Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Stratics Off Topic' started by Pacem, Jul 28, 2009.
did your parents have any kids that lived?
Remove This Ad - Register for Free!
Of course... if you count me out since I was once a dead sorcerer.
People live good and are in shape in my family !
Besides... my argument dosen't even go against yours... it's also my experience that man created god. I have timetravelled and witnessed it happen. You can say I'm crazy, but it would only serve to show that you do not understand and do not want to understand how I came to these conclusions... after all I'm the only UO player who ever casted Armageddon (btw the incantation is 3 uo-sized paragraph long, its no simple magic, and yes, balrons showed up and destroyed everything, then the server crashed.)
Oh and before you ask, yes I love to roleplay, and I'm defending marriages with my roleplay. Especially the marriage of a lost friend, who died in a car accident, my best friend in UO. Thats why I sound so serious...
But if it was so simple, "man invented god and thats all it implies" its also my experience that we would have destroyed ourselves already.
When I look at old texts about astrology and how it was such a deep art back then, when I read plato's texts... and ponder about the greek civilisation...
I stop and ask myself, is it really possible that they were so advanced, so complex in the middle ages... and that now we just lost it ?
The philosophy was profound, the virtue was powerful, the astrology was magnitude, the alchemy was vast...
I would really be impressed if someone could prove me Ptolemy was a fool... and that Robert Fludd was a complete village idiot.
Even the egyptians knew how to make plastic, heck Henry Ford made a hemp plastic car in the early 1900's... he was hitting on it with a metal axe to proove its durability in the advert.
Beleive it or not, I learned in school that the only way to make plastic was to buy petrol. They really insisted upon that fact... I mean REALLY
Then I tell myself how freemasonry has 33 degrees, and that each degree is supposed to be revealed a higher truth, and that they study the old texts by alchemists and also were found to have been using kabalistic magics...
I ask myself, is it really so simple... I don't think so !
Maybe those guys should be put in padded cells... not the loony looser I am. I take those talk seriously because it affects my best friend marriage, but I don't take myself seriously.
The thing that really scares me is parents teaching their children that a fantasy man from an old azz book exists and watches all they do and if they do bad, he will send them to hell, and only by following god and their parents will they get into heaven..........lol
That would be all well and true, if you leave out the fact that you can't get anything from nothing. If nothing was in the beginning, then nothing would be here today. Even with the big bang, it had to come from somewhere.
what are you leaning towards? its being looked at that the big bang is an ongoing, repetitive explosion/contraction. the big bang we have heard of might not have been the original nor the last.
the only people that say the big bang theory came from nothing are people that dont understand it.
Actually... the "something from nothing" crowd are the ones that say noone created god... he just "was"
I used to think that but then I found some funny info about theories that relate to before the big bang..... like the big bang was the result of an older universe collapsing in on itself and exploding outward again. Of course this still leaves the question that even if there were billions of these implosions/explosions how did it all start? Which is something no one knows and people only guess at, you say it is God, I say that since time is a human made concept I am not going to guess until humans learn how to understand space and time and all that really complicated stuff. lol Either way, worshipping (and forcing children to worship) or follow a God who has never made his presence known for thousands of years and his presence back then has no evidence (the bible was written by man).....is quite foolish imo.
A higher power i.e. God/spirits is the answer someone said ,when asked to explain why something natural happened, that they couldn't explain.
One thing is true... even if our current "big bang" wasn't the first nore the last, like in a recycling universe scenario, it would still have to start up somewhere, because of the scientific principal that you cannot have an infinate causes of existance... you need an uncaused first cause. Even if you have a multiple universe generator churning out thousands and millions of universes all co-existing in different dimentions, you still need a first universe and subsequent universes after that... no matter how many you have, you first have one. And even then, the universe generator has to come from somewhere with all the appropriate materials in place to assemble them in the first place.
Now, for the endlessly recycling universe theory to work, the universe's "fuel" would need to be able to be recycled as well. But, according to the laws of thermodynamics, this isn't so. In fact, the universe is running down, using up all of its fuel. Of course, what may come to your mind at this point is that stars are constantly being born in the aftermath of other stars' deaths. But honestly, this has never been observed but has been hypothesized. A problem with this, is that if stars are constantly being observed as being created in our universe, and the stars have billions of years of life spans each, then our night sky will be totally full of stars, many times more than we see today.
As for the uncaused First cause, this actually lines up with the laws of physics, because again, you can't get something from nothing without an uncaused First cause. True, time as we understand it today is a human concept, many theories and beliefs about the function of time gone down through the ages (linear/circular), it is still observable fact that one event leads to the occurance of another event, like when you flip a switch and a light comes on. Everything that happens has a cause, and everything that is created has a cause to bring it into existance. No matter what your concept of time is, this is still physical fact.
But who or what created God, then, if this is so?
This is the foundation of the "kalam" or "uncaused First cause" argument.
People often make the mistake in saying Christians err claiming God is eternal and doesn't have a cause of existance. The "Who Made God?" argument posed by such people says that if everything that exists has a cause to bring it into existance, then God must also have a cause. To say God is uncaused, they say, is to negate the whole argument posed by Christians. A common mistake, though, is saying everything has a cause. As already said, everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
How do we know just one God created the universe instead of endless gods like in the "Who Made God" scenario?
It is a universally accepted principle of scientific methodology that multiplying causes beyond what is necessary to explain an effect is unnecessary. This is called Ockham's Razor.
How do we know that the Christian God created the universe and not some other?
Here is a 10 point line of reasoning that might help. This is taken from "The Christian Combat Manual" by Dan Story.
1. The First Cause must be supernatural (beyond nature) rather than natural.
Because the universe is finite and bound to natural processes,
it could not come to be on its own.
2. A supernatural First Cause who can choose to create
would be a free agent with a free will--thus a living Being with personality.
3. In order to create all that exists,
this Being must be more intelligent and powerful than the creation itself.
(An event cannot be greater than its cause.)
4. Because He is the First Cause, "He" must be uncaused and self-existing,
changeless, timeless (because He created time),
and infinate (must be infinate to be a First Cause).
5. To be Creator, He must be omniscient (have all knowledge),
omnipresent (be present everywhere at once),
and omnipotent (all powerful).
6. He must be Spirit rather than material.
He could not be a physical Being if He is present everywhere.
7. As Creator of moral beings (people), He must be perfect in goodness and love.
We could not know that we are imperfect
if we could not compare ourselves to a perfect Creator.
8. He must be righteous and holy because He created a moral universe.
An evil creator would not create a moral universe.
9. As a holy Being, He would have to condemn and punish sin.
10. As a loving Being, He would have to provide an opportunity to receive forgiveness.
That opportunity came to us in the form of Jesus Christ, God's Son, God incarnate. Out of His wonderful love for us Jesus died on the cross to take on our sins, and rose again conquering death and the grave to give us hope and a future in Him. Why not give yourself to Him today?
I hope this explains what "couldn't be explained".
Pacem, let's say (for the sake of discussion) I do believe God created the universe and he exists, like I did truly believe a few years back. The problem I have is this:
Who decides what a sin is? Why is sex out of marriage a sin? Why is masturbation a sin? Why is homosexuality a sin? Is it because sex is only supposed to be used in the creation of life? What is more sinful, having protected sex and preventing a baby, or giving birth to an unwanted baby that may not even be able to be financially supported, thus live a bad life.
Why is cursing (f**k, s**t) a sin? When they are words? Shouldn't the emotions behind the words be the sin? Say if I say "Oh f**k I died" why is that a sin? When all I am doing is displaying frustration. Why is it a sin when someone says "I am going to f**k you up!" and not when they say "I am going to mess you up" if the feelings and emotion behind it are the same?
This goes for many sins. If a God does exist we have no idea what are sins and what aren't. Considering the Bible was written by man, the Commandments seem to be the only rules given directly by God (even though there is no proof for them.) So let me go over the Commandments.
I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
Alluding to the fact that there may well be more Gods? But he is the most powerful?
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
A very cocky and demanding God. So far none of these commandments have anything to do with being a good person.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Most people don't even do this anymore, to hell with them all?
Honor your father and mother
A good general rule, BUT too much of a blanket statement. If parents disrespect their children, then children do not have to respect their parents. Among other abuses parents can do to their children.
You shall not kill
Another good rule in general, but God apparently doesn't follow his own Commandments.
You shall not commit adultery
What if all parties involved agree on it? Example: An open marriage? other then that, a good general rule.
You shall not steal
Another good general rule, but some do it so they and their family can survive.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
So, no lying against our neighbor, so no slander and such. A good general rule.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
Well, this assumes that we own our wives.....you can see the problems here.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
I guess this is emphasizing, no stealing.
So let's see, the ten rules God did give use directly. Six of them are pretty worthless. (The five about how God is our ruler and such, and the double about stealing) The other few are pretty general and there are so many exceptions.
I just don't like the way people say this is a sin, and that is a sin, when most "sins" are just man-made rules used for control.
EDIT: I noticed I put some extra commandments in. So my Commandments may not be accurate, but as far as I know, they are close, correct me if I am wrong Pacem.
We can tackle these one by one. I appologize for my long absence. Scripture will be referenced here, which you can look up readily if you do not have a Bible, at http://www.biblegateway.com.
All these are sins basically because God told us that they were sins in His word, the Bible. God told us that much of what you have listed here is a sin for our own benifit, not because God wants to play hardball with us and not let us have any fun. On the contrary, there are very good reasons why God told us not to do many things.
For example, sex outside of marriage has much pleasure I will not deny that. But the consequences are often not thought of. Many that do have sex outside of marriage result in the woman getting pregnant with a child, leading many times to the killing of the baby before it's born. In the instances that the woman chooses not to have the baby killed, it is born, and the father of the child has nothing to do with, nor is interested in caring for this child at all.
Even disreguarding all of that, it can prove to be very expensive for the father of the child when he's required to pay child support forever-and-a-day.
Sex inside of a monogamous relationship (marriage), though, provides not only for the husband and wife because they truely love each other, but because it also provides for the child in having a stable family setting with both mother and father there, caring and nurturing, the child as a result growing up to be a good person (hopefully).
So, there are many reasons God had in mind for labeling many things a sin, for our own sake.
Homosexuality is another topic. Now, if you truely hold to a naturalistic view, homosexuality is absolutely detrimental to the natural order of things in the way that it does absolutely nothing to assist in the propogation of the species. It does nothing to increase numbers for a more stable foothold and does nothing but provide mis-placed pleasure to those involved. People say homosexuality is natural, but if enough of a species, human or otherwise, engaged in this, it would eventually lead to extinction.
This is only one reason God has labeled homosexuality a sin. There are, of course, other reasons, such as God set it up from the beginning that a man should be with a woman in the bonds of marriage (Genesis 2:23-24, Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8), and that the very sight of it is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
If the feelings and emotion behind it are the same, why not choose not to cuss?
It is what is in the heart that makes a man clean or unclean (Mark 7:18-23).
In all of history, it is words that have caused great revivals and great wars. Many today are killed simply over words spoken. Words are very powerful, and to say "words will never hurt me" is a mistake.
One more thing in this section should also be pointed out. We should be very careful in what we say to others, because God will make us give an account for every careless word ever spoken in this lifetime (Matthew 12:35-37).
Actually, the 10 commandments are not the only rules given directly by God. There are many other places in the Bible where God directly, verbally tells people what is right and what is wrong. He also spoke through His prophets (who have a track record of being 100% correct to this very day), and we also have the words of Jesus himself, who was literally God in the flesh and spoke to us directly.
Now, let's go over what you have listed here.
Pretty point blank there.
Not really. Consider today's society... money can be a god for some. For others it can be material possessions. Even for others it can be your girlfriend or even your wife, if you put her before God.
God is not saying here that other gods truely exist, but acknowledges the fact that there are false gods out there. If God had said, "You shall have no other false gods before me, God would in effect be saying he was one of those false gods, which He isn't. He is the ONLY God (Isaiah 44:6-8).
This is self-explanetory. Since it was God that created us and loves us, he is jealous (and even hurt) that we would turn away from him and go to other things like idols.
The Bible is very specific about this (1 Corinthians 10:18-20 ), and God explains about idols and the foolishness of worshipping them in great detail (Isaiah 44:7-20). The way God explains it here makes you sad and makes you laugh at the same time... "Shall I bow down to a block of wood?"
On the contrary. Every single command, as I have explained them, have everything to do with both being a good person and following God's will (which in effect makes you a good person). Now, as mentioned before, since God had lovingly created us and loves us, just like us He would be insulted if we used His name in a derogatory way, or used it as a swear word. How would you feel, friend, if people used your name as a swear word, so that when a person hears it that it would mean only something bad?
I do not think this is cocky or demanding of God at all.
But, even though many of us do things that hurt God and make Him sad, God will never seek to "get us back" for what we do to Him. He still loves us and wants the best for us, and He waits for as long as we have breath in our bodies to come to Him. And He gives us every opportunity to do so.
No. Yes, it is a commandment by God. God rested on the 7th day and made it holy (Genesis 2:3, Exodus 20:11).
So the question arises, "Why worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, where the origional Sabbath was?"
Partly, the answer to that can be found in the resurrection of Jesus Himself. Sunday worship today exists because of the death and resurrection of Christ, and the Sabbath was officially moved to that day in remembrance of His rising again from the dead, giving us direct access to God (formerly through a priest), and abolishing the sacrificial system that was in place, since Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb to pay for the sins of the world. Now, we come to worship and celebrate His rising again and our forgiveness, expressing our love for Him evern Sunday (should be every day, really).
Romans 14:5-6 helps to explain things as far as days of worship. Both Saturday AND Sunday can be considered Sabbath days.
If you want to get a better idea of what sin is and what sin isn't, read the entire chapter of Romans 14. It is quite interesting.
Of course you should honor your father and mother, as any good child should treat parents that treat their children right.
As far as bad parents, the Bible has instructions on how to treat your children, and warns of the results if you do not treat them right (2 Corinthians 12:14, Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20).
Some think spanking is bad these days, but consider Proverbs 13:24 that says, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."
But, there are extremes to this. Abuse is clearly wrong, which is reflected in Jesus' "Golden Rule" that you should do to others as you would have them do to you. This includes how you want your parents to treat you, then transferring that love and affection to your children.
Look closely at Ephesians 6:1-3 which says:
Children, obey your parents in the Lord. If your parents are in the Lord, then they will treat you the right way. If they are not, then that leaves the door open to all sorts of abuse and bad things. If they are in the Lord, the children are commanded to obey them, "for this is right."
This is an interesting topic. What is not often considered when we blame God for things, especially here in this commandment, is that the commandment is specifically for US. God, as the creator of everything, owns everything. We are His creation, and He, by all rights, can do with us what He pleases. But God is not an evil God. In His love He chooses to redeem His creation through His son, Jesus the Christ. It is through Him that we have a hope and a future through grace and not by any works that we can do ourselves.
For a specific answer to your question, are you referring to natural disasters both past and present, or stories in the Bible where God commands specifically to kill or takes life Himself?
In the former, it is simply a matter of choosing where one wants to live. Take for example Katrina and New Orleans. New Orleans is situated in a dry lake bed that is basically a bowl, the bottom of which is below sea level. Additionally it is situated right beside a river that without levies would naturally flood the lake basin. People thought it was a judgement from God for the sin that went on there, but it was only the bad judgement calls of town planners and the people that chose to live there, most likely unawares of the potential (and inevitable) dangers.
In the latter, God's judgements are never biased on feelings or evil intent, since God is always good. This is a touchy subject. When God gave the land of Canaan to His people, do you think that the people living there would agree to just move out, even if God told them to do so directly? No, conflict would be inevitable and indeed happened.
Now, these were by no means "good people." The majority of them were pagans that practiced all sorts of horrible things. Yes, there was even the killing of children, but as is evident in other places in the Bible, children do indeed go to heaven.
When someone dies, if that person is just a child or someone that came to Christ, death is only a sort of speed bump. It is really not the end. So, to die in Him, whether you be an innocent child or saved, you would still live on after death, not just in the hearts and minds of others, but in actual real life. God's killing of children to us would very understandably, from our point of view, be horrendous. But, from God's point of view (which is always right), He was actually saving those children from a life inevitably away from God, and damn themselves through what they learned from their parents and put into practice. This way, the children remain innocent and enjoy a long life of eternity and reward in heaven with Him.
This was touched on earlier in the first quote of this post. Adultery leads ultimately to abortions and children without both parents/children in adoption agencies for as much as 10 years. I myself am adopted, but was adopted as an infant. I had many problems and was neglected as a baby by my biological mother (I was born out of wedlock).
Now you'd probably say that without that sin, I wouldn't be here today talking against it because I would not be born!
But in counter to that, whether it be in sin or out of sin, God determines the time and place we are all born and has a purpose for all of us (Acts 17:26).
So does that mean adultery is validated? No. Firstly, God commands against it, making it not valid. Secondly, even without adultery, God will still place us where He wants us, for the plans He has for us He has had since before He even created time itself (Jeremiah 29:11).
Very good point. However, even in remote areas in the USA there are avenues available for people to use so that they would not have to steal to survive and provide for their families. There are many soup kitchen establishments that provide free meals to people that are down-and-out. There are also churches that provide food pantry services for people with low incomes that would not be able to afford shopping at a regular grocery store. My own church has what is called a "Loaves and Fishes" ministry, the name hearking to when Jesus fed the multitudes with very little. This has been a very successful outreach feeding many. There are also organizations like the Salvation Army that help people in need.
Besides lying being a sin that God very much disapproves of, also refer to the "Golden Rule." God values honesty and entegrity very highly.
Actually, it does not assume that at all. Yes, it is true that at one time, and even in most of the Middle East today, women are considered nothing more than property, and in some cases if a husband is displeased with his wife, he can kill her and go on about his business.
But this is not the case here. Coveting a neighbor's wife is called fornication, which desecrates the marriage vow and destroys the family. The children are left disallusioned and in many cases turning away from God, blaming Him for it.
It indeed could be considered that, yes.
Here is the actual list of the Ten Commandments:
I hope this helps.
Hi, I'm god.
Not much, just chillin' in the garden. Y'all can come back any time now, if you remember the way.
Interesting referencing Deuteronomy for moral guidance. I believe Sharia law refers to this book as well. Isn't that nice?
Here's what I think of the bible or whichever prophecy...
Some guys got together ( i say guys cause nearly all of the authors of "holy text" persecuted women.)., and came up with all sorts of generalities to try to scare people into following their ways.
Sure they probably had the idea of using it to create order, but they soon used it to make a buck.
The word of god. Word of man says I. The Bible as it stands is a post dark ages manifestation of the work of madmen and power mongers.
I get told,"o but they are actually the letters and stories of christ's followers, put down by scribes." O yeah. Parchment from 75 bc was still so prevalent nearly 1500 years later.
And of all this correspondance and manifesto, you expect me to believe this most holy fellow never laid ink to paper to jot his own thoughts down?
Not so much as a list of why he was here, or even a note to a pal who was feeling down survived buy the annals of all his fellows did?
I was walking my dog today and he dropped a pile of holy scripture in my neighbors lawn. I must preserve the prophecy!
Must be hard packin those stone books around.
God didn't write the da^n thing. Rich guys and wanna be rich guys did, gave it to the fearful and ignorant, and it is passed down to blindly obedient masses who can't take charge of their own lives, or responsibility for their actions.
My god is reason, in the name of His Son, the truth. In the name of sanity, go in peace brothers AND sisters.
So if a gal goes to town and bangs a guy in a bar, they both screwed, but if she is home plantin' beans and she bangs the fuller brush man, he dies, but she lives as long as she has the chores done?
Mighty funny rules.
Tell me then how they wanted to be rich when the apostles gave up everything to follow Jesus, and sacrificed their very lives for what they knew to be the truth? You can't get rich if you die, and you don't willingly and knowingly die for something that you know to be a lie. If I were one of those fellows and I wanted to get rich from it, I certainly would not be sticking around for some ppl to come and execute me! I'd get the heck outta Dodge.
Now for God not writing a thing... (only thing He wrote with His own hand were the Commandments in stone--there is actually evidence on the top of the very mountain this took place that it actually happened), then explain to me if you can, the Bible's PERFECT track record of being 100% correct in everything that has been studied about it to date?
If just mere humans wrote it alone without direction from above, there would be errors all over the place. Here you say there are, and here I say put your money where your mouth is, and list some. ^^
In fact, I will help you out and list a few supposed "contradictions" right now.
For further study, go to http://www.carm.org/ which tackles many other "contradictions" and other topics such as what true Christianity is, how to be saved, and so on.
In this post, the person I am quoting I have had the pleasure of discussing things with on the ICQ forums.
Here we go:
Both statements are true. Although it was Satan who immediately incited David, ultimately it was God who permitted Satan to carry out this provocation. Although it was Satan's design to destroy David and the people of God, it was God's purpose to humble David and the people and teach them a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation is quite similar to the first two chapters of Job in which both God and Satan are involved in the suffering of Job. Similarly, both God and Satan are involved in the crucifixion. Satan's purpose was to destroy the Son of God (John 13:2; 1 Cor 2:8). God's purpose was to redeem humankind by the death of His Son (Acts 2:14-39).
This discrepancy involves the difference in who was included in each report. In the report in 2 Samuel, the number of men of valor who drew the sword was 800,000, but did not include the standing army of 288,000 described in 1 Chronicles 27:1-15, or the 12,000 specifically attached to Jerusalem described in 2 Chronicles 1:14. Including these figures gives the grand total of 1,100,000 men of valor who composed the entire army of the men of Israel. The figure of 470,000 in 1 Chronicles 21 did not include the 30,000 men of the standing army of Judah mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:1. This is evident from the fact that the Chronicler points out that Joab did not complete the counting of the men of Judah (1 Chron. 21:6). Both calculations are correct according to the groups which were included and excluded from each report.
This is undoubtedly a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2 Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than the ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are "rbym," while the consonants for the number 4 are "rbh" (the vowels were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four thousand. It is important to point out that the origional manuscripts did not contain any error such as this.
Look closely at this quote. You will see that God's command here does not include "all" plants, but only herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of trees yeilding seed. There is no scientific contradiction here, since not all plants are herbs.
It is believed either Jeremiah or Ezra wrote this last chapter.
Whoever it was, it in no way takes away from the Bible's authority and truth, nor does it pose any contradiction. Chapters such as the one in question here have been investigated, and no fault has been found in them historically.
Some claim that both stories are true, taking the Amalekite's story as supplementary. They claim that Saul attempted suicide, but was not dead when the Amalekite arrived and finished the job. They point to the fact that the Amalekite had Saul's sword and bracelet as evidence that his account was true, as well as the fact that David punished him by death for killing the king. The objections to this view are that it contradicts the statements of 1 Samuel 31, that "Saul took a sword and fell on it" and that his armorbearer "saw that Saul was dead" (verses 4-5), as well as the inspired record that says "So Saul...died" (verse 6).
Others see the 1 Samuel story as the correct version and the one in 2 Samuel 1 as a true record of the fabrication of the Amelekite who came upon Saul after he died and thought he could gain favor with David by taking credit for the feat. They point to the fact that the story contradicts the record in 1 Samuel 31, that the Amalekite did not seem to know that Saul died by a sword, not a spear, and that 1 Chronicles 10 repeats the story as recorded in 1 Samuel, but not the fabrication of the Amalekite.
The main objections to this view are that 2 Samuel does not say his story is a lie, and that David killed him for his act. In response, he may have been killed on teh basis of his self-confession (2 Samuel 1:16). And the fact that his story was in contradiction to that in 1 Samuel may have been taken as sufficient evidence that his story was a fabrication.
Again, for more Bible evidences, and answers to many Bible "contradictions" as well as many other amazing facts, go to [urlhttp://www.carm.org/[/url]
Also, check out the book "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, where much of the info in this post came from.
Now, I take it from your sig, hakeem, that you are muslim or are at least from the Middle East... and that you hold the Koran in high reguard.
Well, my friend... if you are going to dish it out, you have to be willing to take it as well.
Let us go over each of the passages in the Bible that would seem to reference Mohammed in the Koran, shall we?
15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
This is the promise God had made to Moses, and a passage the muslims believe as a prophecy fulfilled in Mohammed, of whom the Koran claims when it refers to "The unlettered Prophet," and also the muslims claim is also mentioned in their own [scriptures], in the Law and the Gospels (Surah 7:157).
This prophecy could not be a reference to Mohammed for several reasons.
1. The term "brethren" refers to Israel, not to their Arabian antagonists. Who would God raise up for Israel a prophet from their enemies?
2. In this very context, the term "brethren" means fellow Israelites. For the Levites were told:
They shall have no inheritance among their brothers; the LORD is their inheritance, as he promised them.
3. Elsewhere in this book the term "brethren also means fellow Israelites, not a foreigner. God told them to choose a king "from among your brethren," not a "foreigner." Israel has never chosen a non-Jewish king.
4. Mohammed came from Ishmael, as even Muslims admit, and heirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. When Abraham prayed:
And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
God emphatically replied:
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." (emphasis added)
And later, God repeated His promise to Abraham:
But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. (emphasis added)
5. The Koran itself states that the prophetic line came through Isaac, not Ishael:
And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed...
The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali adds the word "Abraham" and changes the meaning as follows:
We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained Among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation.
By adding Abraham, the father of Ishmael, he can includ Mohammed, a descendent of Ishmael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham's name is not found in the original Arabic text.
6. Jesus perfectly fulfilled this verse, since
a. He was from among His jewish brethren:
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under law,
b. He fulfilled Deuteronomy 18:18 perfectly:
I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them
everything I command him.
Jesus Himself said:
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man,
then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and
that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the
Father has taught me.
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father
who sent me commanded me what to say and how to
c. He called Himself a "prophet":
In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and
the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside
The people considered him a prophet:
The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from
Nazareth in Galilee."
They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great
prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has
come to help his people."
"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a
After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did,
they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to
come into the world."
On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely
this man is the Prophet."
Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have
you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."
The man replied, "He is a prophet."
As the Son of God, Jesus was:
• Prophet (speaking to men for God)
• Priest (speaking to God from men): Hebrews 7-10
• and King (reigning over men for God): Revelation 19-20
7. Finally, there are other characteristics of the "Prophet" to come that fit only Jesus, not Mohammed, such as, He spoke with God "face to face" and He performed "signs and wonders."
"The LORD came from Sinai
and dawned over them from Seir;
he shone forth from Mount Paran.
He came with myriads of holy ones
from the south, from his mountain slopes.
Islamic scholors today believe that this verse predicts the visitations of three people: Moses (on Sinai), another to "Seir" through Jesus, and a third in "Paran" (Arabia) through Mohammed who came to Mecca with an army of "ten thousand."
Let us break down this notion for a moment.
Firstly, this claim can be easily answered by looking at a Bible map. Paran and Seir are near Egypt in the Sinai peninsula, not in Palestine where Jesus m inistered. Nor was Paran near Mecca, but hundreds of miles away near southern Palestine in the north eastern Sinai.
Furthermore, this verse is speaking of the "LORD" (not Mohammed) coming. And He is coming with "ten thousands of saints," or "myriads of holy ones," not ten thousand soldiers, as Mohammed did.
Deuteronomy 33:2 (KJV)
And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
There is absolutely no basis in this text for the Muslim claim here.
Finally, this prophecy is said to be the one "with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death"
This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death.
If it were a prediction about Islam, which has been the constant enemy of Israel, it could scarcely have been a blessing to Israel. In fact, the chapter goes on to pronounce a blessing on each of the tribes of Israel by God, who "will thrust out the enemy".
The eternal God is your refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemy before you,
saying, 'Destroy him!'
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
This is another verse that is used to argue that Jesus could not have been the predicted prophet, but was instead Mohammed.
Again, several things should be considered here.
1. The word "since" here means since Moses' death to the time this last chapter was written, most likely by Joshua. Even if Deuteronomy was written much later as some critics argue, it would still have been written many centuries before the time of Christ, and therefore, would not eliminate Him.
2. Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of this prediction of the prophet to come, not Mohammed (see comments above on Deut. 18).
3. This could not refer to Mohammed, since the prophet to come was like Moses:
who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land.
Mohammed, by his own confession, did not perform signs and wonders like Moses and Jesus (Surah 17:90-93).
4. The prophet that is to come was like Moses who spoke "face to face" with God (see Deut. 34:10 above). Mohammed never even claimed to speak to God directly, but got his revelations through angels (Surah 2:97).
But Jesus, like Moses, was:
a. a direct mediator:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant,
that those who are called may receive the promised
eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom
to set them free from the sins committed under the first
b. who communicated directly with God:
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who
is at the Father's side, has made him known.
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who
sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
3 Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness;
let your right hand display awesome deeds.
5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king's enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
This is another verse that is viewed by Muslims as another prophecy of Mohammed.
Since this verse speaks of one coming with the "sword" to subdue his enemies, it is viewed as a prediction of Mohammed, who was known as "the prophet of the sword," and claim Jesus could not possibly have been foretold here, since He never came with a sword, and site verses like the following in support:
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him (Peter), "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
But this contention fails for three reasons:
1. The very next verse in Psalms identifies the person spoken of as "God":
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
whom Jesus claimed to be:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
I and the Father are one."
But Mohammed denied he was God, saying he was only a human prophet.
2. The New Testament affirms that this passage refers to Christ:
But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
3. Although Jesus did not come the first time with a sword, He will at His second coming:
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.
12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.
15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
When he sees chariots
with teams of horses,
riders on donkeys
or riders on camels,
let him be alert,
The claim here is that the rider of the donkeys is Jesus and the rider on camels to be Mohammed, which is believed to have superseded Jesus. However, this passage is actually speaking of the fall of Babylon:
Look, here comes a man in a chariot
with a team of horses.
And he gives back the answer:
'Babylon has fallen, has fallen!
All the images of its gods
lie shattered on the ground!' "
and the news of its fall that was spread by various means, mainly horses, donkeys and camels.
God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth.
This verse is also used to point out the coming of Mohammed, and use it in connection with Deut. 33:2 (see above). Mentioned earlier above about Deuteronomy 33:2, Paran is nowhere near Mecca, but hundreds of miles away. The verse here is speaking of "God" coming. The "praise" couldn't refer to Mohammed because the subject of both "praise" and "glory" is God ("His"), and Mohammed is not God. *
* Subject matter compiled largely with the help of "When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties" by Norman L. Geisler/Thomas Howe, and can be purchased at Amazon.com.
Physician, heal thyself.
My name here, and in the real world is Hakeem. I am from the middle east, true. My Signature is indeed me, and the script, Arabic.
As for being muslim of faith,not in the slightest. I believe it,too, is by and for the benefit of those who use it to reign.
So because numbers in 2 different books of the bible concur, then it must all be true?
In a nutshell, here's how I believe it went down:
A fellow, being sick and tired of seeing how lousy the world was, set out to make a difference, similar to persons like Ghandi, or Mother Teresa. (btw religeously or not, both persons should be held in high esteem by mankind.)
As in the case of the latter 2, many people felt moved by Jesus' work, and came to follow him.
Time and greed led people of history to twist this into what we have today.
Your views are yours, and you have every right to them.
As I have to mine.
The difference between us is, you live in a place where you cannot be put to death for your beliefs.
I feel you and I have looked into each other's views, and have seen much, quite an enjoyable discourse.
In honor of such, please salute your flag for me, may it always hold sway in your land as a symbol of hope, perhaps one day my own home will hold such a symbol.
Hakeem Al-Hasir, Patriot
Well said, friend.
I am always open to go over anything in the Bible you wish. I consider it pure joy defending God's Word (though it stands up pretty well by itself), and I look forward to future conversations with you.
Besides Detuteronomy 22:22-25,
Leviticus 23 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads.'
Why do we not follow God's commands?
I saw this coming and I knew it would be brought up as soon as I quoted Deuderonomy, lol!
I truely do love these forums.
Main reason God felt such a harsh command was necessary was that in those times, God was creating the crucial foundation and building blocks for what would later play out in His design, and it was crucial that His people remained pure and followed His will. So, commands like these were constructed by Him to purge the evil from among them and to keep them on the right track.
Why are things different today? Mainly it is because of Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross.
Jesus, through that sacrifice and the attoning (payment) of our sins, gave us direct access to God, and provides to everyone the means to seek forgiveness and become a new creature in Him.
Okay, so the Law was meant for that tribe of people living in those times. God didn't give Mosiac Law to the Romans, for example.
This was the most interesting thing you wrote.
So what particularly is wrong about someone thinking that all we are IS animated matter and nothing more? There are consequences when you are a walking, talking lump of animated matter... some pretty tangible ones actually. The consequences and rewards of which you speak are, well, hearsay at best... most likely completely made up by humans.
What else is there?
What was before religion? before the concept of god?
For that, I refer you to:
The Ebla tablets
These tablets were discovered in northern Syria by two professors from the University of Rome, Dr. Paolo Matthiae, an archaeologist; and Dr. Giovanni Pettinato, an epigrapher
They predate the Babylonian accounts of creation by 600 years making it the oldest known account of creation, destroying assumptions of monotheism evolving from other religions.
It also destroys the assumption of no writing in Moses' time because it predates Moses by 1400 years.
Within the tablets is the confirmation of Abraham's victory over Chedolaomer and the kings of Mesopotamia, and also the Biblical "Cities of the Plain" of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar as real and lists them in the exact same sequence as they are listed in the Bible.
So as far as we know to date (which again backs up the Bible's accounts) the concept of God was from the very beginning.
Yes, some lore and history of the Bible came from the Old Babylonian and the much more older Sumerian civilizations. Sometimes the Bible gives a little window on life in its time, as both during Abraham and Moses the region was going through a little dark age where there are not as many sources. But I don't know who'd dare to assert there were no writing in Moses time, as writing has been found in Egypt and Sumeria over 2000 years before Moses and people have known this for hundreds of years.
Pacem your response does not related to my question but I've actualy just realised why you wouldn't be able to answer that anyhow so sorry I asked.
But look at what you quoted in your post... what you just said is not possible because the tablets pre-date these civilizations, and prove that monotheism was first on the scene.
Hmm, could you perhaps rephrase the question? I do want to answer it.
Incorrect. The Sumerian civilization dates back to 4100 BC. Anyways, any biblical theories of monotheism have been discredited.
There is no denying similarities in Biblical and Sumerian culture and myths, but this is because Sumeria is the older culture. UR was thousands of years old when Abraham departed the region.
The region at the time was 100% polytheistic and the Bible makes quite clear at that time Yahweh was considered to be one God among many Gods. Passages from the Bible have been found that are duplicated in older civilizations, except that they are polytheistic.
Babylonian tablet from the 18th century written in Sumerian, probably of Sumerian origina:
This is the contemporary culture of Abraham. The Ebla tablets are older than him, are they not? Those are interesting too though, I never heard of them until you mentioned them. But all the articles seem to say they were polytheistic, worshiping many of the same gods found in the Bible and in Sumerian myths.
No it's alright, from your stand point it's not something 'you' can debate with and it's trivial to the main point of the thread anyhow. ^^
Before the concept of religion was shamanism, before the concept of god was animism. Before the Priest was the Witch Doctor. Is that what you were asking?
Yes, along thoughs lines yes ^^b I was trying to imply before god there was only Man and Magic/ritual. The earliest form of what we could loosely call shamanism was the precusor to god or that is in my opinion. In the context of the arguement, I was trying to mount another line to the lack of need of christianitys 'moral compass' in the developement of our humanity. Those who run crying to god every time the **** hits the fan are insiginifcant creatures and far from being human. When was the last time you prayed without asking for anything?
On another note, what do you think about the many books that were left out of the bible? Which for many, have alot more revelence to our lives today.
I just finished reading the Bible for the first time and I haven't gotten to the books 'left out of the bible' yet. The Book of Enoch sounds interesting, but I think I'm going to read the Koran next.
One thing that surprised me about the Old Testament was how much history it had of those times from around 1800 BC to 200 BC. Not only history, it gives a sense of living in those times, with Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanite cultures. It talks about Gods of the time and their rituals as well as the geopolitical landscape of the nations.
The Christian altruistic moralizing isn't there in the Old Testament. Yahweh is a patron god of his city, one god among a political/regional landscape of gods. When he's pleased with his people, he gives them military and economic success, but when he's angry, he let's their enemies (and enemies' Gods) punish them. This God isn't someone you run to when afraid, rather its someone to be very afraid of, like a mean father who kicks your ass everyday but makes you tough so all the other kids in the neighborhood respect you, but he might kill you next time he gets drunk like he did your sister when he found out she was sleeping around, but you love him anyways because he's your dad.
LoL more like kicks your ass everyday, so you have repressed emotional fear of your father and you take it out on the kids smaller than you at school and they fear you just as you fear your dad. Yet, sadly instinct dictates that we "love" our parents for survival, no matter how dickish they are lol. I see no respect though lol
Ah guess you have a few emotional issues yourself huh?
I just wanted to interject here, that if you really think the God of the Old Testament is nothing but vengeful, take some time to read the book of Psalms.
In it, you will find that the majority give nothing but praise and adoration to Him... not out of abject fear and horror, but out of fear (as in awe and reverance, since He IS God), and true, meaningful love.
God as portraid in the Psalms IS One you can run to for refuge in times of trouble, and makes us no less human by doing so. But, in a way, you are right. By coming to Him, we deny ourselves and our human nature but that is in no means a loss. What we gain in return our human selves could never acheive on our own. His rewards are far, far greater.
Again, you are also correct. To be fully human in nature, we would have to rely on ourselves and our own faults, frailties and lustful desires that in the majority of cases leads only to heartache and trouble. Look at the world today, the people that are not His children... the people that are "fully human".
See the trouble? See the heartache?
To come to Him is to deny our human nature and rely on Him.
Don't tell me you've read the entire Bible in that short a time.
Actually our first conversation earlier in the thread motivated me to read it. I realized how much literature written assumes a familiarity with the Bible. I also realized I was talking like I was familiar with it but I wasn't. So I started reading it a few months back, finally finishing the Apocalypse today.
I think the Moses story is the most difficult part to get through, but the repetition is good for immersing yourself into the story later on. The book becomes very readable at Judges and the first part of Kings. The Exile story sneaks up further on like a dramatic turn in the narrative. The Psalms and Proverbs were very boring, but I enjoyed the prophets Issiah, Jeramiah, and Ezechiel. There's something about the Old Testament that is very motivating. I think its the imagery of a wrathful God that does this.
The New Testament was not nearly as enjoyable or inspiring for me. It was interesting to finally read it for myself though.
Ha no nothing like that happened to me but I didn't like his conclusions and analogies.