Joel's Islam questions answered

[Joel]

You know RedRed you are very good at taking anything anyone says and twisting in around to fit your agenda. You should have been a lawyer or a politician.

Anyway, getting back on track, the quotes were in response to Wombat's assersion that Muslims do believe in the Bible and practice what it says. Look at it this way, if everyone lived according to the Laws of God as seen in the Bible then there would be no need for wars or conflicts of any sort for that matters. As far as the Christian stance on War, I will point you to a few websites, that is if you are willing to take the time to read them, that might shed a little more light on this than I feel that I can do.

Here's three good articles concerning the 'Just War' principle.

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$595

http://www.breakpoint.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID2228|CHID100546|CIID836768,00.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory101501b.shtml

And a thread on the discussion of Christians and their support of War.

http://forums.crosswalk.com/webx?128@143.GsVkablIHna1@.ee9dc03

Is this a fair enough description?

No, I don't think so, but that is my opinion.

I am not trying to disrespect ANYONES belief...

...and again I do not mean to disrespect anyones faith...

And if I was to say that I am offended by what you said would you remove it and apologize? That would be the politically correct thing to do.

The last two quotes also seem to suggest, and again I do not mean to disrespect anyones faith, that there would be further Prophets (perhaps including Mahommid)?

Personally I don't think, again this is my opinion, that they were refering to someone who would come along and contradict the Bible for his own political gains.

Joel

[Wombat]

you are very good at taking anything anyone says and twisting in around to fit your agenda.

I was thinking the same thing about sites like "Islam answered", or if you go to the "watchtower" website and read their stances on other faiths.

Anyone gets really good at manipulating another's story. This is especially true of religion. Most major religions do it to survive and expand. It's a zero-net problem. There is no definitive "Truth."

[Joel]

There is no definitive "Truth."

Then why are we even discussing this? You have your beliefs and I have mine and I don't think there is anything that can be said either way that will change that.

Joel

[RedRed]

Well said, Wombat

Yeah Joel - I was twisting!

I was not trying to Dis anyones faith, it is too important to many people (irrespective of their particular flavour). The point is that the term 'Truth' would suggest that there is one definitive answer. To assume that Christians have it puts the other religions (and therefor the majority of inhabitants of the planet) in the wrong.

It is the main reason why I gave up on any formal religion myself.

With regards to 'Just War' principles. I am familliar with them, and I believe that Thomas Aquinas has a lot to answer for!

The Principle was founded to allow wars, even though it is expressly forbidden in the New Testament. While the Principle was accepted by the Catholic Church, and most Protestant faiths, it is NOT a principle which has a religeous basis. It was a political tool. A true christian cannot accept this principle as that runs contrary to New Testament. Period.


If I have caused offense with the earlier post, I am sorry. I do appologise. I will remove it if I am asked, it is there to spawn debate, and thinking.


Regards
RedRed

[Jammrock]

Not the Babylonian myth thing again...if the Hebews kept taking on so much of other cultures relegious believes and history, then why aren't Egyptian gods and legends in the Bible? Or Philistine? Or Muslim? Or Roman? Or whoever else has conquered the Hebrews over the past 3-4 millenia? The Hebrews have been known to worship gods of other cultures, but they have never taken anyone elses beliefs into their canon.

The OT talks about the twelve tribes of Isreal being taken captive by the Babylonians, but that wasn't until 600 B.C. Moses' event's took place looooong before that. The only reason people think that is because the oldest known copy of the OT canon is younger than the oldest known copy of the old Babylonian lore (which btw, is estiamted at 500 BC, which is after the Hebrew captivity). Has it ever occured to anyone that it was the Babylonians that took on the Hebrew stories? King Nebechenezzar's (damn Babylonian names) number one advisor was Daniel (as in Daniel in the OT) and a few other Hebrews...hmmmmmmmm

Jammrock

[RedRed]

Did Noah's events take place at all..... Really.....??????

I dont believe in the Flood, nor in Creationist Genesis in general.

The reason, I think, as to why the Hebrews took no more myth nor gods from that point on is two fold.

1 The Tribes believed in a monotheistic god system - they could not worship others - though they do not rule out the existance of other deities: 'Lay all your gods before me' with Abraham, Moses and the calf. The point is here with the system they have evolved, only one god would work.

2 Writing. After Nebechenezzar the tribes would have been in contact with writing- an end to the verbal tradition. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the Verbal tradition is prone to corrupting the message over time. Although no original text, as far as I know, survives from Babelonian Hebrew influences, It would not be impossible to believe that the OT could have been written from that time...

The above is just conjecture.... but intresting nevertheless

RedRed

[Jammrock]

Did the Bing Bang really take place? Do you have pictures to prove it?

What does an electron look like?

Do light photons have mass? Is light a wave or a particle?

What did the first Homo Sapien look like? How long ago was it? How do you know for sure?

Was there ever a pangaea? Couldn't the continents be like this out of coincidence?

Do you really believe that a series of completely random and chaotic events formed a complex chain of four elements in a systematic double helix pattern, then wrapped itself into a carbon based shell, gained consiousness, mutated through billions of years of random, chaotic events and eventually became homo sapiens? Do you believe that...Really....????? Have you ever worked the mathematics behind the probablity of that occuring? It's a BIG number. And isn't a mutation in a organize a bad thing?

Did Noah's event ever take place? Probably...do you have any proof to disagree with me....really....?????

Are you really so arrogant to believe that the human race is the most advanced sentient beings in the universe? Do you truly believe that there is no possibility that there is a being out there in the vastness of space that can create life from raw elements? If it's not possible, then why is science trying?

Have you ever looked for God?

1. Abraham, Moses and the calf? Abraham had been dead for centuries in Moses day. Aaron? Have you ever studied the OT? Does the Messiah ring a bell?

2. Um...the Hebrews had written language looooong before the Babylonian captivity. They were kind of slaves to these people called the Egyptians, who had written language before there was a Babylon. There was this guy named Moses who was raised in the house of the pharoah as his son. I'm pretty sure that he learned how to read/write Egyptian. Not to mention Joseph probably knew Egyptian long before Moses was even born. And if the Twelve Tribes of Isreal didn't know how to read, then how could they know what was on the two tablets that the ten commandment's were written on? The oral tradition was over long before Babylon...at least for the Levites and other tribal leaders.

Jammrock

[Wombat]

Then why are we even discussing this? You have your beliefs and I have mine and I don't think there is anything that can be said either way that will change that.

I don't have a problem with people having their own belief systems. I have a problem when one person's beliefs calls for the conquest/removal of people that don't share those believes. e.g. More than once the blanket call for eliminating all Islamic governments has been made.


Jammrock:
Yep, I've seen electrons. They do amazing things to gold foil or metal layers in processors. You can observe photoelectric effects. And electron microscopes let you do tons of things.
"Mass" is the wrong concept for light. But it is affected by gravity (black holes), and has pressure. (solar sails). Light, and the condensed form of energy that we see as matter, have both wave and particle aspects. Check out the latest work at CSU for getting matter to exhibit wave behavior.

The first man? A lot more than a few thousands of years ago. And I'm damn sure that he had a navel. We have plenty of evidence of his ancestral lineage, as well as the interaction and probable genocide between homo sapiens and the other branches of primates.

Pangaea, the big bang, evolution, all of these things exist/happened, or your God is trying incredibly hard to decieve us all. The universe is still expanding, and the limited speed of light shows us pictures of a universe much younger than the one that surrounds us.

Maybe the events that caused the evolution of man were "guided", but yep, you and I are the far descendants of ancient organisms. Even looking at one cell of man you can see the partnering of ancient organisms. The symbiotic partnering of whatever we were with mitochondria.
Mutation is not a bad thing. That's like saying weather is a bad thing. Mutations can make an organism stronger or weaker. The weaker die. I probably wouldn't agree with your math, but whatever "BIG" number you came up with would still be swallowed the the vast possibilities that this universe has to offer. Yes, we are a one-in-a-billion-billion exception, but that's just a drop in the bucket for the number of galaxies and stars that are out there.

[spoogenet]

If it's possible for God to exist, then it's certainly possible for God to not exist. If you can comprehend such an abstract concept of a god that can do these things people claim a god can do, then you should be capable of comprehending the possibility of life without a god, life that has sprung from some sort of random chance.

Regardless of how tiny the probability is, one in howevermanyyouthinkisbigenough, the chance of a being such as God existing is also pretty damn small.

The chance of some people making up some stuff that is rooted both in myth and fact is pretty high, however. I see it all the time, many authors write books that are based on fact, yet are still fiction. For instance, take the "boy who cried wolf" story, I'm sure that's one that most people here are familiar with. I'm not so sure that this story ever happened, as it was told, and I don't even think many (or any) people try to present it as a factual account of history, either. However I can prove to you that this story has happened, in other incarnations, throughout the world throughout time. The story illustrates a principle, a principle that is learned first-hand by many people all over the globe. While the actual details, wolves, guys running around with guns, some naive little boy, aren't necessarily present in these many stories, the underlying fundamental of blowing your whistle on a false alarm permeates them all. This does not, however, make the story a historical documentary.

Just because you can prove one paragraph does not mean all other paragraphs are true. Equally, just because you can't prove it false doesn't mean it's true. Also, just because you can "prove" it false doesn't entirely mean it's truely false, either, your "proof" may be limited by the knowledge and resources available to you.

There are many things in science that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, however as we have seen in history our knowledge of science changes, and thus the truths that we know change accordingly. It used to be fact to many people that the Earth is flat, now it is known as fact that the Earth is a sphere. It used to be known as fact that there were many gods, now lots of people are claiming there is only one God, while each group also tends to have a slightly or not so slightly different interpretation of what this God desires, intends, and does. It's amazing how easily religion has been twisted for matter of convenience throughout history. It's almost like mathematics, where we define mathematics in certain ways just to make the math work out.

For those who have not studied mathematics, here are some things to consider:
Anything times 0 is 0.
Anything divided by 0 is undefined.
Any number divided by itself is 1, well, unless it's 0/0, in which case it's undefined.
0! is 1.
1! is 1.
But 0 != 1.

What is this world coming to?

b

[The PIT]

I can remember a few years ago some church leaders deciding that Satan didn't exist. Too me that seemed pretty strange. If God exsists for them surely they've also got to believe in Satan.

I think we've also found the reason why Seti turns up nothing. Would you want to talk to us certainly if I was flying past in a spaceship I'd give us wide berth.

[RedRed]

Jamrock
I havent looked at the OT since I was at school - hundreds of years ago!

I do think that probanly all of genesis is allegorical....

RedRed

[Jammrock]

RedRed,

You're a blast to debate with

1) You haven't seen an electron. You've seen a reaction of a particle that we are pretty sure is an electron reacting with goldfoil, but you haven't seen an electron. Electron microscopes can't see electrons. The best they have done is see the rough shape of a Uranium atom (and they might have seen something smaller since last I checked).

2) If light has no mass, how can people change it's speed and how can a black hole's gravitational well suck light in? If light had no mass, how could gravity (which is caused by an attraction between two objects) affect it?

3) Carbon 14 and radioactive decay dating is not what it's cracked up to be. Look at the formula. Both assume that the amount of carbon 14 or whatever radio active element they use has the same amount of that element in a living sample. But since life is evolving, that's not going to be constant now is it? On top of that, several natural and man made events can drasticaly alter the decay rate of radioactive elements.

4) Pangaea, evolution and the big bang...what words proceed each of these in your textbooks? "The Theory of ..." Each are theories devised through scientific hypothesis, research and human logic. Of course human logic once said the sun rotated around the Earth. Human logic once said man could never fly. I never said I didn't believe that they are possible, I only meant to say don't mistake theory for fact. Have you ever wondered how 5 different brands of toothpaste can claim 2 out of 3 dentists prefer their brand over the competition (hopefully that's not too American of a joke)?

The point I'm trying to get across is that there are always at least two sides to every tale, and each side can prove they are right. Just because you can regurgitate Science 101 doesn't mean you're right, and likewise because I think you're wrong doesn't make me right.

Don't close your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. When you do that you end all ability to learn and grow. I happen to be a firm believer in the existance of a God. I also love learning, technology and scince. I don't let my beliefs of greater beings hinder my quest to build a greater understanding of the world I live in, despite what you may think. I was raised by a theoretical mathematician/physist, so I tend to think mostly outside the box and debate heavily with anyone that I fell thinks too much inside 'the box'.

As for ye' Old Testament and Bible...I have no doubt there are inaccuracies in them. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that beyond doubt (unless you don't believe in the Dead Sea Scrolls). I also have no doubt that there are great truths and isight that science cannot offer in the scriptures. Because science is a study of the physical world (whatever you define that to be) and relegion is a study and practice of moral ethics and conduct. There just happens to be lots of people that like to challenge and prove historical events using science.

Jammrock

[Wombat]

1) If you mean optically see an electron, then you're right. Obviously, they're too small for that, and our vision systems aren't made for that kind of thing. But we have tons of experiments that prove they exist. And these experiments can be repeated by anyone anywhere. It's more than theory when there is conclusive proof.

Light has effective mass, caused by the fact that it has energy. Gravity affects energy. "Mass" is usually a rough enough estimate to get things done, but not always. Just like you can usually get by on Newtonian Mechanics, but sometimes you can't. For example, the GPS system actually uses calculations for special and general relativity. Without them, GPS wouldn't work. And back to a previous point, that's pretty good proof of electrons and atomic theory, while we're at it.

Carbon dating is primitive. Try Argon-compound dating. Much more accurate.

Logic didn't say the earth was flat, conventional wisdom did. There's no scientific evidence for a flat earth.

As for toothpaste claims, that's a matter of legalese, not science. They don't say "2 of every 3" or "4 of THE 5 we surveyed". They can ask 1,000,000 dentists, pick the 3 that like their product, and include one more guy to round out their "claim."

I choose to believe science as my proof, and not the unfounded writings of man. Should the sky open, and a Miracle occurs, then I'll put my empirical methods away and start praying.

We all make moral decisions constantly. The problem with religion is that it can be incredibly selective in what it uses as its foundation. Sometimes worshipping bodies will go to extreme measures to silence opposition, even when they know the opposition has a valid point. That is one of the things that scares me the most. Just ask Galileo.

[Joel]

I have a problem when one person's beliefs calls for the conquest/removal of people that don't share those believes. e.g. More than once the blanket call for eliminating all Islamic governments has been made.

If I remember correctly isn't it ole Binny boy and croonies and other Islamic groups around the world that are calling for the elimination of the capitalist west and the infidels that reside therein all in the name of religion? Do they not also believe that the entire world should be under Islamic law and that Islam should be the only religion? Do they not also believe that if you convert from Islam to another religion that you should be put to death? If that is not the case then why are Christians bared from building churches in some Islamic countries? Why are Christians denied to openly practice their religion in some of the Islamic countries? Why are Christians jailed for telling Muslims about Christianity? If I'm not also mistaken are not Muslims allowed to build Mosque and openly practice their religion in the US and the UK? Inquiring minds want to know.



Hey Jammrock,

Here's a site that I think you would find interesting, that is if you haven't already run across it.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html

Joel

[Joel]

Should the sky open, and a Miracle occurs, then I'll put my empirical methods away and start praying.

By then it will probably be too late.

The problem with religion is that it can be incredibly selective in what it uses as its foundation. Sometimes worshipping bodies will go to extreme measures to silence opposition, even when they know the opposition has a valid point. That is one of the things that scares me the most. Just ask Galileo.

Also ask Salman Rushdie.

Joel