than what most Christians and Jews use. But the only proof that it is the original one, is your believe.

I might accept that the Koran has not changed for some 1500 years, but at least there are also big differences in interpretation.

A simple example - easy to understand for those, who just heard someone talk about the words of God: Some religious leaders argue that it is not allowed to kill Jews and Christians, as they believe in the same God.
Some argue that it is allowed to kill them as they do not call him Allah and they do not follow the rules given by Mohammed.

So assuming the Koran contains the truth, how does it help, if it is not "reader proof".

And given I understood the arguments above well, how can a peaceful muslim (and most of them are) explain to a less peaceful mate (e.g. from Pakistan), that he should not kill Hindus?

I believe, if you look into your heart, you will find the way. Learning from all the good books will help. But as there is no objective proof for the truth, you should be as tolerant as possible to those, who see it different.

And there is a limit for tolreance. I would never tolerate death penalty for example. Neither many other trhings that happen evry day around the world.

Be God with you


Dirk

kocakb
07-15-2005, 06:12 AM
Hi to all,

Dirk, you are right what you wrote...I don't know how to explain the example you have given. As you say, people should ask it o him/herself for the truth. In my opinion; there can not be any explanation of killing people...you wrote "some argue that it is allowed to kill them because of not having the same beliefes"; most of the people in Turkey are muslim; but we do still remember the explosion from last year. A bank and UK Consulate were attacked in Istanbul and people having the same belief have lost their lives...

I don't know, it is the nature of human being. In Koran (Bakara Sura 30) there is written that;
Once, the Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt You place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate. The praises and glorify The holy (name)?" He said: "I know what you do not know."

We wish God will bring love to the world,
Ai to everyone...

Regards,
Blent

DustinAcuff
07-17-2005, 12:40 AM
Sean to clarify:

Under the laws given by Moses sacrifices had to be made pretty frequently, as well as a sacrifice to be made once a year where blood was placed on the Arc of the Covenant. During this time there were two groups of people: Israelites and Gentiles, each had their own set of laws given to them by God.

The distinction I am trying to make is a very fine line, but on one side the Jews were in accordance with the old law and on the other side they are no longer in accordance with it because they lack the Arc, the temple, the high priest, and to my knowledge no longer make sacrifices.


Bulent, I am curious, what does the Koran say about Jesus other than he was a prophet?

kocakb
07-18-2005, 03:13 AM
Hi to all,

I wish you all a wonderful new week,

And to your question Dustin, you can find Kuran in English, German, French etc at the web side; www.kuran.gen.tr

About Jesus in Kuran;

About his birth:

Surah Maryam

16. And mention in the Book (the Qur'n, O Muhammad, the story of) Maryam (Mary), when she withdrew in seclusion from her family to a place facing east.
17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibrael (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.
18. She said: "Verily! I seek refuge with the Most Beneficent (Allh) from you, if you do fear Allh."
19. (The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."
20. She said: "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?"
21. He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me (Allh): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allh), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allh).' "
22. So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place (i.e. Bethlehem valley about 4-6 miles from Jerusalem).
23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date-palm. She said: "Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!"
24. Then [the babe 'Iesa (Jesus) or Jibrael (Gabriel)] cried unto her from below her, saying: "Grieve not! Your Lord has provided a water stream under you;
25. "And shake the trunk of date-palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe-dates upon you."
26. "So eat and drink and be glad, and if you see any human being, say: 'Verily! I have vowed a fast unto the Most Beneficent (Allh) so I shall not speak to any human being this day.'"
27. Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).
28. "O sister (i.e. the like) of Hrn (Aaron) [not the brother of Msa (Moses), but he was another pious man at the time of Maryam (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
29. Then she pointed to him. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
30. "He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allh, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
31. "And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salt (prayer), and Zakt, as long as I live."
32. "And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.
33. "And Salm (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"
34. Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).
35. It befits not (the Majesty of) Allh that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allh, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allh]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.
36. ['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allh is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. (Allh's Religion of Islmic Monotheism which He did ordain for all of His Prophets)." [Tafsir At-Tabar]
37. Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allh] from the meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire).
38. How clearly will they (polytheists and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allh) see and hear, the Day when they will appear before Us! But the Zalimn (polytheists and wrong-doers) today are in plain error.
39. And warn them (O Muhammad ) of the Day of grief and regrets, when the case has been decided, while (now) they are in a state of carelessness, and they believe not.


And Others when He was a Prophet (that he is not the son of God)

Surah As-Saff

6. And (remember) when 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allh unto you confirming the Taurt [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed . But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad ) came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic."

Surah Al-Ma'idah'

46. And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) , confirming the Taurt (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurt (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqn (the pious - see V.2:2).
47. Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allh has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what Allh has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fsiqn (the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree) to Allh.
48. And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'n) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures) . So judge between them by what Allh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allh willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allh; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

110. (Remember) when Allh will say (on the Day of Resurrection). "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Remember My Favour to you and to your mother when I supported you with Rhul Qudus [Jibrael (Gabriel)] so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing, AlHikmah (the power of understanding), the Taurt (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel); and when you made out of the clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My Permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) since you came unto them with clear proofs, and the disbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.' "
111. And when I (Allh) put in the hearts of Al-Hawreen (the disciples) [of 'Iesa (Jesus)] to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: "We believe. And bear witness that we are Muslims."
112. (Remember) when Al-Hawrn (the disciples) said: "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Can your Lord send down to us a table spread (with food) from heaven?" 'Iesa (Jesus) said: "Fear Allh, if you are indeed believers."
113. They said: "We wish to eat thereof and to be stronger in Faith, and to know that you have indeed told us the truth and that we ourselves be its witnesses."
114. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Allh, our Lord! Send us from heaven a table spread (with food) that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a festival and a sign from You; and provide us sustenance, for You are the Best of sustainers."
115. Allh said: "I am going to send it down unto you, but if any of you after that disbelieves, then I will punish him with a torment such as I have not inflicted on anyone among (all) the 'Alamn (mankind and jinns)."
116. And (remember) when Allh will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: 'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allh?' " He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my innerself though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the AllKnower of all that is hidden and unseen.
117. "Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allh) did command me to say: 'Worship Allh, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world).
118. "If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the AllMighty, the AllWise ."
119. Allh will say: "This is a Day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise) - they shall abide therein forever. Allh is pleased with them and they with Him. That is the great success (Paradise).
120. To Allh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is therein, and He is Able to do all things.

His Death (that Jesus was not killed)

Surah An-Nisa'

157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:
158. But Allh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allh is Ever AllPowerful, AllWise.

spinecracker
07-18-2005, 03:48 PM
I have a simple question - Is the bible lying and the Koran correct, or visa versa? Jesus was very clear to point out many times that He was the Son of God (ignore bible versions such as the NIV - they are corrupt). The Koran denies this. If Jesus was a prophet of God only, then he claimed power and authority that was not his, which is not a trait of the prophets sent by God. Either the Bible is correct, or the Koran is - not both. Being a Christian, I know which one I would believe.

Dirk Hanss
07-18-2005, 06:39 PM
I have a simple question - Is the bible lying and the Koran correct, or visa versa? Jesus was very clear to point out many times that He was the Son of God (ignore bible versions such as the NIV - they are corrupt). The Koran denies this. If Jesus was a prophet of God only, then he claimed power and authority that was not his, which is not a trait of the prophets sent by God. Either the Bible is correct, or the Koran is - not both. Being a Christian, I know which one I would believe.

It is very difficult to reply on this. True, if you believe one side the other one must be wrong, but you will never get ascientific proof.
Some people argue, that in those times narrations used a lot of common metaphors, as Herode's baby killing seem to be historically doubtful. The year of birth has some contradictory facts and many more.
And usually Jesus talks about his Father, but aren't most of us christians pray to our Father without pretending being his direct children, not talking about the monks and ministers called pater (father) without meaning it literally. I know, sometimes you can take it literally but that would be another thread.

The only fact that seems to be proven, as far as I know, that the Koran is based on an older interpretation of the Bible. And if you say ignore some bible versions, because they NIV and others are corrupt, well there have been times when the catholc church was corrupt and changed the bible. And how can you trust any translation if the origins are not original.

But anyhow, you have to believe, but as you will not get objective proof on any version, you have to accept that other interpretations have their right, as well.

That is why I ask for as much tolerance on religion as possible. As already said in another thread there are limits - at least for me.

God bless you all, whom ever you choose.

Dirk

DustinAcuff
07-18-2005, 09:01 PM
I few comments:

Bulent thanks for the info.

Robert, I tend to agree with you, you are scratching the surface. Depending on how much you know check out Hebrews, lots of explinations if you take the time to dig through it.

Dirk, Yes I have no doubt that the scriptures were changed by the Catholic Church. I also know for a cold hard fact that there have been a number of modifications made in recent times to suit the editor
s purpose. But, there are versions out there that were translated as directly as possible from the origional manuscripts that should be pretty accurate. Ultimately, whatever you believe, comes down to faith.

makuchg
07-18-2005, 09:40 PM
Dustin the problem lies in translation. From Aramaic to Roman to Hebrew to English there are words that don't translate exactly or can be easily misinterpreted. This is a common problem when documents are translated from one language to another. This is one reason Muslims insist on the Koran being written in Arabic, it's original language. The only accepted versions of the Koran are in Arabic. Although translations exist, Muslims follow the Arabic writings.

The problem with the Bible is the inconsistencies between the four books. Only one book speaks of the manger birth while another mentions a house and thje other two make no mention. The bible indicates Jesus was taken before Pilate becuase the Jewish elders could not sentence him to death. According to Jewish law the elders could sentence to death by stoning, again this is not consistent. Jesus' body is given to John following the crucifixtion, this was actually contrary to Roman law and prohibited. Roman law required the body to remain on the cross. Finally the book of Thomas, discovered in Egypt and predates all other known books of the bible, contradicts many facts in the other four books and ironically have been unaccepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

It is this manipulation, editing, and inconsistencies that make me question the content of the Bible.

DustinAcuff
07-18-2005, 11:16 PM
Given, jumping languages does produce some problems, the more languages used the less accurate the translation could be, the versions I speak of are directly from the Hebrew or Greek into English, not though Latin or any other language.

As to the inconsistencies within the first 4 books. Each tells the story from a diffrent point of view with a diffrent audience in mind. Each book was also written at a diffrent time and described diffrent events. Details that may be relevant to the Jews, such as lineage back to David, would have had little relevance to the Gentiles. You mentioned some that I have never heard of before and I will look into them. As to the book of Thomas, it is not suprising. At the time the Bible, if you want to call it that, was passed on through letters and word of mouth. When the formal Bible as we know it today was created teams of scholars and high standing members of the Church were assembeled and all the manuscripts present at the time were brought together and only the ones that were deemed undeniably God-inspired (if you will use the term, my brain is fried and I lack a better word at the moment) were put into the Bible.

The reasons for this were quite sound. Even within the Old Testament there are various versions of some of the stories, but they all kept the same theme, the same continuity and the same order, such as possible from two famlies telling the same history. With Christianity however this continuity was lacking. As mentioned in the Bible some congregations were doing things in opposition to God and had to be told so formaly. Among the numerous letters in circulation there were a number of things that did not add up: in one version it was said that Mary-Magdeline was a cousin of Jesus, or a wife, or an unwed lover, his closest companion; in another place it states that she was at the last supper and ask Jesus if women could enter Heaven and He replied that they could not and as a reward for her faithful service he turned her into a man. And still another claims that Mary was pregnant by Jesus and fled with his child to what is today southern France.

When you really look at all the possibilities, the two thousand years of possible human errors, and the possibilities at the time, it really just boils down to you either believe or you don't. For the Christian it is easy to accept that these things did happen as it was said they would and that God protected and ensured the survival of the truth. If you are not a Christian then it is easy to see 2000 years of BS preventing anyone from knowing anything accurately. It is really something that needs faith.

Red Beetle
07-19-2005, 02:49 AM
The God of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible the same as the god of the evil hellish Koran?

The God of the Bible is not even the same as the God of the evil hellish Roman Catholic Church-state.

Sola Scriptura!

Jews do not believe in the God of the Bible.
The God of the Bible is Triune. One God who reveals himself in three persons. Jews reject this, and therefore they reject God in doing so. God was also incarnate. Muslims also reject the Trinity and the incarnation, and therefore they reject God.


The Pope thinks that he is God. He calls himself the "HOLY FATHER" and wants to be venerated as the "VICAR of CHRIST." God disagrees. The Scripture condemns anyone making such claims as Antichrist.

for more info see Darth Gill at
www.5solas.org
and tell him
Red Beetle
sent you!

PeterR
07-19-2005, 03:13 AM
Fundamentalists of any stripe are the bane of mankind.

deepsoup
07-19-2005, 05:07 AM
Fellow unbelievers.
It may not be too late for us, check this (http://777.nventure.com) site out. (No really, do, its a hoot.)

At last, the TRUTH (http://777.nventure.com/thetruth.htm) is out there:

"Truth #7: God Wrote Only One Bible And It Is Of Course The 1611 A.D. Edition Of The King James Version Of The Holy Bible. Amen.

All other Bibles are FALSE FORGERIES and the only way to learn the Truth of Salvation is to read the 1611 King James Bible. Amen. Those who are using incorrect versions know who you are and why you are doing it and you will go to HELL for tainting your soul with the filth of the devil. Amen. The only hope for the non-English speaking peoples around the world is to learn English so they can read the TRUTH instead of a lie!!! which will get them into HELL so fast they will not have time to warn their families and therefore their families will BURN TOO! Amen."

and even better than that:
"Truth #4: There Is Only One True Church And Almost No One Goes To It. Amen.

The ONLY one and true Christian denomination is that of the Duck River Association of Baptist Churches which originated in 1825 from a protest movement within the old Elk River Association of Baptist churches which was not in communion with God's Word as clearly stated in His Holy Bible and therefore in an unrepentant state of APOSTASY. Amen.

All churches outside of the 1825 Duck River Association of Baptist Churches are preaching a LIE and will answer for their lies when Jesus Christ sits at the right hand of God the Father and judges the nations but especially the Elk River Association of Baptist Churches which knows the truth but professes to believe a lie. Amen."

Amen. :D
Sean
x

makuchg
07-19-2005, 05:09 AM
Dustin at the time of the original writing of the Bible (some 50-100 years after Jesus' crucifixion) Rome ruled what is now Israel. As such all books and documents were translated into Latin (in the Bible's case from Aramaic). The Hebrew and even the Greek versions are translated from Latin (although there may be a Hebrew version translated directly from Aramaic also). Either way there are still several translations to get to English. Now the New Testament was written originally in Greek, not Aramaic so there would be less distortion, but there is still words used in the English version that are not in the original texts.

DustinAcuff
07-19-2005, 10:45 PM
Gregory along with Latin, Greek and Aromaic were both dominant languages at the time, Greek was concidered to be the "common" tounge at the time even more so than Latin, expecially around the Med Sea because Greece was a major nation for Sea trade. The scriptures were not translated into Latin until some point after the Roman Catholic Church was formed around 200 years later I do believe. Rome was a multi cultural society where I won't even venture a guess at the number of languages commonly spoken. The fact that something was written in even Rome proper in no way meant it was in a language even close to Latin.

Also, in ancient Rome ther reason that occupation was so sucessful and was able to keep the peace was that all religious groups were allowed to keep their religion and language, provided they still paid homage to the Roman gods or were granted the right not to if they were of an old, established, and respected religion, such as the religion of the Hebrews. Also, though you are correct that Rome was in contorl of Israel at the time you are neglecting the fact that the majority of the Jews mentioned in the bible were quite far form here, and as such they could easily pass along information in a language of their own that still is not dead.

Not only was in simply not feasable to comission such an undertaking of translating all religious documents, or any real number of documents, into Latin to consolidate Rome's power over the peoples, it would have been the single largest fault that could possibly happen because people would feel that they were being infringed upon in a rather offensive manner by a tyrant government and would likely have ended the rule of Rome rather immediately.

And no, it is possible for the scriptures to be translated directly rather than translated from other translations. The KJV was a direct translation from the origional languages as well as a few others. I am not a strong advocate for the KJV, I'm just trying to get as accurate a translation as humanly possible.

As to the extra words, english is one of the only languages that uses a word that can in any way be construed to mean "the". I'm not terribly worried about the words that have been added to allow gramatical correctness within the english language. Also for your reading pleasure there are versions written as a direct word for word translation that add the words required for continuity within brackets or not at all, and also will refrence words that have more than one meaning according to form used and context and refrence with other parts where the word was obviously used in other places. And since the Old Testament is also the Torah it is indeed possible to get an extremely accurate translation from your friendly neighborhood Jew.

I'm pretty well versed in Latin and Roman history and I have raised many of the same questions myself when something didn't quite work out (like what is known as the Christmas Story). The reason I follow what I do is because no ammount digging has been able to disprove it in my experience.

Jim ashby
07-20-2005, 05:32 AM
Hmmmm, this gives the basis of the Atheist/Theist arguments "The reason I follow what i do is because no ammount (sic) digging has been able to DISPROVE (my capitals) it in my experience".
Believing because it cannot be DISproven? That way lies madness IMHO. Looking at the present Jihads and the "war on terror" it makes me sad that those who follow religion are prepared to kill those who disagree on interpretation of ancient books, not just those who are a "clear and present danger".
Humanity eh? What chance do we have.

spinecracker
07-20-2005, 01:12 PM
Do we want to change this to a debate on the accuracy of the King James (Authorized) Bible and all the others? I'd better start digging out all my research. Without going into all the details, I am sufficiently convinced that the King James Bible is the most accurate translation of the original texts, and is the Inspired word of God. The discrepancies between The Bible and the Koran make me believe that they do not have the same source - the Koran is not the inspired word of the same God.
to this end, the God of the Jews and Christians is not the same god as Allah. The simplest way of showing this is that many Biblical Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah of the Jews pointed to Jesus, and also pointed to the fact that he was God 'in the flesh'. These prophecies were fulfilled by His birth, life, teaching, death and resurrection. The Koran states that Jesus (Isa) was a prophet of God - not the Son of God. This is a huge contradiction which cannot be resolved, no matter how you look at it. The Bible also states that God's chosen people are descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whereas the Koran states that the lineage is through Abraham to Ishmael and down. This also cannot be resolved.

DustinAcuff
07-20-2005, 01:37 PM
In no way is it my intention to argue that any particular version of scriptue is the only correct version possible. I do agree that the KJV is one of the most accurate, however I do not believe that something that says the same thing in modern english is any less accurate.

I tend to agree with Robert that to my undestanding the Koran is not of God, especially not of the god of the Jews and Christains. The single biggest reason is something not polite enough to mention in a public fourm. If you want to know why then feel free to PM me.

And one thing I would like to state is that all we have in the world is belief.

As to the issue of my not being able to disprove the Bible: did you know that Charles Darwin himself later said that his book on evolution was a stab in the dark at explaing the creatures of the earth and that he was wrong? The reason evolution has gained so much backing today is because his book was taken up by an exceptionally bored group of wealthy American "nobility" that was looking for something new to pass their time with. These were the same people who endured yogurt enema's for their health. There are also a some studies that have conclusively proved that evolution cannot be correct because the fossil record does not support it. I could go on for quite some time, but sufice to say that just because I believe something because I could not disprove it does not mean I am stupid, nor since I am a Christian who believes in exactly what the bible says does it mean I have any ambition to kill anyone who disagrees with me.0

Kevin Leavitt
07-20-2005, 02:07 PM
While focusing on dissecting who is right, legitimate, or believe in the same thing....energy and time that could be spent actually solving some of the world problems, or having dialogue on what we can do to work together and learn how to accept and understand each other.

I think this is a good discussion if it is an attempt to understand religion and the similarities. Religion is very important since it is a big part of our philosophical underpinings and ultimate decision making (values/mores).

A bad on if we start disecting dogma...or worse yet get into fundamentalist prostelytizing and preaching about who is more right.

What difference does it really make if there is one god or many gods...or if they believe in the same god? We have seen that terrorist, who believe in the same god will use religion as a justification to commit henious crimes...so what difference does it really make anyway when it comes to working toward peace.

Working towards peace must be done from a non-relgious basis if it is to suceed, IMHO.

Abasan
07-21-2005, 05:31 AM
First off, I would beg your understanding that I'm no expert on Islam, Christianity and of Terrorist minds in general.

One point I will like to make is that the Koran, a holy book, is not so much the sayings of Prophet Muhammad in that it is a wahyu, or messages from God conveyed to him by Angel Jibrail. To believe this we have to understand that Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate. He never learned to read or write. Most important of all, it is widely recognised, that the sentencing, they syntax, the words and the phrasing of Koran in Arabic are of the highest standards ever. The best poets and linguists or Arabic have tried to recreate the style but have never managed to equal its beauty.

This case in point proves to a certain extent that it was impossible for Prophet Muhammad to have dreamed up the Koran on his own. And another thing is that, Prophet Muhammad did not take 1 week of this timetable to write the book. What happened was during the course of 25 years that he was leading his ppl, he conveyed the koran piecemeal. And what he conveyed as the koran, was then memorised word for word and written down later by his Sahabats. I could not imagine that Prophet Muhammad could have kept the entire koran in his head for 25 years and still get it right each time where he left off. Also, it does not make sense that what he conveyed was a copy of the earlier scriptures (zabur, taurat and injil). It contains the same things, essentially because we believe that since the time of Adam (the first prophet and man) God has taught the same thing to mankind.

Lastly, Jihad should not be equated to war. I don't believe Islam has asked its followers to make war on mankind in order to convert them. Its kinda stupid don't you think? First God decided to make man have independant thoughts and gave him the freedom to choose, hoping that they will choose the right thing. Then, he appoints the muslims as the one who has chosen the right way, and instructs them to kill the rest who lost their way. Thats ridiculous. If God wanted everyone to worship him, he could just do it. Then, whats the point of having this ridiculous exercise anyway? Our instruction in Islam is pretty simple. The objective is to be a Khalifah of the world... ie leader or something. It doesn't mean leader of man. It means to lead the world into a better era. We do that by increasing knowledge, culture, nature, balance, harmony and all that stuff. That is our objective. Of course man being what they are lose sight of that. They want riches, power and fame. Our wants have become needs. We rape for sex, we pillage for power and we pluder for wealth. We are famous because we bombed some country and killed a few hundred thousand people.

Man isn't worth the earth he lives in. He lives and he dies. What he does in the short time he's alive means nothing when he is dead. It is this kind of thinking that allows mankind to do what they wish when they are alive. Why? Because he does not believe that he will suffer the consequences after he dies. Yet he is afraid of suffering the consequences when he is alive. That is why criminals flourish when there are no rules to restrict them. Yet for powerful criminals who can overide normal restrains like laws and the police, what constraints their actions? Only their moral compass and religion if he believes.

Sincerely, from a layperson's point of view. The terrors of the world right now is not because of fundamentalist fighting for religious superiority. Because what the heck is religious superiority? The numbers of worshipers? How the heck does that help the religious leaders? He gets points? He gets taxes? I don't think so. I think the terrors of the world right now is caused by simple greed. Someone very powerful wants something he doesn't have a right to. Takes it and now faces the repercussions. But because he is safely beyond reproach, his buffer... (ie the rest of the world) faces the repercussions on his behalf. Take note, with He i don't mean a single person but perhaps a few single persons with power behind them.

I don't know if I have managed to contribute something to this thread but I hope I have not aggravated anyone cause that's not my intention. If I did, I apologise first and you can tell me what I did wrong.

Lastly, FWIW, I believe in one God. And so does Christians and Jews. Do they believe in the same God? I don't think its relevant. Each seems to believe that their God is the right one. I don't think God cares so much what you call him as to how you worship him. If we believe there is a God, we should find out what God wants us to do. If we truly believe that we have done that, and we do what he wants us to do then who gives a shit what other people think? Names and definations are just dishonesty on our part in seeking to justify what we do.

Dirk Hanss
07-21-2005, 06:17 AM
Yes, I would agree that Jesus Christ does love all of us, regardless of sin or goodness - but that ain't gonna get you into heaven. Repentance of sin and accepting Christ as your Lord and Saviour leads to forgiveness of our sins and redemption to everlasting life - this is through the grace of God only, and is not negotiable, and is definitely not salvation by works (good works are the outward manifestation of the Holy Spirit working in your life, and are a gift by the Grace of God only).

This is not my interpretation of what is said in the Bible - this is exactly what is said in the Bible. Now, if I were to get into a debate about the different translations of the Bible (Alexandrian texts versus Byzantine texts, Westcott and Hort, the blasphemies of
the NIV and other versions, copyrighting the corrupted Gospels, apostacy in the modern Church, etc), then I wouldn't have time to train in Aikido! (or eat, sleep and work for that matter).

now time to practice my irimi and tenkan while people throw corrupt bibles at me :D :D
:D

get mine :D :D

No I visited a mass held by a catholic monk, who told us - in front of his bishop - that
you will get to heaven regardless of your believes, all explained about what is written in the bible (New Testimony). he used the german unified version, but as he has studies theology in Rome and Oxford, I am sure he also had old Latin and Greek versions for preparation. I cannot give you the details here, but afterwards the bishop told him his dislike, but never argued it being nonsense or simply false.

At least we can say just by quoting a part of the bible, neglecting other potential relavant passages, you are interpreting.


Errrr.....actually, the bible is specific about God (Yahweh, Jehovah, etc) being the only God. " Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" Exodus 20:3,4. Exodus 20:5
begins " Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them....". Psalm 86:10 states "For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone". Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord". Revelation 1:8 says "I (God) am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end....."
I could go on, but you get the idea.

Interesting point one: Did the hebrew use the Greek alphabet in Deuteronomy time? No they did not, it was only God using Greek letters.
No that is just a joke ;)

But all these quotes need the existence of other gods. Yes the writers frequently called
them pagan idols, is just telling the people how useless it is to follw them and is quite similar to what some posts say about aikido self defense techniques.
I just take this as rhetoric tricks.

Yes it is written in the bible and all my believes are based on the bible, but nevertheless it is written by men (and probably woman) with very specific intentions. If you do not agree upon this, you should turn back to "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Yes you have to love your enemies, but maybe you are helping them by fulfilling the law, aren't you?

Then, of course, there is no chance for a believer in the bible to practice aikido.

That is not theology, that is just basic logic, and I studied maths, so I know, what I am talking about.

God bless you all

Dirk

makuchg
07-21-2005, 06:21 AM
Ahmad, your wrinting was excellent. You raised some very valid questions about all religions and their legitimate claims as the "one." I think ego is often a fundamental part of religion. No one wants to think they have chosen the wrong path or their may be a better interpretation of their God's words. From protestant to catholic to jew to muslim they all believe their God and their interpretation of his words are the right one. Imagine the reprecussions if the catholic church announced they had been misinterpreting something for 1000 years and here is the right answer.... The catholic church would lose strength and significant amount of money and also lose face. I believe that is why religion is so unyielding, even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.

Kevin Leavitt
07-21-2005, 01:11 PM
Some good point Ahmad. Religion does not cause the conflict necessarily, but greed/desire/unhappiness which is fueled by ego. Religion is typically used as a basis for authority for justification, or a political tool.

Which goes to my original point. whether christians, muslims, or jews beleive in the same god is irrelevant.

Also it seems you elude the same thing I do...that man's ego or paradigm that is supported by religion in many cases sees himself as separate from the world and all other beings. Many fail to recognize the interdependence we have with the earth and other men. The only are concerned with themselves and their relationship with God.

All major religions that I know stress this point, but so many fail to live it for some reason...focusing instead on the dogma or idealogy of their religions instead of their relationship between them, God, and the rest of the world...which is the important part of any religion!

Abasan
08-05-2005, 03:39 AM
Kevin and Gregory and everyone else,

Thanks for the feedback. If its all the same, I think we have to keep the faith. I think deep down in every human being is a tiny prick of light called decency. It just needs some nurturing and if religion happens to be the way to do it, we should use it.

And if some idiot who happens to lead a religious community wants to misuse religion for his own selfish gain, then it is our responsibility to prevent it. That, requires education and knowledge. Which is a great thing about internet. Here I am, talking to people from hundreds of miles away at an instant.

So I hope, with what we all share in threads like this, comes some sort of enlightenment. At the very least, an understanding of the unknown that will lead to a lot less discrimination and hate on our part. Because ultimately, ignorance will lead to distruction.

ken king
08-05-2005, 10:45 AM
just to throw something else into the mix, consider the baha'i view point. religion is ever growing and evolving. each revealation is sent unto man at a time and place where it is most needed and understood by the people of its time.
the following paragraph is taken from bahaiworld.com: The Bah' Faith is the youngest of the world's independent religions, comprising some 5 million believers. Its founder, Bah'u'llh (1817-1892), is regarded by Bah's as the most recent on the line of Messengers of God that stretches back beyond recorded time and that includes Abraham, Moses, Buddah, Zoroaster, Christ and Muhammad.

The central theme of Bah'u'llh's message is that humanity is one single race and that the day has come for its unification in one global society. God, Bah'u'llh said, has set in motion historical forces that are breaking down traditional barriers of race, class, creed and nation and that will, in time, give birth to a universal civilization.

spinecracker
08-06-2005, 08:05 PM
Ok, last post on this thread, so I'm quite prepared to offend :) and it's way, waaayyyy off topic.....

Reading Kenneth's post regarding Baha'ism, I noticed an interesting tend. The theme of a line of messengers from God is prominent in many, many religions including Buddhism (I think), Islam and Baha'ism (the list goes on). They also have this idea that the 'saviour' who will show up and lead us to a one world religion and a new world order (AKA Age of Aquarius, much touted during the hippy days of the 60's and still appearing in New Age literature). People will call this 'messiah' a form of a Christ (Christ being defined as a messenger from God, not Jesus in particular).Isn't it interesting that the Bible gives specific warnings against this time, and terms them the 'last days'? And that the Bible specifically states that this 'unifying' messenger is actually the Antichrist? And that the Bible warns against false prophets who will blind millions to the real identity of the Antichrist? Not to mention that Jesus Christ will come against this Antichrist (the 'saviour' of many other religions) and cast him down into a pit of fire......

Just my little, last minute rant. Anyone want to discuss this privately is more than welcome, but this thread is now officially closed, deceased, dead :) .

Kevin Leavitt
08-07-2005, 01:58 AM
Not really buddhism. Most buddhsim, as practiced, is non-dogmatic and does not recognize God as a separate being. Most of the "messengers" are symbolic in nature and represent certain ideals...more like saints than messengers. At least Tibetan buddhsim. Which is probably the closest to a dogmatic form of buddhism, but is very, very complex and many westerners will easily slap a label on what things are and aren't without truley understanding the religion and symbology.

There are many flavors of buddism. None I have studied are appolytic in nature. Buddhism as it has emerged/evolved in the west in the last 50 years is definitiely non-dogmatic, philosophical in nature. It is more concerned with personal transformation and the path to sustainable happiness and peace, not judgement. There really is no concept of a separate being of God. It places emphasis on the the interconnection and interdependence/relationship between man and the world.

Like aikido, western buddhism is can be practiced with other religions.

Buddha is typically recognized in western buddhism, not as a prophet, but simply as a righteous dude who figured out what it takes to really be happy. Many western buddhist also recognize Jesus along the same vein as buddha. A really righteous dude who figured out what we need to do to live right....also known as an enlightened being. Same would go for Muhammed and many others.

Yes there are parallels that can be drawn between major messengers, prophets,and enlightened beings....but we must be very careful in analysis that we really understand which paradigm and religion we are viewing them through. What means something to one religion might mean something entirely different to another.

That is why I always say it is more important to seek understanding than to profess knowledge. It is the small things that count in our discoveries that may make all the difference. Which, IMHO, is the key thing we learn in aikido.

bogglefreak20
08-17-2005, 11:15 AM
Yes, I believe there is only one God, shared not only by the 3 largest religions but by all people of faith, any kind of faith.
But the problem isn't in God, the problem is in people. I know enough people of different denominations, cultural backgrounds or ideological preferences that get along with other people perfectly - simply because they seek a peaceful way of comunicating with fellow men. And on the other hand, I also know people who claim to be deeply religious, but fail to accept others and fail to live the message of Love, common to most religions, because of their ego. So, again, the problem is not in God, nor in religions. The problem lies in what we make of them.

Dirk Hanss
08-17-2005, 06:29 PM
Yes, I believe there is only one God, shared not only by the 3 largest religions but by all people of faith, any kind of faith.
Thanks, Miha, finally a bother in spirit :D

And happy birthday :cool:

Cordially Dirk

Krista DeCoste
08-17-2005, 07:36 PM
Does it really matter if it is the same God if our interpretations, facts, cultures, traditions are so different as to make them separate religions. They are all monotheistic, we can say it is the same God but I doubt that will bring any peace. How can the views of Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim be reconciled if[I][U] each view is saying this is the only way or you should be tortured and burned alive if you don't agree, or at the very least not accepted into the Kingdom.

I think what Kevin Leavittt said [ a big part of the problem from my personal belief systems is not so much that they inately believe that they have the same god, but that they believe that they are separate and distinct from god and the earth.] is insightful.

I think this is a fundamental problem with our modern culture as well as many religions. This disconnect from the earth has lead us to do some very nasty things to the earth and the creatures who live in relation to it.

Krista




QUOTE]

Nathan Gusdorf
08-17-2005, 09:18 PM
As to the issue of my not being able to disprove the Bible: did you know that Charles Darwin himself later said that his book on evolution was a stab in the dark at explaing the creatures of the earth and that he was wrong? The reason evolution has gained so much backing today is because his book was taken up by an exceptionally bored group of wealthy American "nobility" that was looking for something new to pass their time with. These were the same people who endured yogurt enema's for their health. There are also a some studies that have conclusively proved that evolution cannot be correct because the fossil record does not support it.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It's not a That doesnt mean its a guess , it means its accepted as being true. I would like to see some valid evidence to disprove it. Religion is about belief, not proof. Science is about running experiments and gathering data to support or disprove a hypothesis which you can act on. The thing about religion is that because its based on faith you cant prove the merits of one over another based on their beliefs, only by their actions. This is why it is sad that so many wars have been the result of religious beliefs- they are not enough justification to engage in any kind of war or mission that will harm people.

Abasan
08-18-2005, 03:00 AM
I think perhaps one of the biggest angst anyone would have about religion is the fact that the major religion has a price to be paid for believing in it. If you believe, then you are subject to sins and errr... whats the word opposite of that? Good stuff that you do anyway.
If the latter outweighs the former, then its heaven for you. Otherwise is straight down to hell.

I believe most modern people tend to object being put into such a situation beyond their control. And no one really likes concept of eternity. Imagine that, never dying ever. And worst, never dying ever whilst being tortured in hell. Sheesh. Of course any sane person wouldn't like that. Still, God doesn't do things without a reason. He gave us the ability to think, learn and experience. With those abilities, he gave us the world to explore and find the right path. If we choose to study and learn, mayhaps it will lead us to the right path. But if we do it without sincerity or choose to avoid it altogether then, I guess its too bad. Because ultimately, thats blind faith. Because we really can't prove for certain God exists, at least for the moment. We couldn't prove that electricity existed some centuries ago because we couldn't see it. Now we can prove it, although we still can't see it. Just like radio waves, atoms, photons etc etc... we can't see it, but its there. So blind faith is all we have.

Now for believers, they then strive to go to heaven. Thus they do good things that God asks of them. However, somewhere along the line, certain leaders to advantage of blind faith given to them by the followers of the religion. Thus the abuse of power actually leads to all this problems that we have.

I think the question of whose God is it anyway shouldn't arise. If we believe there is God then we should act like it. We need to know what God wants of us, not just assume, but truly search for the right path. Of course I can't tell you guys there is only One right path. Maybe God in His infinite wisdom created many different paths, but in Islam we do believe there is one right path. So our blind faith is that we are on the right track. God didn't ask us to kill anyone else who didn't believe that though.

DustinAcuff
08-18-2005, 03:33 AM
Sorry to make a hijack of the thread but...

Nathan, I have to say that I disagree with science for a handful of fundamental reasons:

Science assumes that everything it knows is correct and true unless stated otherwise.
Science often bases things on things that are shaky at best.
Science is highly political > no matter how good or accurate the research if the person above you in a program disagrees then you will never be given a voice or credibility.

For an example: I grad student that my old chem teacher knows has been applying for his Dr. for the last 6 years or so. His doctoral research paper is based completely on disproving evolution and he backs it up well using the fossil record. Since submitting his research he has had any and all contact with the powers that be cut off. No one informing him that his research is incorrect, no one accepting it, no one even speaking to him.

Also one scientist is quoted as saying that (paraphrased) science cannot accept the possibility of a god because to do so would completely undermine the entire foundation of science.

My point is that often times people go into situations believing too much in whatever they believe in. Scientists reserve the right to never publish the results of findings they don't like, throw out values that simply don't seem right, and continue research based on the theory that cause and effect are directly related by something they already know or assume to be true. I think the world would be a better place if the war between science and religion stopped. Nothing in Christianity invalidates science, but rather some facts are validated as science with the Bible. I am using Christianity as an example because I am not familiar enough with other religions.

No bashing, just some deep rooted mistrusts.

Nathan Gusdorf
08-18-2005, 01:24 PM
I think perhaps one of the biggest angst anyone would have about religion is the fact that the major religion has a price to be paid for believing in it. If you believe, then you are subject to sins and errr... whats the word opposite of that? Good stuff that you do anyway.
If the latter outweighs the former, then its heaven for you. Otherwise is straight down to hell.



My problem with most many religions is that I see them as a way of control. I am a reform Jew, and I like being Jewish. I like practicing Reform Judaism for the traditions, the community, and the fact that in Judaism the focus is on your life on earth and doing good deeds, what we would call mitzvot. Heaven and Hell to me seem like a way of 1)escaping death and 2)controlling large numbers of people.

I believe most modern people tend to object being put into such a situation beyond their control. And no one really likes concept of eternity.

I disagree. I would say that many many people in the world today do not want to believe that they evolved over many millions of years and that they are just going to die and rot away some day and there's nothing they can do about it. They want to believe that someone is watching over them so that they will be rewarded for being good. Many people feel that if there is no god then life is meaningless, and no one wants life to be meaningless. Most people who strongly believe in their religion love the idea of eternity because they "know" that they are the true believers and they will go to heaven.




Nathan, I have to say that I disagree with science for a handful of fundamental reasons:


Disagreeing with "science" itself is just ignorance. Thats like disagreeing with medicine or disagreeing with architecture; it just doesn't make sense. Disagreeing with the entire scientific community is different. However that is also silly because that would suggest that all scientists and all sciences are the same. If thats true then all religions and all their followers are the same which as we have established in this very thread is not true. Perhaps there are specific sciences and/or scientists you disagree with, but I hope not "science" itself.

Science assumes that everything it knows is correct and true unless stated otherwise.


Could you be a little more specific? A lot of things are stated otherwise, thats why you do experiments and gather data to find the right answer, or as close as you can get.

Science often bases things on things that are shaky at best.

Example? Other than evolution that is, because a the bible is not sufficient evidence to disprove evolution even though many people think it is. "Basing things on things" doesn't say what you're referring to. Also,

Science is highly political > no matter how good or accurate the research if the person above you in a program disagrees then you will never be given a voice or credibility.[/

First of all, other than you're friend's case give some examples. Second of all of course it's political. Religion is very political. Almost everything is political in some way, but that doesnt make it an inherently evil institution.


And about your friend, perhaps no one would read his doctoral research paper because they didn't want to spend their time on it. My mom knew someone whose husband wrote his doctoral paper I believe on the death penalty and took a very very reactionary approach and hence could not get it sponsored or something like that- I'm not exactly sure how the system works. The point is that your story doesnt mean evolution isnt true, or that science is wrong, evil, or untrustworthy in general.


Also one scientist is quoted as saying that (paraphrased) science cannot accept the possibility of a god because to do so would completely undermine the entire foundation of science.

That's because science is based on evidence and proof.


My point is that often times people go into situations believing too much in whatever they believe in.

I agree completely. Perhaps not in the same context, but I agree with this part.

I think the world would be a better place if the war between science and religion stopped.

This war is purely intellectual and I don't know if it can be "stopped"
but yes that would be nice. Before we do that however I think we should stop the wars between religion and religion which kill many people. If more religious people were open to the idea that they might not be completely right about God then perhaps it woudln't be the cause of so many wars.

makuchg
08-28-2005, 09:36 AM
The reality is every religion in history has been debunked at one point and another religion takes it's place. Today we refer to these past religions as myths, in their day they were religions. Look at the Norse myths, the Roman myths, Greek myths, Babylonian myths, Mayan myths, etc. At one point all these were accepted as truths, they explained what nothing else could. During their time questioning them was a crime, often punished by death. What makes us think that after centuries of mythological practice we now have it right? Why did it take so long to get it right? What will people 10,000 years from now think of our archaic practices?

In The World of Myth by Leeming, he talks about the similarities in the creation, flood, afterlife, and apocalypse between a dozen different beliefs spanning thousands of years (including Babylonian, Greek, Hebrew, Indian, and Hopi). He also looks at the messiah for these different beliefs. What is amazing is they all have almost identical stories. How can one belief be the right one when they all tell the same story?

In a few centuries there will be all new religions and people will study our archaic belief systems. Imagine telling someone you eat flesh and drink blood every Sunday as in Roman Catholicism. Just one example.

Kevin Leavitt
08-30-2005, 06:00 PM
I think in many ways science, industrialism, and capitalism (consumerism), have become religions in many ways. At least in the respect that they occupy our minds, distract us, attempt to fullfill our lives in some way. We look at these things as "improvements" to our lives and in many ways they are, but they are also dangerous to us in many ways.

Has these modern concepts brought us closer to understanding ourselves and our world, or brought us closer to peace and happiness? Or only furthered and fueled or delay in intellectual/spiritual growth and/or fulfillment?

Maybe spirituality and religion have a place...even if we haven't really figured out what the right mix of all this stuff is yet!

emma.mason15
09-22-2005, 09:59 PM
Just to add a wee comment here
Im a christian ... but i dont think that I worship a guy in big beard sat in throne
I am a full believer in hope
and that hope is the backbone of all religions. nothing more .... nothing less .... so ( in my eyes) we are all worshipping the idea of hope and that in our darkest days ... when we mumble a plea to whomever .... what were doing is affirming our own hope! in mankind ... luck ... whatever!
hope! (how can there be wars over hope???)
anyway ...
thats about as deep and meaningful as I get

em x

Kevin Leavitt
09-26-2005, 04:34 PM
Hope is a good thingI think. (optimism?)

I think though that once you see that you are a part of the whole, that the concept of hope as to your endstate of life become irrelevant...at least that is what I hope will happen to me :)

Rupert Atkinson
09-26-2005, 11:37 PM
More like: Christians and Muslims - the same foolishness?

No matter what the religion, the most ardent followers believe theirs to be the one and only way. Naturally, evangelism of any type results in the destruction of the 'other.'

Religion is man's eternal quest to find the answers to questions that have no answer. The foolishness therefore lies in the question. Science has chipped away at may of the questions yet people cling on to what remains. Surely, if one has one iota of logic, one would imagine that God would have known the Earth was not the centre of the universe ... and thereby saved Galileo a lot of hassle - in more ways than one.

Also - jihad was mentioned. As far as I know it refers to a personal kind of holy battle - the kind we might all go through in our lives - but has been reconstructed by fundamentalists to mean their holy war to indoctrinate or destroy on grand scale. Whether you believe the former more moderate or the latter more violent version makes no difference, but the reality confronting us today is the latter -- it is that definition that its protagonists have marketed.

Abasan
09-27-2005, 04:09 AM
The same foolishness? Better yet... the same foolish people.

However one thing I would like to touch on is this alieanation or segregation of science and religion. To me that should not be the case because science is knowledge based on hypothesis postulated challenged by experiments to discover facts. And religion, IF its guided by the Wisdom of God, should have facts to cover its bases.

I'm not knowledgeable in Christianity or Buddhism and such. But in Islam, Science is inseperable. The knowledge is there, although its reference is not exactly scientific.

For example in the Quran:
It is mentioned about the science of procreation. How sperm and egg forms into the child.
It also mentions the different salinity of oceans and how it is seperated from each other because of it.
It explains the speed of light.
And other stuff that I can't remember off hand.

What I'm trying to get at is this. Just because it takes faith to believe in religion, it should not be blind faith. We should be able to research and challenge the written guide in order to glean its secrets. And logically, those secrets will reveal to us the truth as we understand it ie Scientificly.

Anat Amitay
10-04-2005, 11:26 AM
I admit to not reading all the posts by everyone before, so sorry if I'm writing something that had been discussed.
I think it really doesn't matter if all three religions believe in the same god or not. Through that fact, we will not find peace. peace should come for respect of one another as DIFFERENT human beings and it doesn't matter in who/ what/ how many/ or if we believe in anything at all.
As for why peace will not come from the fact that maybe this is the same god for all three religions- well pretty simple:
As long as you've got people under the same belief slautering one another, you can't ask people from different religions to act differently.
I mean, for example- in Ireland, for years catholics and protestants had been at each others throats with violent acts that caused deaths- and still they are all catholic.
In many muslim countries, the Shie's (sorry if I mis- spelled) and Shun's (again, sorry if mis- spelled) have killed each other and they are all muslims.
The same might also excist with Jewish groups, I just don't have a specific example.
So, if people under the same religion can't except one another as equal, you can't expect them to see others as equals either.
And the look at being equal doesn't really matter.
If each person will live in his belief, even if he thinks it's the best and others are wrong or mislead, yet he excepts them for being also human with their own view points, then maybe we can start to talk about peace between different ethnic/ religious groups.
Of course this is not all the problem, but it might be part of it.
Just my 2 cents...
Anat