225 replies to this topic

[Archon]

Ash, being a Christian I disagree that this existence is "without God". I believe that God exists and he is active. Hell is being completely abandoned by God, forever.

According to Scripture, Allathar, you don't get into heaven through good works. God is perfect; heaven is perfect. No one exists, or has ever existed, who is perfect. Therefore no one should be able to get into heaven.

However, the Bible says that one man made the ultimate sacrifice for everyone. He was completely abandoned by God (Mark 1:34). 'And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"'

By doing this, Jesus took the punishment for the world's sins - every sin that has or will ever be committed. To become a Christian, all you have to do is accept that sacrifice. If you don't, it doesn't matter how good you are.

[Allathar]

And why do you think that's true? Because the Bible says so? But there are more religious books out there. Why don't you think the Koran is true?

[Pasidon]

So, Archon, what about good people who don't believe in God? Do they also burn in hell for eternity?

Yes?

[Archon]

Why don't you think the Koran is true?

This.

[Vortigern]

Archon, my boy, that's the funniest thing I've read all day. Where to begin?

There are no ancient copies of the Koran dating before 750 AD in museums.

Because of course, the ancient world had a monopoly on wisdom. Anything from after roundabout 33 A.D. cannot possibly be right. That makes perfect sense, Christianity.

Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose country has a long history of being associated with evil.

Do they realise, I wonder, that a) Saddam Hussein is now dead. Does that make Islam alright now? and b) Iraq isn't exactly the only Muslim country in the world. That's like saying Christianity can't be right because they believe it in France.

Qur'an is different than what Muhammad delivered. The Hadith tells us how the stories in the Koran came to be in one book. Large differences were noticed, so a final version was edited, released to the world and all competing copies were ordered destroyed. There you have the "miracle" of the Koran!

Because as we all know, the Bible is exactly as Jesus told it to the disciples. Word for word. They all got it tattooed onto their skin as he talked. Fact. Were you aware that the King James Bible was translated into English by the foremost writers and linguists of the day, including Shakespeare, and each of them added their own personal touches to the text? Shakespeare even embedded his name in a few of the psalms.

Koran is literally a book of fairy tales. No kidding! The Qur'an is a revised counterfeit of 6th century polytheism, composed of previously existing pagan beliefs, practices and fairy tales.

Um, SO IS THE BIBLE. Pagans were celebrating the winter solstice long before Jesus showed up, and scholarly sources are now indicating that Jesus probably wasn't even born at Christmas, but that the celebration was moved so that the pagans would think it wasn't that bad, maybe. A further example is the Cross of St. Patrick, also known as the Suncross. St. Paddy combined the pagan sun worship with the image of the cross to help convert the Irish to Christianity, and even now the suncross is the standard symbol of Irish Catholicism. And of course, those miracles Jesus did with no historical evidence whatsoever to suggest anything ever happened prove that Christianity is better than Islam, with their documented evidence of Muhammad's literally overnight conversion. Smooth moves, Jesus freaks.

The 20 Versions of the Qur’an today. (7 are recorded in the Hadith) Muslims believe that the Koran used today is identical to what was used 1400 years ago. Depending on the local sect in the world today, Muslims use up to 20 different versions of the Koran.

So what? There are hundreds of versions of the Bible. Admittedly, not all of them are seen by the Vatican as the Word of God, but they all exist. I can think of at least three different versions in my house alone, and we're not even a religious family. Besides which, Christianity has a ton of different sects, all of which believe entirely different things about God, Jesus and everything. Try reconciling Methodism with Roman Catholicism and then tell me that the Muslims are doing it wrong.

The Koran and the earliest Muslims did not believe the Bible was corrupted. Muslims may be surprised to learn that, contrary to popular belief, the Koran actually says nothing about the corruption of the Bible. It may also surprise Muslims that historically, the first Muslim to trash the Bible was Ibn-Khazem, in 1064 AD.

So the trash-talking was started by the Christians, huh? Massive religious flamewar ignited by 'the good guys'. Point to the Muzzies.

Theological and historical errors in the Qur’an.

Whereas the Bible has none of those. You know that giant flood that science has proved could not possibly have happened? Yeah, that one. Bible story.

Allah is never found in the Bible. The Muslim word for God is "Allah". The fact that Allah is Arabic specific has been a real problem for Muslims to explain. After all, why would Allah, never reveal himself to anyone in the Bible? Abraham never heard God call himself Allah! So in desperation, Muslims actually try to find the word Allah in the Bible. Brace yourself for this, it doesn’t get more ridiculous than this!

Why would Allah be found in the Bible? The Bible wasn't written in Arabic. If they were to translate fully to English, he would simply be called God, as this latest quote in fact states. Doesn't that mean that Allah is therefore in the Bible? If I were to translate both the Qu'ran and the Bible into an entirely new language which I made up, say, Esperanto, God and Allah would be the same damn word. Idiots.

There are not 50,000 errors in a Bible, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim!

These guys do realise that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Muslims, right? Vampires, some of them, but not Muslims.

The Hadith of Islam: The Muslim Hadith is to the Koran, what an engine is to a body of a car. Without the Hadith, the Koran simply won’t drive by itself!

One could say the same of the gospels to the Bible. Without the four gospels, the Bible simply won't drive by itself.

The Bible is superior to the Qur’an.

Any argument that makes this as its conclusive point is to be regarded as null and void. Fact.

Thanks for that, Archon, I needed a laugh.

[Beowulf]

Actually Vort, I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't born at Christmas but sometime in March. The manger story is a big lie anyway. Christmas is actually following the tradition of the Pagan solstice rituals. At least... I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

[Allathar]

Vortigern, thanks for ruining my chance of utterly destroying peoples arguments to believe in an illusion, and thanks for not giving me the chance to pee on the Bible.

Now that's out of the way, each and every point in that article is completely wrong. If the writers of it used the same logic to 'analyse' the Bible, as they did to analyse the Koran, they wouldn't believe in it anymore.

And yes, Christmas is actually an ancient ritual performed far before Jesus was even born. Something with the ancient Egyptians and some astronomy if I remember correctly.

Oh, I'd also like to add some stuff:

Allah is never found in the Bible. The Muslim word for God is "Allah". The fact that Allah is Arabic specific has been a real problem for Muslims to explain. After all, why would Allah, never reveal himself to anyone in the Bible? Abraham never heard God call himself Allah! So in desperation, Muslims actually try to find the word Allah in the Bible. Brace yourself for this, it doesn’t get more ridiculous than this!

In the original Bibles, yes BibleS, try to find the word 'God'. You can't. That's because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. After which it was translated & revisioned & translated & revisioned & adapted & translated. 'Allah', 'Jahweh', 'Jehova', 'Ba'al', are all ONE AND THE SAME WORD. Translated into several languages.

Actually, I'd like to add that calling God 'God' would actually be blasphemy. In the source material (and of course, as in any other fandom out there, the source material is holy), it explicitly mentioned that you can't call him anything else than 'JHW'. Those three letters are translated from Hebrew, a language which doens't use aeiou (can't find the translation for that.... the irony, but you know what I mean). To be able to pronounce it (noone knows the original name anymore) people made stuff like 'Jahweh' or 'Jehova'. As in, the Hebrew name for 'God'. 'God' as a word (as in 'a god'), however, is something entirely else and much broader, and referring to 'Jahweh' as 'God' would thus be blasphemy.

There are no ancient copies of the Koran dating before 750 AD in museums.

That's because the Islam was only invented after Mohammed's revelation by Jahweh/Allah/an epileptic attack (that's the scientific theory anyway), and Mohammed wasn't around before 750 AD, silly.

Wow, who could've thought I'd be defending the Islam one day.


Archon, give me one good reason why to take the Bible over the Koran. Just one.

[Phil]

Actually Vort, I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't born at Christmas but sometime in March. The manger story is a big lie anyway. Christmas is actually following the tradition of the Pagan solstice rituals. At least... I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

Wasn't it said at some point that Jesus was actually born in 7 AD?

[Mathijs]

See, deep down, no matter how nice a person they might appear to be, everybody who really believes in a God, especially the biblical edition, is a moron. Some people just show it sooner than others. The amount of stupidity it requires to base your life morals off of some ancient book is quite fundamental. I've yet to encounter any exceptions to this rule. To believe a word the bible (or qu'ran, or tora) says and use it as a guideline for your life is Utterly Moronic.

Edited by Matias, 03 December 2009 - 09:47 PM.

[Allathar]

See, deep down, no matter how nice a person they might appear to be, everybody who really believes in a God, especially the biblical edition, is a moron. Some people just show it sooner than others.

Ssssshhhhh. Much more fun doing it with good arguments and subtle cynism.

[Mathijs]

That just takes too much time for me these days. It's rather pointless trying to convince anyone who has had time to really think about this stuff and STILL believe in it. Just won't happen.

Edit: I would also like to point out that it was Archon who replied to my provocative ''all christians are condescending morons'' post rather emotionally, telling us how he is a nice and good person but also a Christian. Then, a few pages down the road, he posts that link. Ho ho ho.

Edited by Matias, 03 December 2009 - 09:53 PM.

[Pasidon]

Actually Vort, I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't born at Christmas but sometime in March. The manger story is a big lie anyway. Christmas is actually following the tradition of the Pagan solstice rituals. At least... I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

Wasn't it said at some point that Jesus was actually born in 7 AD?

You tell us, Mr. Kringle; keeper of all Christ related knowledge.

[Vortigern]

From a linguistic perspective, I would like to add to my previous response.

That website states numerous times that the King James Version is a "solid translation" of the original Bible, and more than once invites the reader to compare with the original Greek and Hebrew forms of the Bible. At this point I feel obliged to point out that there are perhaps a dozen scholars the world over who can read and translate ancient Hebrew, and they few not well. Hebrew was a largely contextual language, as were Greek and Latin, and because of the time difference between translations and the fact that those three languages are all dead (except, nominally, Latin, which is spoken in a highly corrupted form by Coptic monks), any perfectly accurate translation of the original works is impossible. Literally impossible. For anyone to claim otherwise is entirely incorrect.

A basic example: Latin rarely uses determiners (words like 'the', 'which', etc.). In the original translation of the KJV, determiners are all italicised to make it clearer. However, the scholars attempting the translation would have been hard-pressed to get every reference correct. Verb endings, sentence structure, minor inflections and, according to some linguists, pronunciation alone would have changed the meaning and onus of the sentence.

Overall, I have come to this conclusion: There has never been, nor will there ever be, a truly accurate transmission of the ideals of the man known as Jesus Christ into the modern world. Christianity is thus founded upon a flawed structure, and the word of the Church should therefore be disregarded as canonical or dogmatic law.

For those of you who only speak internetz: CRISTI4NITYFAILZLOL!!1!!1!!!

[Archon]

Because of course, the ancient world had a monopoly on wisdom. Anything from after roundabout 33 A.D. cannot possibly be right. That makes perfect sense, Christianity.

All that means is that Bible is older than the Koran. What you're inferring is misconstrued.

Do they realise, I wonder, that a) Saddam Hussein is now dead. Does that make Islam alright now? and b) Iraq isn't exactly the only Muslim country in the world. That's like saying Christianity can't be right because they believe it in France.

They're giving an example of a generic "Islamic" government based on Islamic principles and pointing out how bad it was.

Because as we all know, the Bible is exactly as Jesus told it to the disciples. Word for word. They all got it tattooed onto their skin as he talked. Fact. Were you aware that the King James Bible was translated into English by the foremost writers and linguists of the day, including Shakespeare, and each of them added their own personal touches to the text? Shakespeare even embedded his name in a few of the psalms.

I don't know anything about Shakespeare embedding his name in the psalms...however, the main issue is that the Bible agrees on a multitude of its main points. The Quran is not so black-and-white.

Um, SO IS THE BIBLE. Pagans were celebrating the winter solstice long before Jesus showed up, and scholarly sources are now indicating that Jesus probably wasn't even born at Christmas, but that the celebration was moved so that the pagans would think it wasn't that bad, maybe. A further example is the Cross of St. Patrick, also known as the Suncross. St. Paddy combined the pagan sun worship with the image of the cross to help convert the Irish to Christianity, and even now the suncross is the standard symbol of Irish Catholicism. And of course, those miracles Jesus did with no historical evidence whatsoever to suggest anything ever happened prove that Christianity is better than Islam, with their documented evidence of Muhammad's literally overnight conversion. Smooth moves, Jesus freaks.

I don't see how the fact that symbols and birthdates were changed to fit in with the culture changes anything. The main principles of Christianity are still intact. The Bible doesn't hang on the fact that Jesus was born on December 25th, nor does it rely on the "cross" being a Christian symbol.

So what? There are hundreds of versions of the Bible. Admittedly, not all of them are seen by the Vatican as the Word of God, but they all exist. I can think of at least three different versions in my house alone, and we're not even a religious family. Besides which, Christianity has a ton of different sects, all of which believe entirely different things about God, Jesus and everything. Try reconciling Methodism with Roman Catholicism and then tell me that the Muslims are doing it wrong.

However, the different "versions" are still much more the same than the Koran is. If you read the New Living Translation as opposed to the New International Version, you'll still get the exact same message. The wording is all that's different (with the exception of the Catholic Bible, which adds different books which don't change the principles of Christianity whatsoever anyway).

So the trash-talking was started by the Christians, huh? Massive religious flamewar ignited by 'the good guys'. Point to the Muzzies.

No, it just says that the Muslims can't turn to the Qur'an to disprove the Bible.

Whereas the Bible has none of those. You know that giant flood that science has proved could not possibly have happened? Yeah, that one. Bible story.

Actually, there's a lot of scientific evidence that points to Noah's flood - sea creatures being found in the desert and stuff. I haven't researched this stuff a whole lot, but I disagree that science proved it never happened.

Why would Allah be found in the Bible? The Bible wasn't written in Arabic.

I have no idea; apparently the Muslims are trying to prove it is found in the Bible.

These guys do realise that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Muslims, right? Vampires, some of them, but not Muslims.

No, they aren't Muslims, but the Muslim apologist who quoted from it was still wrong.

One could say the same of the gospels to the Bible. Without the four gospels, the Bible simply won't drive by itself.

Yes, but maybe the Gospels are true and the Haddith isn't.

Any argument that makes this as its conclusive point is to be regarded as null and void. Fact.

...

telling us how he is a nice and good person but also a Christian. Then, a few pages down the road, he posts that link. Ho ho ho.

And this link somehow proves that I'm not a good person? I fail to understand that logic, Matias.

[Vortigern]

All that means is that Bible is older than the Koran. What you're inferring is misconstrued.

It reads like 'Brother Andrew' is bragging about it, to me. He seems to consider the fact that the Bible is older than the Qu'ran to mean that it is superior.

They're giving an example of a generic "Islamic" government based on Islamic principles and pointing out how bad it was.

There's no such thing as a 'generic Islamic government', just like there's no such thing as a 'generic Christian government'. Spurious point.

I don't know anything about Shakespeare embedding his name in the psalms...however, the main issue is that the Bible agrees on a multitude of its main points. The Quran is not so black-and-white.

Meh, I can't argue on that one. I'm not exactly deeply familiar with either the Bible or the Qu'ran (though I do have more than a passing knowledge and have read the Bible in its entirety, so don't take that to mean I don't know what I'm talking about), so I guess I'll leave that one up to you.

I don't see how the fact that symbols and birthdates were changed to fit in with the culture changes anything. The main principles of Christianity are still intact. The Bible doesn't hang on the fact that Jesus was born on December 25th, nor does it rely on the "cross" being a Christian symbol.

You're missing the point here. The website said that the Qu'ran was put together by rehashing old concepts and implied that that made it inferior. I was merely pointing out, with examples, that the Bible is no different. They both heavily reference past cultures and beliefs.

However, the different "versions" are still much more the same than the Koran is. If you read the New Living Translation as opposed to the New International Version, you'll still get the exact same message. The wording is all that's different (with the exception of the Catholic Bible, which adds different books which don't change the principles of Christianity whatsoever anyway).

OK, so the message is the same. How, then, do so many different denominations interpret it so differently? Answer me that, with your precious logic.

Actually, there's a lot of scientific evidence that points to Noah's flood - sea creatures being found in the desert and stuff. I haven't researched this stuff a whole lot, but I disagree that science proved it never happened.

No there isn't. The Bible states that Noah washed up on the top of Mount Ararat, does it not? For the seas to be that high would require more water than is within the Earth's atmosphere. Disproven.

Yes, but maybe the Gospels are true and the Haddith isn't.

HA! Maybe the Hadith is true and the gospels aren't. Did you think of that?

Thanks for picking this up, Archie. I'm just annoyed that I have to go to sleep now and can't wait for your next rebuttal.

[Archon]

It reads like 'Brother Andrew' is bragging about it, to me. He seems to consider the fact that the Bible is older than the Qu'ran to mean that it is superior.

That's subjective, but fairly true. Since you gave me one, I'll give you this one as well.

There's no such thing as a 'generic Islamic government', just like there's no such thing as a 'generic Christian government'. Spurious point.

Really? Iraq is very comparable to other Islamic governments such as Saudia Arabia, Iran, and even Syria and Jordan...

You're missing the point here. The website said that the Qu'ran was put together by rehashing old concepts and implied that that made it inferior. I was merely pointing out, with examples, that the Bible is no different. They both heavily reference past cultures and beliefs.

Not really true. The formal "timing" of Christmas was decided long after the Bible was written, as with the Suncross. I don't know of any evidence that says the Bible draws from other legends that were in place before it was written.

OK, so the message is the same. How, then, do so many different denominations interpret it so differently? Answer me that, with your precious logic.

It's human nature to interpret things differently, that's nothing new. But the Qu'ran's message has fundamental differences, as opposed to the Bible's message being intact, and yet being construed differently.

No there isn't. The Bible states that Noah washed up on the top of Mount Ararat, does it not? For the seas to be that high would require more water than is within the Earth's atmosphere. Disproven.

Ah, but you're forgetting that the flood didn't have to cover today's earth, but the earth of Noah's day. The Bible teaches that the flood geologically changed the earth (2 Peter 3:6). The high topographic extremes of today's world would therefore caused by the Flood, thereby making it impossible to ever make such a Flood again. Exactly as said in Genesis by the way.

HA! Maybe the Hadith is true and the gospels aren't. Did you think of that?

And maybe the evidence goes against the Hadith.

Thanks for picking this up, Archie. I'm just annoyed that I have to go to sleep now and can't wait for your next rebuttal.

You're welcome, O Lord of Sarcasm.

[some_weirdGuy]

back to something on the last page:

@ some_weirdGuy: Islam and Christianity are NOT basically the same. In fact, they are not even close.
Read this link for a comparison between both religions, and decide for yourself. http://muslim-canada...fferences_basic

well straight off the bat there i see Eight sections filled with similarities, and only Four with differences. Added to this the similarities that i already know, and i'd say they Are basically the same.


also:
The church killed jesus. does it not sound like obvious manipulation when you now read 'but we killed him to forgive all our sins and killing him was the right thing to do and what god and jesus wanted, so we weren't really bad at all'.

The bible and religion has been twisted to suit people in power. For example, god hates gays. Why does god hate gays? i bet he never use to hate gays till some homophobic got in power and added it as part of the religion. It even contradicts statements of accepting others and loving thy neighbor. It never said 'oh, unless they are gay in which case you should burn them at the stake'...

Edited by some_weirdGuy, 04 December 2009 - 12:59 AM.

[Pasidon]

The church killed jesus. does it not sound like obvious manipulation when you now read 'but we killed him to forgive all our sins and killing him was the right thing to do and what god and jesus wanted, so we weren't really bad at all'.

We didn't kill the carpenter to forgive our sins on purpose. He showed God that we WERE bad, and that even our evil can be forgiven.

The bible and religion has been twisted to suit people in power. For example, god hates gays. Why does god hate gays? i bet he never use to hate gays till some homophobic got in power and added it as part of the religion. It even contradicts statements of accepting others and loving thy neighbor. It never said 'oh, unless they are gay in which case you should burn them at the stake'...

The Vatican hates gays... don't get the two confused now. But when I become Pope, dribble like that will suddenly vanish. Gasp.

[duke_Qa]

Do they realise, I wonder, that a) Saddam Hussein is now dead. Does that make Islam alright now? and b) Iraq isn't exactly the only Muslim country in the world. That's like saying Christianity can't be right because they believe it in France.

They're giving an example of a generic "Islamic" government based on Islamic principles and pointing out how bad it was.

Also, Saddam's Iraq was ruled by a "secular" government compared to the options available right now. You were loyal to the Baath party, not some religion. Also, they had plenty of fighting in Iran, which probably led Saddam to go for a more secular ruling because it would cause internal trouble if their governments were too alike. Also, as a country filled with Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, you would be asking for trouble making a government filled with one religious grouping.

The only reason to pick Iraq as a example of a bad Muslim country is because of the wars the USA has been having with them since after the cold war. It subconsciously adds weight to the religious argument, which is a cheap trick.

If you want a fine example of a bad muslim country, you can look at Iran. Naturally, its not so much that the religious people are controlling it, but that they are ruling a country and using the face of God to silence the dissenters. But thats what religion generally is about.

[Archon]

Very well duke. Good point.

@ Pasidon: It's "drivel."

@ some_weirdGuy: I suggest you don't judge things right off the bat. The number of similarities and differences doesn't add much weight to your argument at all. 100 pennies is more than 1 dollar, correct? Not exactly.

Also, God does not hate gays. Anyone who tells you that, even if it's the Pope himself, is lying.