Prove it 2: Koran -innocent or PROMOTING terrorism

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly

This shit is so backwards I don't know where to begin.

1. "If the Bible did not give hundreds of prophecies which have already and continue to come true, your point might have weight." -If you judge Islam as juxtaposed to your own beliefs, which you believe are correct, then argument makes little point.

No, as I have stated: prophecy determines validity. Nobody knows the future. For a book to proclaim to be the word of God, and make prophetic statements hundreds of years in advance including naming things and people before they existed, what would YOU call it?

Needless to say that Muslims are as firm in their beliefs as you are in yours. That shit about prophecies I just don't buy.

Since you claim you don't know much about the Bible, that doesn't surprise me.

Even assuming that the Bible made 1000 prophecies, 900 of which have already come true, that does not prove the Bible. Just because I have correctly predicted the last 7 Super Bowl winners, that doesn't prove that every prediction for the Super Bowl that I make will come to pass, or that I even knew that the first 7 would come to pass.

:cof:
Correct. If you could name the star quarterback for superbowl 150, though, we would have something wouldn't we?

By the way, what about "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27). Forgive me if I am wrong, but I wasn't aware we are living in the kingdom of God.

Well, let's take it in context:
"
22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.
"
Well, I would call that seeing the kingdom. -And you were not standing there, were you?

(By the way New Guy, I know that you have some alternative interpretation of this verse show me what Jesus REALLY meant when he said that, but that just shows how important interpretation is to all religious texts.)

Actually, I just let it stand on it's own, didn't I? There was NO interpretation.

On a side note, prophecies are great. You make a vague prophecy, wait until something in the world happens that might fit, say it is proved and you are immediately imbued with divine providence. Of course if it hasn't come to pass yet, all you have to do is nod sagely and say "give it time."

Again, having no knowledge of what you are talking about regarding Biblical prophecy, you are claiming falsities about the prophecies again.

2. Sin is defined by the religion, so violence to stamp out sin is another way of terrorizing other peoples for not believing as you (not you personally, of course) do.

Actually, if the Bible is the true word of God, it alone defines sin. You wouldn't know that when you are claiming your knowledge of the Bible and koran are both weak.

This has nothing to do with a belief system, but fellowship.

What the hell does that mean. When faced with several cites showing Islamic tolerance to non-believers, this is what you come up with? Non-believers (according to the Koran and apparently practiced at times) were not forced to convert, but merely had to pay the head tax, which was apparently a very liberal attitude in those time.

Duh. "knowing people" as the point was declairing, has nothing to do with religion. Read again.

NOTE: THEY CLAIM JESUS TO BE A PROPHET, -NOT- GOD.

Yes. I understand that that is a major distinction between their religion and yours. Kudos.

The Muslims believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same "Biblical Godly heritage." As for the rest, you are right, Muslims would say that someone who believes that Jesus was the Son of God was not following the Koran. No big shocker there.

Thanks. You finally admit they are individual and non-compatible.

You know what else, Christians would say that Jews who don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God are not following the New Testament. Wow. This is shocking stuff.

True. Your point?

NOBODY has EVER been forced to become a Christian by the sword or any other means. Catholocism is on its own defense, for which there is none, as they follow their own theology of praying to the dead and supplanting ritual and intercession of MAN in place of GOD for salvation. -That is not Christianity.

Nice job, you say that no one has ever been forced to become a Christian by the sword, EXCEPT those pesky Catholics (the predominant Christian religion for two millenium) who aren't Christians anyway, because their beliefs aren't enough like yours.

No, I said they forced religion according to non-Biblical text which is not Christianity. No wonder you don't read the Bible nor koran.

However, you are still wrong. Henry VIII hung Catholics as heretics for not recognizing his supremacy as the Head of the Church of England. That sounds pretty close to forced conversion to me.

Actually, that sounds like he was an egotistical non-Bible believing heretic who liked to hang catholics because he could.

Oh wait, you probably meant that your individual sect of Christianity has never forced conversions (or perhaps you just meant your individual church).

If a church or group or individual does not have a relationship with Christ, they are not believers. If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, they are not followers either.

EXACTLY. They must repent by tossing out their Bible which claims Jesus IS God and accept the koran's teaching that he was a PROPHET ONLY.....again, as illustrated above. Therefore if they don't, they are subject to the sword as idolitors.

You obviously didn't read that earlier post and article by Prof. Esposito which states that exact opposite.

What are you talking about? He had no proof. You think an unfounded opinion with no verse to back it up is proof?

Look, you asked for a demonstration that Islam is not a violent religion intent on destroying all non-believers. I presented you with an article citing and discussing the Koran's sometimes peaceful attitude toward non-believers, and interpreting in context and historical practice, its sometimes apparently hostile attitude toward non-believers. If your interpretation of the Koran differs, fine. Just don't pretend that it is as one-sided as you would like to believe.

It was YOUR evidence, with YOUR source. I proved the source to be contradicting himself and the koran text stands on its own.

Your only defense is your claimed "interpretation" that I have made. -No such interpretation has taken place.

One more thing, if you could knock it out with your "Point proven," and "Your entire defense has just fallen apart" self-congratulatory shit, I would be eternally grateful. These are complex issues & if you can't recognize that or can't understand it, then fine, but don't act as if your statements are the end all and be all of scholarship on this topic and that no further dialogue is necessary once you have issued a decree. You are not that smart.

No need to get angry when your assault on God has been defeated.

 

[Reilly]

I give up. I lack the energy to continue. I think the thread already does a good job of discussing the issues. Thanks for the debate though.

 

[DKSuddeth]

darin, large post to go through but I seriously would like to respond to it. I'm at work and don't have the time to deal with it but I will respond when I get home and read it again.

Thanks for putting all that up there for me.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
darin, large post to go through but I seriously would like to respond to it. I'm at work and don't have the time to deal with it but I will respond when I get home and read it again.

Thanks for putting all that up there for me.

Basically, they are just scripture references where Christ, and prophecy equated Jesus with God...as One.




But if somebody doesn't believe the Bible, they would mean nothing.

Glad to have helped - Google.com ROCKS


And so does gop_jeff

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Theres only one key point about it, and I guess you're take on the validity as well.

It goes something like "the kingdom of god is within you, and all around you"

My guiding thought on this, combined with what I interpret about jesus and the old and new testaments, is that God is within you. jesus, although the son of god, is not god, but a prophet of god.

thats just my thought on it so far

DK, I found the scroll and have a little background. I am still trying to find the part you refer to. Since the scroll has a lot of text, do you have any help as to where it might be located?

 

[NewGuy]

I do not find it in that context anywhere so far.

 

[cptpwichita]

the hadith (the life and sayings of mohammed) depict a man who was extremely violent,was a megalomaniac,was a pedophile,adulterer,polygamist,rapist,thief,liar,torturer,mass murderer,assassin,human slave trader,etc..

mohammed attempted to claim a heritage in both judaism (he was anti-semetic) and christianity (mostly coptic christianity) yet he denied most of the theology of both.

while i have said this many times i will say it once more:when a muslim commits acts of violence he can point to the koran in support of it.the reason is their are 2 mohammeds- mecca mohammed and medina mohammed,one had power and one did not.once mohammed gained power later in life the more peaceful verses were abrogated with more militant verses.the koran is not in chronological order but if you do put it in chronological order it clearly shows the change in philosophy.

christianity in its teaching does not in any fashion support conversion through violence nor consequences for non-conversion.show me one verse that says that a christian can harm another for any reason.

my last point is this:are all muslims violent?no.i simply am saying islam is a breeding ground for violence.the reason alot of muslims are not violent is they are easter christians,both do not attend services or read their holy books.which explains one reason why some muslims are peaceful while some christians are violent.

 

[cptpwichita]

i'll consider that checkmate.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by cptpwichita
i'll consider that checkmate.

You just had a fancier way of saying it.

But I will say it was still a checkmate.