Eternal damnation.

Started by
609 comments, last by Fruny 18 years, 8 months ago
Quote:Original post by Chris81 It also has to fall back on the bibles teaching in many areas, such as the creation account and writings of moses. I would prefer to go to and trust the source, which no writings need to be added to the bible - it is complete.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, it doesn't "fall back on the teachings", it contains a number of the same stories, because they are the stories of the creation by the same god, and the times of the same people. There is no point in the Koran that says "see Exodus(hebrew) for a further account of Moses", it is complete within the Koran.



Advertisement
Quote:Original post by Chris81
Oh, and about dating...I don't know how many times I've read that what was previously thought to be accurate dating was way off...and there are dating methods that disagree with each other.


Mistakes happen from time to time. These are invariably discovered, and are usually due to the methods used to obtain the dated samples, not an error in the dating method itself. If you have a genuine reasoned objection to a particular dating method, I'd be interested to hear it.
Quote:Original post by dagarach
Quote:Original post by Chris81 It also has to fall back on the bibles teaching in many areas, such as the creation account and writings of moses. I would prefer to go to and trust the source, which no writings need to be added to the bible - it is complete.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, it doesn't "fall back on the teachings", it contains a number of the same stories, because they are the stories of the creation by the same god, and the times of the same people. There is no point in the Koran that says "see Exodus(hebrew) for a further account of Moses", it is complete within the Koran.


I can't say for sure, as I said, I haven't read the whole Koran. That may very well be the case, although that doesn't affect my other reasons. Also I read that they teach the writings of moses as holy and observe the first few books of the bible.
Quote:Original post by Sandman
Quote:Original post by Chris81
Oh, and about dating...I don't know how many times I've read that what was previously thought to be accurate dating was way off...and there are dating methods that disagree with each other.


Mistakes happen from time to time. These are invariably discovered, and are usually due to the methods used to obtain the dated samples, not an error in the dating method itself. If you have a genuine reasoned objection to a particular dating method, I'd be interested to hear it.


Not really, just the regularity of the admitted mistakes and discrepencies between methods and/or scientists makes me skeptical of their accuracy.
Quote:Original post by Chris81
Quote:Original post by Sandman
Quote:Original post by Chris81
Oh, and about dating...I don't know how many times I've read that what was previously thought to be accurate dating was way off...and there are dating methods that disagree with each other.


Mistakes happen from time to time. These are invariably discovered, and are usually due to the methods used to obtain the dated samples, not an error in the dating method itself. If you have a genuine reasoned objection to a particular dating method, I'd be interested to hear it.


Not really, just the regularity of the admitted mistakes and discrepencies between methods and/or scientists makes me skeptical of their accuracy.


But blanket unprovable correctness based on a 'feeling' doesn't?

What about incorrect instances in faith, such as the witch burnings... why don't we use spirtual evidence in courts due to it's lack of fallicies?

The fact that science can admit, and be proven wrong at times*... is what makes it creditable.

Edit: * Through evidence (following up). Spiritual evidence is just 'what you think' so can't be disputed... the hundreds of different religions can try to 'prove each other wrong' with the cunning use of 'because I say'
Quote:Original post by necreia
Quote:Original post by Chris81
Quote:Original post by Sandman
Quote:Original post by Chris81
Oh, and about dating...I don't know how many times I've read that what was previously thought to be accurate dating was way off...and there are dating methods that disagree with each other.


Mistakes happen from time to time. These are invariably discovered, and are usually due to the methods used to obtain the dated samples, not an error in the dating method itself. If you have a genuine reasoned objection to a particular dating method, I'd be interested to hear it.


Not really, just the regularity of the admitted mistakes and discrepencies between methods and/or scientists makes me skeptical of their accuracy.


But blanket unprovable correctness based on a 'feeling' doesn't?

What about incorrect instances in faith, such as the witch burnings... why don't we use spirtual evidence in courts due to it's lack of fallicies?

The fact that science can admit, and be proven wrong at times... is what makes it creditable.


As I've been trying to show, it's not based on a 'feeling'.

The witch burnings is another example of false religion misrepresenting the bible and using it for unjust and ungodly acts. There are many examples of such things, which is why I don't blame people for initially not trusting the bible. It's a real shame.
The point I am trying to understand is how you can be so certain of the divinity of the New Testament, but deny the divinity of the Koran. The way I see it, all followers of the Abrahamic tradition should either be Jews or Muslims, i.e. just believe the initial work, and denounce Jesus as a charlatan, or beleieve all books by the same author (God) and accept Jesus and Mohammed as prophets.

Islam is not just some other foreign religion, I'm not asking why you are not a Hindu or Shintoist or somesuch. Mohammed was a prophet of YOUR God, the god of Adam, Abraham and Moses. The Koran is exactly as provably divine as the New Testament, in addition, it is exactly as divine as the Pentateuch, as it was dictated from heaven, better than the New Testament, which contains the rather irrelevant ramblings of St. Paul.

Quote:Original post by Chris81
Not really, just the regularity of the admitted mistakes and discrepencies between methods and/or scientists makes me skeptical of their accuracy.


The peer review system and reproducibility enables scientists to spot errors in other people's work and confirm or deny their findings. As necreia says, this is a strength of the system, not a weakness.

Quote:Original post by dagarach
The point I am trying to understand is how you can be so certain of the divinity of the New Testament, but deny the divinity of the Koran. The way I see it, all followers of the Abrahamic tradition should either be Jews or Muslims, i.e. just believe the initial work, and denounce Jesus as a charlatan, or beleieve all books by the same author (God) and accept Jesus and Mohammed as prophets.

Islam is not just some other foreign religion, I'm not asking why you are not a Hindu or Shintoist or somesuch. Mohammed was a prophet of YOUR God, the god of Adam, Abraham and Moses. The Koran is exactly as provably divine as the New Testament, in addition, it is exactly as divine as the Pentateuch, as it was dictated from heaven, better than the New Testament, which contains the rather irrelevant ramblings of St. Paul.


The bible doesn't say Mohammed is a prophet of my god. Mohammed said that. The bible says no other works should be added as they are not needed, the bible is complete.

Does the Koran contain multiple eyewitness accounts of an individual that fulfills dozens of prophecies from the old testament, great and small? Not that I know of, but the gospels do. Does it contain prophecies even similar to those found in Revelation, not that I know of.

Maybe this will change when I get to studying the book, I don't know.

And to say the writings of paul in the new testament are irrelevant ramblings is ridiculous to me. They contain numerous invaluable admonitions that show wisdom for beyond his ability. To me, the encouragement given by Paul is just as relevant today as it was 1900 years ago. In fact, it is proven that many of those who live by Pauls example (who himself lives by jesus example) and follows the many beneficial teachings of his, live happy and fulfilling lives today, not just in the first century.
Your description of Mohammed is no different to a Jew's description of Jesus - "Nowhere in My holy book does it say that Jesus is the Messiah". Accounts of him fulfilling prophecies can be dismissed as the work of propagandists.

The gospels do not contain multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, they contain 4 third-hand descriptions of multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement