How do you know you got it right?

TheAristocat · Feb 10, 2012

I've read parts of the Qur'an, and it's hard to follow sometimes because it seems like a collection of random thoughts rather than any coherently flowing story. I've even had Muslims explain this in such a way that they said that was due to the fact that the author had a nomadic life-style and couldn't write the Qur'an all down at once, but that doesn't really make sense since you can always continue writing an unfinished work.

Anyway, that was my first impression. My second is that, while Christianity could be arguably a later development that sprung from Judaism, it also makes the most philosophical sense. Religions like Islam/Mormonism have come after the fact but do not seem to follow in the foot-steps of Judeo-Chrisitianity but rather divorce themselves from Torah - which was the foundation God laid for the Jewish faith. And plenty of Jews agree with this and choose to call themselves Messianic Jews.

TheAristocat · Feb 10, 2012

[B said:

I noticed something just now while reading from one of the links listed in your post. You seem to be implying, first, in your post that you are an ex-Christian (though you've not come right out and said as much), but the links you list seem to be really mis-informed about Judeo-Christianity from what I've seen so far. Your research must've been greatly one-sided with a slant toward Islam.

I see statements like "Gospels like Torah" when "Gospel" is a combination of the Old English words "God" and "Spell" which respectively mean "good" and "story". The etymology of the word shows a relation to the phrase "good news" for which meaning our word "Gospel" stands today. The Torah was the teaching of God and could be said to be "good news" since it contained predictions concerning the Messiah's coming and God's atoning sacrifice, but I can't shake the impression I've been left with that the phrase "good news" didn't come about until after the Messiah's more obvious appearance in the books comprising the New Testament.

With the statement of "Around 150 A.D, the Word 'Gospel' was used for the books of 'Saint Justin'" found on the above website I can't help but think it's meant to imply that the phrase "good news" was only used later around A.D. 150.

Also it lumps the Torah in with the rest of the Gospels to discredit both the Old and New Testaments together in one swoop, but in doing so it fails to make the distinction between the assumed oral tradition of the Torah and the written copies of the New Testament. Then it seems to imply that since the Qur'an was written down more quickly than the Gospels (in which it mistakenly included the assumed oral tradition of the Torah in its entirety) that it is more trust-worthy and less prone to error. But it must even be assumed that the Torah was once passed down through oral tradition rather than having been written down since the Torah itself denies that claim with repeated claims to the contrary.

These claims of its written medium are seen in the law of phylacteries which command us to bind the laws upon our foreheads and hands (which you cannot do if said laws were only passed on through oral tradition) and other passages it refers to as having been recorded in writings such as the Book of Jashar, Book of the Law of Moses and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. There is also passing mention of reading which cannot be done if the Torah was entirely passed on through oral tradition. I think these are relatively unbiased claims that do not have anything to prove but instead contradict the claim of an oral tradition without having to try.

TheAristocat · Feb 10, 2012

So far I like the author's ability to reason in his article here: http://www.real-god.com/en/archives/26. But he doesn't seem to know enough about Christianity or Judaism to reason about them in such a way so as to discredit them. He also doesn't understand the use of the word "God." In Old English it was most likely a word used for summoned spirits and not a First Cause and Supreme Power.

That is why even the pagans, who had their pantheons of gods, often had supreme gods. And their word for "god" you might actually find to mean something akin to "power." In fact in the Bible we are said to be "gods" but the word for "god" here does not mean a supreme being but rather a "power" or "el."

And "elohim" means multiple, individual "powers" except when a single power or "el" is assumed such as with God Almighty. Then "elohim" implies a "supreme power" or "power of all powers" and is only ever applied to a supreme god such as the false god "B*al" among the pagan Caananites' pantheon or to the one, true God "Elohim" of Judeo-Christians.

TheAristocat · Feb 10, 2012

Also the following is mentioned on that website:

The assertion is that there is no need for a sacrifice for atonement because God can forgive anyone on a whim. On the surface that makes sense, but I would like to present the following argument that if a God who killed even one sinner would pardon another without a sacrifice that he would be a hypocrite. For this argument I will start from some of the most fundamental teachings within Christianity:

1. If God just changed Satan into a benevolent being, then he would have had to do away with Satan's free will. Satan's will is against God's, and no amount of seeing God's power for himself would change his mind to align his will with God's.

2. God requires the death of the sinner. Why? Because sin ultimately leads to death. Satan's sin can be seen all over the world today: wars, lies, thieving, murdering. Although it sounds hypocritical at first, killing a murderer to do away with death is a logical option. Otherwise the murderer, with his free will, will just murder again. Sin leads to death, so the sinner must die to cause death to cease.

3. If God required a death penalty of sinners with no atonement, then he would have no creation because all of his creation would die. So he needed atonement.

4. If he did not kill himself to make atonement for our lives then he would be holding himself to a different standard than he held us to and this would be hypocritical. He would essentially be saying, "I require the life of a sinner out of practicality. But I do not want to pay such a high price myself, so I will reconcile sinners to myself using a double standard." God does not like hypocrisy.

5. Atonement means "buying back". If Christ had sinned then Christ would have died for his own sins, and we would have died for our own sins as well. Christ's sacrifice then would have no atoning value. This is why Christ had to be sinless, and this is why a perfect life was needed to be offered. Otherwise he would have died a sinner's death in vain.

Atonement does not necessarily mean a blood sacrifice, but it does in the case of someone's life. For the life of a person is in their blood. You want a life? You have to offer a life. So I submit that a perfect God, who both requires the death of a sinner but who wants to atone for a sinner's life, must offer himself as a sacrifice. Otherwise he becomes a hypocrite and becomes tainted by sin. He then becomes something other than God, and we should not worship him.

Katy-follower · Feb 10, 2012

Saul_Durian said:

You missed my second reply further up, which was in response to your opening questions..

Saul_Durian · Feb 10, 2012

Katy-follower said:

Ok, I re-read. I see you did answer my question.

But I have a couple quick notes on your points. You say it is impossible for men to write the bible without God? Why would it be?

You said that the Bible has no contradictions, many people would argue that, even other Christians.

You say the Bible has never been wrong? There are several prophecies that did not come true.

Now, I do believe that the Bible was inspired by God, I really do. But humans wrote it, and I think it is obvious that the writings in the Bible were influenced by the people and the times they lived in.

My evidence of that is that today, many people do not follow the rules set forth in the Bible, many of those rules would be even considered offensive today.

I think the Bible came from a good place, I think God did intend to inspire people to write his word. But I also believe that humans are not perfect, and some of that imperfection can be found in the written Bible.

Mich223 · Feb 10, 2012

Did you check out the youtube video, Why I hate religion, but love Jesus. Interesting.

Saul_Durian · Feb 10, 2012

Mich223 said:

Yea, good video. I am not a fan of that guys pastor though.

CBM82 · Feb 11, 2012

I look at it like this...

Lets say I die one day and come to find out there is no God and the bible was not true.....what do I lose? I will be dead. I wont care that I was wrong. It wont matter that I was wrong. I wont know or feel anything...I'll be dead. So, if its all a lie, the consequence of me believing will be the same as the consequence of someone who doesn't believe....we both are dead. At least while I was alive I had peace, joy, and comfort in my false belief.

However, lets suppose that God is real and the bible is true....what do you have to lose by not believing? You will lose your soul and spend eternity in hell. So there is no risk in believing and a huge risk in not believing.

How do I know Christianity is the right "religion"? Because I just know that I know. My heart convinces me of it. Faith requires faith. I believe Christians are the most blessed people on the face of the earth because God blesses those who love him. I see no real reason in my mind not to believe the bible and every reason to believe it. When I read the bible it is more than just words on paper. The way it affects me is like nothing else.

Christianity is all about God reaching out to man through Jesus which makes sense in my mind. You just have to accept him. In every other religion man has to reach out to God Man has to be good enough for God which is impossible. So for me....Christianity is possible and all other religions are impossible.

The bible says "seek and you shall find." I think you should seek with your heart, not with your mind.

Saul_Durian · Feb 11, 2012

CBM82 said:

You spoke about being a believer and being right...go to heaven. If you are wrong and there is no God, then no big loss.

I have another scenario for you. What if you die and you go on to find Zeus and Hades waiting for you on the other end of the tunnel. And they are not happy that you listened to some guy from desert?

I know that is a stretch but, I see that argument alot. 'Either A is right and I am good, or B is right and it doesn't matter, while completely forgetting about C.

But beyond all that, I agree with you, and enjoyed your comments

God Bless

kujo313 · Feb 11, 2012

Saul_Durian said:

The answer lies in what the religion says about Jesus. That's where the line is drawn.

We learn that God forbids other gods, images of them or any Heavenly beings, consulting the dead, and other things. Don't even think about them.

Then, what do you do next?

Do what Jesus instructs us to do. Paul teaches about WHAT to do (get with other believers, grow in your faith, use your gifts and talents while you're on Earth, etc.).

Knowing all this, you'll be able to know just what religions to stay away from.

Myself, I believe in Acts 2. It's only common sense to take heart that in His presence is FULLNESS of JOY.

Anywho, just some thoughts. Hope it helps.

nath1234 · Feb 11, 2012

CanadaNZ said:

Islam is not a peacefull religion if it was there would be peace between Israel and the Islamic nations around it the truth being told the extreemists are thouse who actualy follow the Koran yes that is corect "the media has sold you the lie that Islam is a peacefull religion " have you heard about the Islamic parents who murdered there own daughter (in America) for going out with a christian. does this sound like a peacefull religion to you and surly you should know that if a Islamic person becomes a christian they will be killed by there own famly does this sound like apeacefull religion to you please do you research Islam is only peacefull when the % pop is small.

Nath

Saul_Durian · Feb 11, 2012

nath1234 said:

Islam is not a peacefull religion if it was there would be peace between Israel and the Islamic nations around it the truth being told the extreemists are thouse who actualy follow the Koran yes that is corect "the media has sold you the lie that Islam is a peacefull religion " have you heard about the Islamic parents who murdered there own daughter (in America) for going out with a christian. does this sound like a peacefull religion to you and surly you should know that if a Islamic person becomes a christian they will be killed by there own famly does this sound like apeacefull religion to you please do you research Islam is only peacefull when the % pop is small.

Nath

To be fair here...the Bible calls for alot of violence too. And killing disobedient children is one of those.

Imaan · Feb 11, 2012

TheAristocat said:

Quran is not a story or history book, to stay in a neutral side, it has some rules which we can use them in our lives today as MUhammad himself said and also this Quran never changed and mutilated in the course of history as itself predicted this issue.
so the way of Quran's explanation is that you see a rule or advice, so to make it more clear, it talks about the real stories of previous people after that, like someone doubted about hereafter, so Quran explained the life of one of the prophets which asked God same question and god died him for 100 years and after that revived him and showed him his donkey is destroyed but his food beside him is not changed in this 100 years.
or you see the different aspects of Moses' life which is used for different subjects.

it's a so funny answer to say the author had a nomadic life-style, while Muhammad 53 years lived in Mecca and the last 10 years in Medina and also Quran is not Muhammad's thoughts, it's like the original Torah, the divine book.

Imaan · Feb 11, 2012

nath1234 said:

First of all the issue of Islam and Israeel is a special issue. if you take a look at the history you see in 1400 years ago when Jews according to their predictions about a new prophet went to Mecca to be the first people who accept and obey this prophet, when they saw this is Muhamad, it was the time where Jews started being against Muslims.
so all these 1400 years they tried to act against what Muslims act (like jews tribes in Arabic saudia)

second: why you don't look at the other aspects?
wars, women, etc...
did you know it was a rule that when Muslims are in a battle field, they have to do 3 steps before fighting:
1- they have to declare that we're ready not to fight with you and live in peace beside each other
2- if they didn't accept the peace, Muslims say we only fight with your men, not women, nor children nor even old people and nor injured men.
3- then it's forbidden to destroy anything of that people's houses, also it's forbidden to poison their water or fire their houses, or even follow injuries to kill them, etc.
now take a look at deuteronomy:13:15-18 and see the rules for fighting. which one is more peaceful?
killing all inhabitants and even their cattle? firing and burning everything?

keshka · Feb 12, 2012

CBM82 said:

So, to paraphrase, you have two prime reasons for being religious:

1) Because it makes you feel good.
2) Because it removes the risk that you might go to Hell when you die.

Excuse me, but isn't this is a bit selfish? Isn't it better to not believe at all, than to believe for the wrong reasons?

It's so easy for the dying man, fearful of death, to 'find God' on his deathbed so that he goes to Heaven, rather than Hell - after all, he's just hedging his bets!

Is belief in God and in Jesus and in Heaven enough? I'm not sure it is.

In my view, a true Christian must seflessly succumb to the love of God in order to reach Heaven; I'm not altogether sure that 'it makes me feel good' and 'I don't fancy the idea of Hell' are good enough reasons to be spared eternal damnation.

keshka · Feb 12, 2012

Imaan said:

To be fair, ALL the religious texts have their problems.

Arabic, as it existed then, existed in all sorts of different dialects and methods of inscription. In its written form, there are no short vowels, and only small dots to signify different sounds such as 'B' and 'P'.

As such, it's possible to get many different meanings from the source text*. The most famous example:

According to the Koran, when read in Arabic, when Muslim men are martyred, they go to Heaven, where they are presented with many virgin girls. A better incentive for suicide bombers and terrorists I have never heard!

However, the words can equally be read in Syriac-Aramaic (rather than Arabic), in which case it means a different thing entirely: instead of virgins, martyrs are presented with wine and fine raisins!

Just imagine how much less terrorism the world would have faced if the only incentive to martyr yourself was a multi-pack of Sun Maid and a couple bottles of Sauvignon Blanc!

*By source text, I refer to the writings that we now know as the Koran. The book wasn't codified until many years after Muhammad's death, by which time the original text had been copied and re-copied so much that - like an extended game of chinese whispers - it's difficult to ascertain whether or not the Koran we have now is truly representative of Muhammad's original teachings and writings.

TheAristocat · Feb 13, 2012

Imaan said:

Well, I researched this a little, and it seems in order to get these predictions of Muhammad from the Bible one needs to modify the word "parakletos" to make it something it isn't, ignore the evidence that the Holy Spirit is this parakletos, twist Isaiah into saying that Israel would go to Kedar instead of the flocks of Kedar coming to Israel - even to the temple of God as sacrifices, make out like house of God where sacrifices are being made is not the temple of God but rather the Ka'bah, etc. In short, there's a lot of arm twisting of Scripture, and when Scripture absolutely doesn't jive with what the Muslims want it to say then they just blow it off as being "interpolated" or in error as they like to claim about the Bible.

TheAristocat · Feb 14, 2012

keshka said:

In my view belief in the Gospel message is enough. But belief isn't always easy to come by, and one wonders if you don't do anything for your beliefs then do you really believe them? So I think it's a matter of what God has done for us and not what we can do for God, but what we can do for ourselves is another matter. And I think doing good deeds for God helps us keep the faith to some extent.

I think there may be a lot of people who say they're Christian, but then if they look death in the face they'll probably be unsure of what's on the other side. And whether or not that means they're saved, they're faith is still in a perilous position at that point in time. God made it relatively easy for us, but that doesn't mean that Satan will stop trying to make it hard on us.

nath1234 · Feb 14, 2012

Saul_Durian said:

nowhere in the bible does it arpprove the use of force or violence to convert anyone to christianity

nath

How do you know you got it right?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Mich223

Guest

Banned

CBM82

Guest

Banned

kujo313

Guest

nath1234

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

keshka

Guest

keshka

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

nath1234

Guest