Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Readings from the "Holy Book"

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 03:29 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
June 25, 2025, 03:06 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 23, 2025, 08:28 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
June 22, 2025, 03:34 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
June 21, 2025, 01:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
June 21, 2025, 07:37 AM
New Britain
June 20, 2025, 09:26 PM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 10:20 PM
News From Syria
June 17, 2025, 05:58 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 17, 2025, 10:47 AM
ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 02, 2025, 10:25 AM
What happens in these day...
June 02, 2025, 09:27 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"

 (Read 75925 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 17 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #30 - January 12, 2009, 01:32 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:27 PM
    Quote
    "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin which will anger me. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that I can be born. Once alive I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to"


    It's more like "I'm going to create man and woman and set them a task that I know they will fail (since I am all knowing), I'm going to punish them when they inevitably fail since I neither explained my reasoning logically, nor told them of the consequences, I merely wished to see blind obediance.  I shall then cast them out of heaven with a sin that will passed on from generation to generation.  Every now and again I intend to wipe out many of them, then a few thousand years later I am going to impregnate a woman, so that I can be born, so that I can offer myself as a sacrifice (because I'm  kind of into S&M) so that I can forgive them for something I went OTT about (just so you know, the OT was actually meant to be the OTT but some scribe got the title wrong, I punished him though so no worries)"


    sorry,still way off the mark.
    Oh, and btw - adam and eve never were in heaven - they were in the Garden of Eden. they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and having acquired that knowledge couldn?t live in that place of primeval innocence any longer, thus inevitably burdening their progeny with... responsibility and the human condition.
    But do go on spitting venom on something none of you bothers to try and understand. If it helps you feel better.  Roll Eyes
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #31 - January 12, 2009, 01:33 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 12, 2009, 01:29 PM
    Quote from: brucepig on January 12, 2009, 08:09 AM
    This is gods plan according to Christianity.

    "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin which will anger me. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that I can be born. Once alive I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to"

    Why not just forgive us?

    Not only is it immoral it's batshit crazy and totally illogical.

    It's more accurate to say that we are born into sin rather than created with it. It stems back to Adam and Eve. However it is illogical that that actions of two have meant the entire human race has to suffer.


    see my post above.  Roll Eyes And before I get the "hypocrite!!" epithet... I?d say the same, if your understanding of islam is as superficial.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #32 - January 12, 2009, 01:33 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:27 PM
    Quote
    "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin which will anger me. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that I can be born. Once alive I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to"


    It's more like "I'm going to create man and woman and set them a task that I know they will fail (since I am all knowing), I'm going to punish them when they inevitably fail since I neither explained my reasoning logically, nor told them of the consequences, I merely wished to see blind obediance.  I shall then cast them out of heaven with a sin that will passed on from generation to generation.  Every now and again I intend to wipe out many of them, then a few thousand years later I am going to impregnate a woman, so that I can be born, so that I can offer myself as a sacrifice (because I'm  kind of into S&M) so that I can forgive them for something I went OTT about (just so you know, the OT was actually meant to be the OTT but some scribe got the title wrong, I punished him though so no worries)"


    Just remember when we suffer in Hell not to blame God - it had nothing to do with him - it's our fault and our fault alone!

    God is love!
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #33 - January 12, 2009, 01:35 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:32 PM

    sorry,still way off the mark.
    Oh, and btw - adam and eve never were in heaven - they were in the Garden of Eden. they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and having acquired that knowledge couldn?t live in that place of primeval innocence any longer, thus inevitably burdening their progeny with... responsibility and the human condition.
    But do go on spitting venom on something none of you bothers to try and understand. If it helps you feel better.  Roll Eyes


    Mere semantics dio, garden of eden or heaven, created with or not, the gist is still very near the mark.

    But I honestly wouldn't expect you or sparky to point out where we have it "wrong", the venom comments though, that's expected.
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #34 - January 12, 2009, 01:38 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:35 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:32 PM

    sorry,still way off the mark.
    Oh, and btw - adam and eve never were in heaven - they were in the Garden of Eden. they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and having acquired that knowledge couldn?t live in that place of primeval innocence any longer, thus inevitably burdening their progeny with... responsibility and the human condition.
    But do go on spitting venom on something none of you bothers to try and understand. If it helps you feel better.  Roll Eyes


    Mere semantics dio, garden of eden or heaven, created with or not, the gist is still very near the mark.

    But I honestly wouldn't expect you or sparky to point out where we have it "wrong", the venom comments though, that's expected.


    And I wouldn?t expect you to realise how far off the mark you are. No  more to be expected, if "heaven" or "Garden of Eden" or "created with" as opposed to "let them do"  is all the same to you.

    And since spitting venom is all any of you is interested in, as opposed to actually wanting to understand, I?ll leave you all to your fun.  Smiley
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #35 - January 12, 2009, 01:39 PM
    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Well maybe as a good Christian you could actually provide some enlightenment as opposed to going off on a rant about my poor fund of biblical knowledge.


    Your 'poor fund' of biblical knowledge is a matter of public record.  It is precisely this that leads me to fully expect that when you proclaim 'the bible says....' you have probably got it wrong.  Let's see if I'm mistaken...

    Quote from: a.ghazali
    So do explain the following words of Jesus. I've researched but the depth of your research could shed divine light on Jesus' recommndations.

    Quote
    Mark 7:9-10 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.



    Firstly, let's just record your initial claim about this passage:
    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Jesus was a Jew and followed all the laws of the Jews and said those laws have to continue till the end of time. He even said children who did not obey their parents should be Killed in keeping with OT law.


    Which I interpret to mean that you understand this passage to say that Jesus was teaching his followers that children who did not obey their parents should be killed.

    Here it is in a translation which is not 400 years old...

    Mark 7:9-13

    9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.  10 "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';  11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;  13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."  
    NASU

    So perhaps you can tell me:
    Where are children mentioned?
    Where is Jesus giving a command to his followers?

    The point of the passage is nothing to do with whether Jesus' followers were supposed to continue to observe the Old Testament Law or not.  The point is to show the pharisees that they were putting their own traditions above the law given by God.  It is a critique of the pharisees not a requirement for his followers (which the pharisees were not)

    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Oh yes Jesus is saying you must follow the laws of Moses (yes the Moasic Laws). And one of them like so many Hassan has narrated in his video calls for killing and intolerance.


    No, you've got it wrong... again.  And I have no idea what Hassan was narrating because he couldn't be bothered to give either any references or any context to his quotations.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #36 - January 12, 2009, 01:41 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:33 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 12, 2009, 01:29 PM
    Quote from: brucepig on January 12, 2009, 08:09 AM
    This is gods plan according to Christianity.

    "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin which will anger me. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that I can be born. Once alive I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to"

    Why not just forgive us?

    Not only is it immoral it's batshit crazy and totally illogical.

    It's more accurate to say that we are born into sin rather than created with it. It stems back to Adam and Eve. However it is illogical that that actions of two have meant the entire human race has to suffer.


    see my post above.  Roll Eyes And before I get the "hypocrite!!" epithet... I?d say the same, if your understanding of islam is as superficial.

    I'm aware they were in Eden. Your posts makes no difference however. Billions of people and animals have suffered because God didn't like the fact that someone dared to disobey him.
    ~My story~
    ~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #37 - January 12, 2009, 01:42 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on January 12, 2009, 01:02 PM
    Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 10:07 AM
    Wow.  A new low.  Not a single reference so that it could be examined in context.  No attempt to examine how Christians have actually understood these verses - just a general assumption that they just ignore them.  The deliberate use of an archaic translation just to make it sound 'out of date'.  And misrepresentations of Christian teaching - even of matters that have already been discussed with you (Christ dying for a sin we didn't commit).

    A production worth of skeptics annotated.  Congratulations.


    I knew you'd like it Sparky. It is partly your posts here that inspired me to make this video.  Afro

    I'm wary of discussions with you now, Hassan.  I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was grooming you...

    But seriously, I've given you some constructive feedback here.  Do you actually want to understand those passages or are you happier not really thinking about it.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #38 - January 12, 2009, 01:43 PM
    Now just to clarify, I have no problems with modern interpretations of christianity, same as I do not have a problem with the modern interpretations of Islam, it's just the "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale" that grates on me.

    Read the quran and the OT, and even some of the NT literally, and they are near equal in insanity, read them with the new fangled metophorical translations and figurative speech EVEN the quran, and it's different.

    It's like the original brothers grimm fairy tales compared to the disney versions.
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #39 - January 12, 2009, 01:44 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 12, 2009, 01:41 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:33 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 12, 2009, 01:29 PM
    Quote from: brucepig on January 12, 2009, 08:09 AM
    This is gods plan according to Christianity.

    "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin which will anger me. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that I can be born. Once alive I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to"

    Why not just forgive us?

    Not only is it immoral it's batshit crazy and totally illogical.

    It's more accurate to say that we are born into sin rather than created with it. It stems back to Adam and Eve. However it is illogical that that actions of two have meant the entire human race has to suffer.


    see my post above.  Roll Eyes And before I get the "hypocrite!!" epithet... I?d say the same, if your understanding of islam is as superficial.

    I'm aware they were in Eden. Your posts makes no difference however. Billions of people and animals have suffered because God didn't like the fact that someone dared to disobey him.


    What animals suffered?  Huh?
    Adam and Eve at  FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL... that is, they now are outside the scope of primeval INNOCENCE. They KNOW and have to live with the consequences of that knowledge... guilt and pain. It?s a story about the human condition, PS.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #40 - January 12, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:38 PM


    And since spitting venom is all any of you is interested in, as opposed to actually wanting to understand, I?ll leave you all to your fun.  Smiley


    Actually Dio, without meaning to cause offence, it is you spitting venom with the not so nice way you go about telling us all how wrong we are.  It's all sly insults about lack of intelligence etc, "oh, wouldn't expect you to comprehend" etc etc.

    When it comes to your religion, you are highly unreasonable.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #41 - January 12, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote
    "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin which will anger me.


    Or. I'm going to create a man. Hope he finds a mate. But when he can't I'll put him to sleep take out a rib and create woman. Of course god created all the animals in pairs but for humans the woman was an afterthought.

    She will convince him to seek knowledge from the tree of 'knowledge' which according to god is a great sin and all generations of mankind would have this sin passed down to them.

    Of course original sin was not a concept until Christianity. The Jews never concocted the original sin part.
    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #42 - January 12, 2009, 01:47 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:43 PM
    Now just to clarify, I have no problems with modern interpretations of christianity, same as I do not have a problem with the modern interpretations of Islam, it's just the "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale" that grates on me.

    Read the quran and the OT, and even some of the NT literally, and they are near equal in insanity, read them with the new fangled metophorical translations and figurative speech EVEN the quran, and it's different.

    It's like the original brothers grimm fairy tales compared to the disney versions.


    a) there?s no "beat her" or "kill  the infidel" in the bible. None. Dunno what else to say to that "insanity" claim... bit of a generalisation?  Roll Eyes
    b) Christians from the first did NOT read the bible literally, as you can see from Paul?s letters etc. The "pneumonic" interpretation (c.f. Origenes in the second century) was there from the first. Same goes for the Jews, btw.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #43 - January 12, 2009, 01:49 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:38 PM


    And since spitting venom is all any of you is interested in, as opposed to actually wanting to understand, I?ll leave you all to your fun.  Smiley


    Actually Dio, without meaning to cause offence, it is you spitting venom with the not so nice way you go about telling us all how wrong we are.  It's all sly insults about lack of intelligence etc, "oh, wouldn't expect you to comprehend" etc etc.

    When it comes to your religion, you are highly unreasonable.



    I wouldn?t expect you lot to understand, not for lack of intelligence, but for not WANTING to see anything but your prejudice. It?s not I, being unreasonable.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #44 - January 12, 2009, 01:56 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:44 PM
    What animals suffered?  Huh?
    Adam and Eve at  FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL... that is, they now are outside the scope of primeval INNOCENCE. They KNOW and have to live with the consequences of that knowledge... guilt and pain. It?s a story about the human condition, PS.

    Loads of animals suffer! What a silly question. They either suffer because of us or because of natural/biological factors. Evolution isn't kind.

    God knew what Adam and Eve would do yet he created them anyway. He knew humanity would suffer for years to come and then burn in his hell yet he let it all happen anyway.

    What primeval innocence?
    ~My story~
    ~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #45 - January 12, 2009, 01:59 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 12, 2009, 01:56 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:44 PM
    What animals suffered?  Huh?
    Adam and Eve at  FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL... that is, they now are outside the scope of primeval INNOCENCE. They KNOW and have to live with the consequences of that knowledge... guilt and pain. It?s a story about the human condition, PS.

    Loads of animals suffer! What a silly question. They either suffer because of us or because of natural/biological factors. Evolution isn't kind.

    God knew what Adam and Eve would do yet he created them anyway. He knew humanity would suffer for years to come and then burn in his hell yet he let it all happen anyway.

    What primeval innocence?


    And the animals suffer because of Adam and Eve (because that is, what we were talking about...)  Roll Eyes
    So life is suffering (as well as joy)... wow!  Roll Eyes

    ah, whatever... am out.  Smiley
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #46 - January 12, 2009, 01:59 PM
    Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 01:42 PM
    Do you actually want to understand those passages or are you happier not really thinking about it.


    I'm not at home at the moment so I don't have all the bits of paper I had with the references on them - but try this - how would you explain these verses:

    9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

    9:5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

    9:6 Slay utterly old [and] young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which [were] before the house.

    9:7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

    (Ezekiel 9:4-7)
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #47 - January 12, 2009, 02:02 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla
    (because I'm  kind of into S&M)

     Cheesy

    Quote from: Blas
    The Adam and Eve story. It warns us against pride, yet, but it also pushes blind obedience as a primary virtue. Curiosity, asking questions, seeking knowledge, are discouraged. Dialogue is discouraged.

    I think the Genesis story promotes nothing. The concept of Original Sin was developed by the Christian theologian, Augustine of Hippo. Authors of the Bible did not mean their Elohim to curse all of humanity. I suspect that ancient Hebrews would laugh at the idea. The story just narrates the way Adam fails the test, an unsuccessful breach of taboo, like the Gilgamesh.

    In contrast, Gnostics and some Jewish mystics emphasised that the Fall was a positive event. Ophites speculated that the talking serpent in Eden was the true saviour figure. Pelagius rejected Original Sin completely. So the contemporary Christian meaning of Genesis is not necessarily its original, mythological meaning.

    Quote from: PeruvianSkies
    God knew what Adam and Eve would do yet he created them anyway. He knew humanity would suffer for years to come and then burn in his hell yet he let it all happen anyway.

    One word: Theodicy. The toothache of all Abrahamic religions...
    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #48 - January 12, 2009, 02:04 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:43 PM
    Now just to clarify, I have no problems with modern interpretations of christianity, same as I do not have a problem with the modern interpretations of Islam, it's just the "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale" that grates on me.

    Read the quran and the OT, and even some of the NT literally, and they are near equal in insanity, read them with the new fangled metophorical translations and figurative speech EVEN the quran, and it's different.

    It's like the original brothers grimm fairy tales compared to the disney versions.

    Berbs, I don't really understand how you can pretend that this is a sensible critique.  The Old Testament is a variety of different types of literature from multiple different authors and recorded over hundreds of years.  The Quran just isn't that - it's a single type from a single source recorded/revealed (apparently) over not much more than a couple of decades.  More than that many Islamic scholars would hold that the Quran even abrogates itself!

    As a result, understanding the meaning of stories/commands/poetry etc within their context and cross-checking them is possible with the OT in a way which is not possible with the Quran.  So the quotes Hassan gives are given (I assume because he hasn't given references) by God to a particular group of people at a particular time and that context is available to anyone reading the text.  The same just isn't true of the Quran.

    It's just nonsense to talk about 'modern interpretations'.  The interpretations of the OT are right there in the NT - written largely by Jews who knew their OT rather well.

    It's also nonsense to talk about 'fairy tales'.  You are projecting your own perspective onto those you are criticising.  This is all besides the fact that you have, yourself, failed to give any kind of evidence for what you think is either right or wrong.  So these would be 'fairy tales' too!
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #49 - January 12, 2009, 02:13 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:49 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on January 12, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:38 PM


    And since spitting venom is all any of you is interested in, as opposed to actually wanting to understand, I?ll leave you all to your fun.  Smiley


    Actually Dio, without meaning to cause offence, it is you spitting venom with the not so nice way you go about telling us all how wrong we are.  It's all sly insults about lack of intelligence etc, "oh, wouldn't expect you to comprehend" etc etc.

    When it comes to your religion, you are highly unreasonable.



    I wouldn?t expect you lot to understand, not for lack of intelligence, but for not WANTING to see anything but your prejudice. It?s not I, being unreasonable.


    That's slightly condescending, regardless of whether it was for no lack of intelligence or not wanting to see anything but our own prejudice.

  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #50 - January 12, 2009, 02:14 PM
    Got a flight early in the morning so I've gotta go to bed or I would contribute more to the topic.  parrot
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #51 - January 12, 2009, 02:17 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:59 PM
    Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 12, 2009, 01:56 PM
    Quote from: diotima on January 12, 2009, 01:44 PM
    What animals suffered?  Huh?
    Adam and Eve at  FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL... that is, they now are outside the scope of primeval INNOCENCE. They KNOW and have to live with the consequences of that knowledge... guilt and pain. It?s a story about the human condition, PS.

    Loads of animals suffer! What a silly question. They either suffer because of us or because of natural/biological factors. Evolution isn't kind.

    God knew what Adam and Eve would do yet he created them anyway. He knew humanity would suffer for years to come and then burn in his hell yet he let it all happen anyway.

    What primeval innocence?


    And the animals suffer because of Adam and Eve (because that is, what we were talking about...)  Roll Eyes
    So life is suffering (as well as joy)... wow!  Roll Eyes

    ah, whatever... am out.  Smiley

    What a well thought-out reply.

    (Animals suffer because of us and we came from Adam and Eve who were created by a God who knew all this qould happen).
    ~My story~
    ~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #52 - January 12, 2009, 02:23 PM
    Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 02:04 PM

    Berbs, I don't really understand how you can pretend that this is a sensible critique.  The Old Testament is a variety of different types of literature from multiple different authors and recorded over hundreds of years.  The Quran just isn't that - it's a single type from a single source recorded/revealed (apparently) over not much more than a couple of decades.  More than that many Islamic scholars would hold that the Quran even abrogates itself!

    As a result, understanding the meaning of stories/commands/poetry etc within their context and cross-checking them is possible with the OT in a way which is not possible with the Quran.  So the quotes Hassan gives are given (I assume because he hasn't given references) by God to a particular group of people at a particular time and that context is available to anyone reading the text.  The same just isn't true of the Quran.

    It's just nonsense to talk about 'modern interpretations'.  The interpretations of the OT are right there in the NT - written largely by Jews who knew their OT rather well.

    It's also nonsense to talk about 'fairy tales'.  You are projecting your own perspective onto those you are criticising.  This is all besides the fact that you have, yourself, failed to give any kind of evidence for what you think is either right or wrong.  So these would be 'fairy tales' too!


    Says who?  the hadiths that were written over 100yrs after the death of mohammed?  some modern muslims say that certain commands in the quran were for a certain group of people for a particular time and place and under certain contexts.

    How is saying that "women shouldn't speak in church" ok to dismiss since it was said by someone else any different from the hadiths which are just someone saying what someone told them, what someone else told them mohammed said?

    So I'm guessing you would never use a hadith in a debate with a muslim because it's as easily dismissed as most of the NT.

    And the Quran can be as discarded as the OT and not any more dangerous as the OT, since time eroded that and time will erode the literal translation of the quran.

    Finally I don't need to prove it's all fairy tales, I don't need to prove snow white is a fairy tale, they just are.
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #53 - January 12, 2009, 02:24 PM
    Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 01:39 PM
    Your 'poor fund' of biblical knowledge is a matter of public record.


    Which public is that? You and your sidekick?

    Quote
    Here it is in a translation which is not 400 years old...


    Is something wrong with age? The biblical manuscripts are 1700 years old. Does that make them less valuable? Couldn't your omnipotent god make sure all translations were correct when they were done. Does he enjoy people reading badly translated versions of his divine comedy book so when they get it all wrong he can send them to hell?

    Quote
    Mark 7:9-13

    9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.  10 "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';  11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;  13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." 
    NASU


    So you agree Jesus refers to the Mosaic law that says 'Kill one who dishonours father or mother.'

    Good

    Quote
    So perhaps you can tell me:
    Where are children mentioned?


    It specifically says to kill those who dishonours father and mother. There is no age limit specified. So once you have a mother and or father and you disobey you have to be killed according to Jesus. No two ways about it. You could be a child or a grown up. Jesus does not say if you're over 18 and you disobey. No he says put to death ever curses their parents. That can definitely be children.

    Quote
    Where is Jesus giving a command to his followers?


    Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the laws of Moses but instead following their own traditions. What Jesus is doing is pushing his Jewish law on to the Pharisees condemning them for not accepting it. What this means is that he is endorsing the Mosaic law and recommending the killing of those who curse their parents.

    Quote
    The point of the passage is nothing to do with whether Jesus' followers were supposed to continue to observe the Old Testament Law or not.  The point is to show the pharisees that they were putting their own traditions above the law given by God.  It is a critique of the pharisees not a requirement for his followers (which the pharisees were not)


    Yes it has everyting to do with Jesus observing the OT laws and criticising non Jews for not wanting to follow them. He used a specific example of they not killing their disobedient offsprings as laws they should be following.

    By condemning people for not following a law implies he wants his followers to follow the law.
    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #54 - January 12, 2009, 02:31 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on January 12, 2009, 01:59 PM
    Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 01:42 PM
    Do you actually want to understand those passages or are you happier not really thinking about it.


    I'm not at home at the moment so I don't have all the bits of paper I had with the references on them - but try this - how would you explain these verses:

    9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

    9:5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

    9:6 Slay utterly old [and] young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which [were] before the house.

    9:7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

    (Ezekiel 9:4-7)


    Firstly, as I have said numerous times, get hold of a modern translation.  The use more recently discovered manuscripts and modern English.  You'll also find that it is easier to read on camera...

    Secondly, this is taken from a prophecy.  It is not describing a historical event or a command but a vision.  The vision starts at the beginning of chapter 8 where it says:

    Ezek 8:1-3

    It came about in the sixth year, on the fifth day of the sixth month, as I was sitting in my house with the elders of Judah sitting before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell on me there. 2 Then I looked, and behold, a likeness as the appearance of a man; from His loins and downward there was the appearance of fire, and from His loins and upward the appearance of brightness, like the appearance of glowing metal. 3 He stretched out the form of a hand and caught me by a lock of my head; and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem...
    NASU

    The rest of chapter 8 goes on to describe the sins which God sees Israel committing and chapter 9 describes the judgement that will come upon them using figurative language that probably signifies that it will be accomplished through an invading army.

    So it's a vision of God's judgement on Israel - which, as with most judgements, will be pretty terrible.

    How did you understand it?

    But you didn't use this one in your video anyway...
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #55 - January 12, 2009, 02:55 PM
    Good point Berbs.  Christianity has a lot to answer for, including a lot of the quotes in the Quran which have been derived from it. 

    The OT has said much the same as the Quran has.  I wonder if any of the quotes that justified 9/11, had their roots originating from the OT as they are very similar.  If so, then Christianity would have to shoulder part of the blame for these mass murders.

    The Christians here are just as disillusional as raving Islamic fundamentalists, as they are coming up with the same arguments I have heard from Al-Qaeda sympathisers time & time again.  Sad. 
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #56 - January 12, 2009, 02:58 PM
    Quote from: Berberella
    Says who?  the hadiths that were written over 100yrs after the death of mohammed?  some modern muslims say that certain commands in the quran were for a certain group of people for a particular time and place and under certain contexts.


    Which is the whole point.  They are not in the text itself so your comparison with the bible fails.

    Quote from: Berberella
    How is saying that "women shouldn't speak in church" ok to dismiss since it was said by someone else any different from the hadiths which are just someone saying what someone told them, what someone else told them mohammed said?


    It's not ok to dismiss because of who said it but because of the context in which it was said.  And 4:34 is a Quranic reference itself - no matter what the Hadiths say.  What is the Quranic context that means that it should be understood as anything other than permission for muslims to beat their wives?

    There is a key difference in how the Quran and bible represent themselves that, as an ex-muslim, you continue to fail to understand.  It's just so easy to say 'oh, here's another holy book'.  The Quran claims to be guidance to believers.  When it states a command, that command is to be followed by the readers of the book.

    The bible doesn't do that.  It records instances of God speaking, or revealing himself to people (as well as alot of other stuff).  To know what it means to us, we have to understand the context of what was said as well as what was actually said.  So you cannot take an isolated quote and say 'the bible says that Christians should do X'.  It doesn't.  It says 'God said to Person A - do X because of Y & Z'.  Understanding that context we can decide whether we should also do X or not.

    Quote from: Berberella
    So I'm guessing you would never use a hadith in a debate with a muslim because it's as easily dismissed as most of the NT.

    I really haven't had many debates with muslims and generally, yes, I would stick to the Quran because that is what they generally are united in claiming is the main source of their beliefs.  Needless to say, I don't think the NT can be dismissed as a key source of Christian belief.

    Quote from: Berberella
    And the Quran can be as discarded as the OT and not any more dangerous as the OT, since time eroded that and time will erode the literal translation of the quran.

    Where have you seen me argue that the OT can be discarded?  The OT isn't dangerous because it isn't dangerous - it doesn't command Christians to do anything bad.  Can you say the same for the Quran?

    Quote from: Berberella
    Finally I don't need to prove it's all fairy tales, I don't need to prove snow white is a fairy tale, they just are.


    Just like your ideas of right and wrong.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #57 - January 12, 2009, 03:14 PM
    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Which public is that? You and your sidekick?


    No, this forum.  I don't have a sidekick.
    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Is something wrong with age? The biblical manuscripts are 1700 years old. Does that make them less valuable? Couldn't your omnipotent god make sure all translations were correct when they were done. Does he enjoy people reading badly translated versions of his divine comedy book so when they get it all wrong he can send them to hell?

    Not at all.  Just that they spoke English a bit differently back then.  Using a more modern one will help you avoid mistakes such as thinking that 'mark' must mean making a physical mark on someone.
    Quote from: a.ghazali
    So you agree Jesus refers to the Mosaic law that says 'Kill one who dishonours father or mother.'

    And again, you fail to read.  It says 'speaks evil'.  The OT reference says 'curse'.
    Quote from: a.ghazali
    It specifically says to kill those who dishonours father and mother. There is no age limit specified. So once you have a mother and or father and you disobey you have to be killed according to Jesus. No two ways about it. You could be a child or a grown up. Jesus does not say if you're over 18 and you disobey. No he says put to death ever curses their parents. That can definitely be children.

    Again with the reading.  It doesn't say 'disobey' does it?  It says 'curse' or 'speak evil of'.

    And if it doesn't say children you can't claim that it refers to children.  At best you can say 'I don't know'.  Most of the commands do not specify age but it is clear that most don't refer to children and so I suspect that neither does this one.

    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the laws of Moses but instead following their own traditions. What Jesus is doing is pushing his Jewish law on to the Pharisees condemning them for not accepting it. What this means is that he is endorsing the Mosaic law and recommending the killing of those who curse their parents.

    He states his point - twice:
    Mark 7:9
    You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
    NASU

    Mark 7:12-13
    2 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;  13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." 
    NASU

    His point is not on 'endorsing' the command to kill those who curse their parents but on the fact that through their tradition, the Pharisees were sanctioning neglect of their parents.  The reference to the OT law is to establish the fact that God wanted them to take care of their parents.

    Quote from: a.ghazali
    Yes it has everyting to do with Jesus observing the OT laws and criticising non Jews for not wanting to follow them. He used a specific example of they not killing their disobedient offsprings as laws they should be following.

    The Pharisees were Jews!  They claimed to be doing what God wanted them too but were overriding the laws through their own traditions.
    Quote
    By condemning people for not following a law implies he wants his followers to follow the law

    Non-sequitor.  His focus is the Pharisees - not his followers - and he is pointing out their hypocrisy (as the passage makes clear on two occasions) - nothing more, nothing less.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #58 - January 12, 2009, 03:33 PM
    Nice video, Hassan.  Apart from the witch thing which is well known to be a mistranslation of the word "poisoner", the rest is spot on. 

    The defence of understanding those verses in the context of the time is a weak one.  How can it ever have been a divine command, for example, to stone a girl for not being a virgin on her wedding night?  What context makes that a good act?  Huh?
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
     Reply #59 - January 12, 2009, 03:34 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on January 12, 2009, 02:55 PM
    Good point Berbs.  Christianity has a lot to answer for, including a lot of the quotes in the Quran which have been derived from it. 

    The OT has said much the same as the Quran has.  I wonder if any of the quotes that justified 9/11, had their roots originating from the OT as they are very similar.  If so, then Christianity would have to shoulder part of the blame for these mass murders.

    The Christians here are just as disillusional as raving Islamic fundamentalists, as they are coming up with the same arguments I have heard from Al-Qaeda sympathisers time & time again.  Sad. 

    So bring an argument.  Hypothetical allusions don't count.  Perhaps you could quote an Al-Qaeda sympathiser and show us how it is the same as what I have argued here.

    (I have no idea what 'disillusional' means)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 17 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »