The Nature of True Religion

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 15:46:07 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 1, 2018 21:10:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You must have missed the part that I underlined... Remember, some sects of Christianity believe that life begins at conception. I'm not saying that you or I need to believe this... only that some Christians do. That's who the "if you believe" in the underlined referred to.

What sects of Christianity believe has little to do with what the ten commandments mean.

If they believe life begins at conception, that is their choice. But it is not biblical nor is the commandment about any unborn humans or fish, etc.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Because for those that do believe life begins at conception, it is "killing" to abort. And for them, "Thou shalt not kill" applies, and it (the Suggestion) is in the Bible.

(this is why a religion that's so open to interpretation is so dangerous... multiple conflicting beliefs all based out of the same source material)

[thyme4change]

Jan 1, 2018 21:03:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 1, 2018 11:02:42 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Levitivus only applies to people who don't eat bacon. If you are pushing for anti-gay laws, then you should also be pushing for kosher to be mandatory.

Unless, of course, your religion dictates if YOU are kosher, and your religion dictates if YOU are going to refrain from gay sex. Then you don't need laws, because others can practice their own religion, or lack there-of.

How does "shall not lie with man as with woman" apply to bacon? Or do you mean it only applies to Kosher Jews?

I wasn't arguing against homosexuality. I was simply rebutting the foolish claim that "Abortion and homosexuality were never mentioned in the Bible." The Old Testament (including Leviticus) IS part of the Bible.

So... I'm not saying that they should FOLLOW Leviticus... I'm just saying that it IS in the Bible.

Christians are well known for cherry picking what they do and don't want to follow from the Bible. My favorite one is their "Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman" ignorance of Biblical reality... Multiple wives are represented as not only allowed, but in some cases forced upon people!

Example: (Matthew 22:24) Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There's no "but don't if he is already married" exemption. It says "shall". Period. Not "may", not "can", not "should"... but "shall". And Jesus (supposedly, according to Matthew) doesn't contradict the rule because... (Matthew 22:29-30) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. states that Heaven is not like Earth, and no one will be married to anyone, and all will be angels.

Either the commands of Leviticus apply or they do not. We can't eat bacon while damning all homosexuals.

I mean, obviously many people can, and do. They also feel very superior for doing so. And it is a bad execution of religion.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 17:47:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

mroped : I'm simply saying that if we accept the Bible as a scriptural authority, it can be used to prove Christ's divinity. You seemed to be arguing against this in your previous post.

A fantasy novel can’t be used as proof. 

Faith is not fact. By definition.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 21:11:30 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jan 1, 2018 21:03:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

How does "shall not lie with man as with woman" apply to bacon? Or do you mean it only applies to Kosher Jews?

I wasn't arguing against homosexuality. I was simply rebutting the foolish claim that "Abortion and homosexuality were never mentioned in the Bible." The Old Testament (including Leviticus) IS part of the Bible.

So... I'm not saying that they should FOLLOW Leviticus... I'm just saying that it IS in the Bible.

Christians are well known for cherry picking what they do and don't want to follow from the Bible. My favorite one is their "Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman" ignorance of Biblical reality... Multiple wives are represented as not only allowed, but in some cases forced upon people!

Example: (Matthew 22:24) Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There's no "but don't if he is already married" exemption. It says "shall". Period. Not "may", not "can", not "should"... but "shall". And Jesus (supposedly, according to Matthew) doesn't contradict the rule because... (Matthew 22:29-30) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. states that Heaven is not like Earth, and no one will be married to anyone, and all will be angels.

Either the commands of Leviticus apply or they do not. We can't eat bacon while damning all homosexuals.

I mean, obviously many people can, and do. They also feel very superior for doing so. And it is a bad execution of religion.

Let me make it simple:
The statement I was responding to was: "Abortion and homosexuality were never mentioned in the Bible"
Is the Old Testament in the Bible? Yes or No.
Is Leviticus in the Old Testament? Yes or No.
Is the prohibition against Man lying with Man as with Woman in Leviticus? Yes or No.

Ergo (since all of those answere are "Yes")... it IS mentioned in the Bible.

Thank you for playing!
(I do agree that either they all apply or they all don't... but that wasn't the point that I was addressing, and I made clear in my rebuttal to you, that you apparently ignored even though you quoted it)

[thyme4change]

Jan 2, 2018 17:25:13 GMT -5 mroped said:

Just as a fun fact, as you know I grew up in communism and the everyday shpill was that Comunism is the greatest, the perfect society and we should ever be so proud for growing up in it and be part of the building process as the complete success of it rests upon us and our efforts. And I truly believed that! Without a question or a shadow of a doubt!
But then one day, I grew up and started questioning the validity of my beliefs and found out that most of what I believed in was based on false statements and propaganda.
But then how come that everything I was reading about it was supporting the propaganda?
Never to this day have I figured that one out!

!

We are told the same thing about the USA. Best country on the planet! No question about it. I'm not sure what criteria we are using to determine that.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 2, 2018 19:59:46 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

If you have proof of this, please post it.

It took me 21 years to prove it to myself. Also a crisis of faith, a desertion of my Catholic upbringing, four churches, thousands of hours of study, countless answered prayers, and an inexplicable drive to continue throughout the process.

I'm afraid I'm not going to convince a hardened skeptic in 500 words or less on a public message board.

Indeed I have no power to change anybody's mind. This is getting into yet another detailed scriptural topic, but bear with me: God is calling a certain number of individuals at this time, in this age, for a special purpose. This group is called "the elect", "the firstfruits", "the ekklesia" (the assembly; the called out ones), among other things. The Bible doesn't tell us how God selects His elect, and indeed the only quality they possess that's emphasized is that they're typically not wealthy, powerful, or wise in the eyes of the world (1 Cor 1:26-27). They're neither inherently better nor more deserving of God's grace than anyone else.

God gives these people a mind to understand and a spirit to seek Him out. Nobody without this spirit, who has not been expressly called by God the Father, can succeed in this endeavour. This is stated succinctly in John 6:44, where Christ Himself says:

No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

A calling involves a many things, but suffice it to say here that God Himself does the calling. A Christian cannot initiate; he/she may only respond. Among other things, this means I have absolutely zero power to convert (in the true sense of conversion) you or anybody else. I could reason with you, plead with you, throw money at you, threaten you, call fire down from Heaven in front of your very eyes, and you would not be truly converted.

What then is the role of the church and Christians if not to convert?

The church has many roles proscribed by scripture, some pertaining to the world, some pertaining to the elect, but the two most relevant to the elect are:

• to prepare, train, and instruct the individuals God is calling at this time
  
  
• to serve as a beacon by word, by example, and through the preaching of the gospel so that the individuals being drawn to Christ by the Father have a place to receive instruction, partake in fellowship, and serve in His work on Earth
  

The process is self-directed and self-motivated under the guidance of Christ and God the Father. If somebody doesn't sincerely want to invest all their heart and soul to it, devote their life to it, and turn completely away from practicing sin, they either won't respond to the calling, or will fall away, or will become ensnared by the cares of this life. The Bible talks about this in Mark 4 and Matthew 13, first in parables, then in plain terms. I may be mistaken in my judgment, but "Eager to seek God with all one's heart, mind, and soul." doesn't strike me as your present state of mind. Hence you'll have to forgive my unwillingness to invest time beating my head against the wall.

In what is called the General Resurrection, God will call all those not called in this age (i.e. the firstfruits). Again: a very detailed subject. The key point here being that Satan and all the deceptions of this age will be taken away, mankind will see God and know God personally, and billions of people who today aren't called, who don't know God and never had a chance to truly know Him, will be called in the age to come. At the end will be the Judgment and the destruction of the incorrigibly wicked, as touched on in the previous post.

God may call you in this lifetime or He may not. If He doesn't, rest assured I don't believe you'll burn in Hell forever (which is a Satanic doctrine if ever there was one). You'll be called, and instructed. From what little I know about you, you strike me as a fundamentally lawful individual who wants to do good and not evil. I don't see you as somebody who despises instruction. But I can only know my heart and worry about my salvation. It's not my job to speculate on how you'll respond (Christians are not to judge; only God knows the heart, and only God has the power to save), but I'd like to think that all of us will eventually make it, in this age or the next. That includes homosexuals, and transsexuals, and Pres. Trump, and anyone else whose behaviour I've starkly condemned over the years.

So... in terms of proving things to you, this is all you get from me. An explanation of why I can't, won't, and don't want to. At the very least, though, I hope you have a better understanding of where I stand.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 2, 2018 20:59:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 1, 2018 16:35:20 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Suffice it to say there's nothing vague about the prohibition, and that part of treating others with kindness is instructing them in the Law of God, which is the Law of liberty.

I've been thinking about this post a lot... 

And it finally dawned on me what was wrong with it: There is no "Liberty" with a belief in God. Liberty is the ability to do as you see right, and true, and good, and just... without fear of repercussion by the governing body (at least so long as you don't deprive others of the same ability for themselves). "God's" Law (which a bunch of old men made up) is "Do it my way, or you're fucked... even though I gave you the desire to do it the way I don't approve of, and you don't have any choice in the matter of having those urges."

It's the Law that leads to eternal life.

Consider it like the set of rules that make your computer function. Asking the CPU to add A and B should return the sum of A and B. Asking the CPU to store a value in register X and then recall it should return the value stored in register X.

This computer has to run forever. It can have no flaws when it's finished. A computer with a faulty CPU, memory errors, etc. will, with 100% probability, cease normal function in a finite amount of time. A computer that ceases normal function becomes corrupt and useless. It eventually locks up and loses all utility. There is no order left, only chaos.

But a computer that operates perfectly, following its instruction set perfectly, recalling its bits and bytes perfectly, is free to do wonderful and amazing things. Just a handful of rules and a binary computer can run algorithms and programs with complexity beyond imagining. The programmer enjoys true liberty, without worry of corruption, and the sky's the limit.

This is what's meant by the Law of Liberty, only in a spiritual sense. It is the set of rules that governs order in eternity. In a sense it describes the Mind of God, as it pertains to man.

[mroped]

Virgil you missed the point entirely!
If the only proof that one can bring to support a claim is the claim itself then by the simplest mathematical laws they cancel each other. Ergo, there is no proof!
Diferent interpretation or takes on the nuances of the language can’t be used as proof either.
We all know that the Bible had been translated in English from Greek or Latin which in turn were translated or interpreted from manuscripts that were in Aramaic a dead language. All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean. All the church had to do is to interpret these key words in a manner that would befit the scope of the church: use a supposed “holly” writing to indoctrinate the masses.
In other words, the church( Christian Church in our case) perpetrated a scam with the scope of controlling the population/followers.

Sounds very much like a conspiracy theory but hey, why not do it when I hear claims about people walking on water, bringing back the dead and making the blind see?
There are two possible explanations here: these people were in possession of some really advanced tech or they were simply frauds. Which can be supported by real, palpable proof?

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 21:50:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 20:59:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I've been thinking about this post a lot... 

And it finally dawned on me what was wrong with it: There is no "Liberty" with a belief in God. Liberty is the ability to do as you see right, and true, and good, and just... without fear of repercussion by the governing body (at least so long as you don't deprive others of the same ability for themselves). "God's" Law (which a bunch of old men made up) is "Do it my way, or you're fucked... even though I gave you the desire to do it the way I don't approve of, and you don't have any choice in the matter of having those urges."

It's the Law that leads to eternal life.

Consider it like the set of rules that make your computer function. Asking the CPU to add A and B should return the sum of A and B. Asking the CPU to store a value in register X and then recall it should return the value stored in register X.

This computer has to run forever. It can have no flaws when it's finished. A computer with a faulty CPU, memory errors, etc. will, with 100% probability, cease normal function in a finite amount of time. A computer that ceases normal function becomes corrupt and useless. It eventually locks up and loses all utility. There is no order left, only chaos.

But a computer that operates perfectly, following its instruction set perfectly, recalling its bits and bytes perfectly, is free to do wonderful and amazing things. Just a handful of rules and a binary computer can run algorithms and programs with complexity beyond imagining. The programmer enjoys true liberty, without worry of corruption, and the sky's the limit.

This is what's meant by the Law of Liberty, only in a spiritual sense. It is the set of rules that governs order in eternity. In a sense it describes the Mind of God, as it pertains to man.

So... gibberish it is, then. Got it.

Because none of that equates with God and his rules and his setup.

Let's take your mathematical formula, for example:

You say: "Asking the CPU to add A and B should return the sum of A and B"
Which would be good and true and accurate... BUT (and here's the rub)... That's not what Christianity does. Here's the "mathematical formula" for Christianity: Solve for A (Afterlife/Heaven) when B (Bible) + T (time) - C (conditions) = H (humanity)

How the hell do you "Solve for A", when "A" isn't even in the freaking equation?

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 21:37:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 19:59:46 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

God gives these people a mind to understand and a spirit to seek Him out. Nobody without this spirit, who has not been expressly called by God the Father, can succeed in this endeavour. This is stated succinctly in John 6:44, where Christ Himself says:

No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

• 
  

The process is self-directed and self-motivated under the guidance of Christ and God the Father. If somebody doesn't sincerely want to invest all their heart and soul to it, devote their life to it, and turn completely away from practicing sin, they either won't respond to the calling, or will fall away, or will become ensnared by the cares of this life. The Bible talks about this in Mark 4 and Matthew 13, first in parables, then in plain terms. I may be mistaken in my judgment, but "Eager to seek God with all one's heart, mind, and soul." doesn't strike me as your present state of mind. Hence you'll have to forgive my unwillingness to invest time beating my head against the wall.

The hubris is in suggesting that anyone motivated and directed under the guidance of Christ and God would come to the exact same conclusion that you have. That you know God's state of mind, let alone mine... 

on other notes...
Begging the Question... my favorite fallacy... look it up. 

[mmhmm]

Jan 2, 2018 19:50:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 18:07:13 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Your opinion,  Not fact.
Don't speak like it's fact.

If I asked you to preface everything I don't consider factual with "I believe...", would you honour the request?

The only use of prefacing a statement with "In my opinion..." or "I believe..." is to convey uncertainty or subjectivity.

To the bolded, I say: "Yes, most certainly. In fact, you don't have to ask.

There is no uncertainty in my answer. It is my answer and it is unequivocal. Only I can answer for what I believe. Only you can answer for what you believe. It's not a matter of uncertainty; however, beliefs are, by their very nature, subjective. Mine are as meaningful and important to me as yours are to you.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 2, 2018 22:01:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

Virgil you missed the point entirely!
If the only proof that one can bring to support a claim is the claim itself then by the simplest mathematical laws they cancel each other. Ergo, there is no proof!
Diferent interpretation or takes on the nuances of the language can’t be used as proof either.
We all know that the Bible had been translated in English from Greek or Latin which in turn were translated or interpreted from manuscripts that were in Aramaic a dead language. All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean. All the church had to do is to interpret these key words in a manner that would befit the scope of the church: use a supposed “holly” writing to indoctrinate the masses.
In other words, the church( Christian Church in our case) perpetrated a scam with the scope of controlling the population/followers.

Sounds very much like a conspiracy theory but hey, why not do it when I hear claims about people walking on water, bringing back the dead and making the blind see?
There are two possible explanations here: these people were in possession of some really advanced tech or they were simply frauds. Which can be supported by real, palpable proof?

Exactly! The people who perpetuated it had an agenda.....keep the unwashed and starving masses under control.

"Suffering is good for you...you'll get your eternal reward."
"Don't make waves and don't complain....you'll get your eternal reward. The meek shall inherit the earth."

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 2, 2018 22:11:10 GMT -5 oped said:

The hubris is in suggesting that anyone motivated and directed under the guidance of Christ and God would come to the exact same conclusion that you have.

Without fail, major doctrines only admit one consistent and thoroughly defensible interpretation working from scripture. Interpret them wrongly and they conflict painfully with the rest of scripture (and often with themselves). It's also easy to pinpoint the historical origins of most false doctrines--when they were introduced, by whom, and for what reason. The same rules apply to most minor doctrines. For the few that admit multiple, incompatible interpretations, I freely disclaim this when defending the interpretation I consider "best".

You might as well accuse me of hubris for asserting that (modulo a few details) a blueprint can only be correctly interpreted one way.

If I'm grossly mistaken, it will be my burden to bear in the Judgment.

Jan 2, 2018 22:11:10 GMT -5 oped said:

Begging the Question... my favorite fallacy... look it up.

It's a fancy term for circular logic. What of it?

If you're accusing me for responding to Weltz' demand for proof by citing scripture, my reply isn't intended to prove anything to her. It's to point out that the doctrine itself precludes the possibility of me proving it to her. Hence if I proved to her, the doctrine paradoxically couldn't be true. The reply also provides an explanation for any readers that do consider scripture authoritative.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 2, 2018 22:01:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

We all know that the Bible had been translated in English from Greek or Latin which in turn were translated or interpreted from manuscripts that were in Aramaic a dead language. All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean. All the church had to do is to interpret these key words in a manner that would befit the scope of the church

You might as well be arguing we can't rightly translate Shakespeare's works into modern English.

There are disputed words and passages in the books of the Bible, variances between manuscripts, and uncertainty in the denotation and connotation of some words, but to say "All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean." is to throw away the 99% for the sake of the 1%.

Hermeneutics is an inexact science at times, but if we get to throw away all of scripture based on a marginal bit of uncertainty, we might as well throw out all of climate science based on its inexactitude, and archaeology based on its inexactitude, and all of human history, for that matter, based on its inexactitude.

The scriptures are the inspired word of God, inerrant in their original manuscripts. I know their history and the many challenges to their legitimacy. Any document of ancient origin is subject to a degree of uncertainty, but if I have faith in anything, it's that God has preserved His Word to our generation. If you want to go after a religion for using religious texts that bear no resemblance at all to their original manuscripts, try Islam.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 23:53:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 22:01:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

We all know that the Bible had been translated in English from Greek or Latin which in turn were translated or interpreted from manuscripts that were in Aramaic a dead language. All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean. All the church had to do is to interpret these key words in a manner that would befit the scope of the church

You might as well be arguing we can't rightly translate Shakespeare's works into modern English.

There are disputed words and passages in the books of the Bible, variances between manuscripts, and uncertainty in the denotation and connotation of some words, but to say "All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean." is to throw away the 99% for the sake of the 1%.

Hermeneutics is an inexact science at times, but if we get to throw away all of scripture based on a marginal bit of uncertainty, we might as well throw out all of climate science based on its inexactitude, and archaeology based on its inexactitude, and all of human history, for that matter, based on its inexactitude.

The scriptures are the inspired word of God, inerrant in their original manuscripts. I know their history and the many challenges to their legitimacy. Any document of ancient origin is subject to a degree of uncertainty, but if I have faith in anything, it's that God has preserved His Word to our generation. If you want to go after a religion for using religious texts that bear no resemblance at all to their original manuscripts, try Islam.

There's no difference in that respect, when compared to the Bible. Both have flaws in both the originals AND in translation. But then, both were created by men as well as translated by men, and men aren't perfect.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2018 23:53:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 22:01:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

The scriptures are the inspired word of God, inerrant in their original manuscripts. I know their history and the many challenges to their legitimacy. Any document of ancient origin is subject to a degree of uncertainty, but if I have faith in anything, it's that God has preserved His Word to our generation. If you want to go after a religion for using religious texts that bear no resemblance at all to their original manuscripts, try Islam.

Begging the question= assuming the premise of the conclusion. 

[swamp]

Jan 2, 2018 17:44:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 14:51:02 GMT -5 swamp said:

Telling someone they are a pervert doomed to hell for engaging in intimate acts with someone they love isn't my idea of kindness. 

I'm not condemning anybody to Hell.

There will come a time they'll be taught by Christ personally that homosexuality is unlawful and deeply harmful, and given an opportunity to repent. I sincerely believe most will do so when confronted with the truth. Those who repent of wrongdoing will inherit eternal life. Those few who are utterly incorrigible will be judged by Christ (according to His Word) and destroyed in Hellfire. Not even their memory will persist; it will be as though they'd never existed. Scripture makes all of this very plain. These aren't my judgments.

Suppose you believed as I do that there is a judgment and a resurrection to eternal life. What kindness is there in misleading people, countenancing evil, lying and flattering? If a man is heading for a ditch and doesn't know it, do we love him by giving him a smile and a friendly wave, or do we yell at him that there's a ditch and he needs to turn around? Homosexuality tends to get a lot of attention in front of secular audiences because the secular world portrays it as a good and wonderful thing, but there are many kinds of sin (which is lawlessness) and Christians need to eschew all of them.

Romans 1, 26-32 (JKV):

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The NIV translates verse 32 as "who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them."

The ASV translates it as "who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them."

A Christian (one truly "knowing the ordinance of God"--somebody who ought to know better) who countenances or tolerates evil is by no means going to enter the Kingdom of God. We do nobody any favours, least of all ourselves, by lying to our fellow man for sake of his feelings. Yet another reason why Richard's puffball conception of religion profoundly misses the mark.

Christ is dead.   He personally is not teaching me anything.  I've learned a great deal from him, and i like a lot of his teachings, but I still don't think he cared about homosexuality.    You can quote the bible all you want, it still doesn't prove anything.  I don't take it literally and I never will.  And if God wants to punish me for it, that's between me and God.     

[mroped]

Flash news Virgil! 
What you call Old Testament is surprise,surprise in the Quran. So is the New Testament with the only difference that Jesus is not the son of God but a true prophet. 
Ofcourse there are some minor changes but believe it or not they are done in such a way that make the entire story more believable.
Ultimately, as you said, then yes, Islam doesn’t follow the original text and that might be because those that put together the Quran applied more sense to it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2018 10:50:46 GMT -5 mroped said:

Flash news Virgil! 
What you call Old Testament is surprise,surprise in the Quran. So is the New Testament with the only difference that Jesus is not the son of God but a true prophet. 
Ofcourse there are some minor changes but believe it or not they are done in such a way that make the entire story more believable.
Ultimately, as you said, then yes, Islam doesn’t follow the original text and that might be because those that put together the Quran applied more sense to it.

The Old Testament isn't "in the Qu'ran". The two texts happen to agree on certain significant historical events, which is the strongest thing that can be said about their commonality.

While Islam considers Christ a prophet, they don't consider any of the books of the New Testament to be His teachings. Nor do they believe the four books called the four gospels truthfully convey the history of His ministry. In other words, the Christ of Islam bears no resemblance to the Christ of Christianity save for some superficial historical details.

[mroped]

No it doesn’t and mainly because he is not CHRIST which in translation means of divine roots/savior or as we say it Messiah.
Islam doesn’t accept the premise of a God that has physical form, substance and shape so how can something that doesn’t have those three qualities have an offspring?
So he is simply called Jesus after the name that his biological parents gave him and since he had a deep connection to God is a prophet. Second biggest after Mohammed.
The thing is that according to the Bible, Israel had a half brother by the name of Ishmael whom was banished along with his mother and who turns to be the father of all Islam.
Unlike the Bible that drops his story, the Quran tells his story along with the one of Israel and his descendants. Not in such great detail as the Bible but still!
That is how the Islam recognizes Moses and Joseph and a few others as prophets. 
What the Bible does is called omission of events/facts by choice in an attempt to depict Christianity as the only true religion. All others are “pagans” or “savages” or “infidels” and they are suppose to be alright with the name given to them by Christianity but God forbid that someone else calls Christians with the name of “infidel”.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2018 12:09:42 GMT -5 mroped said:

No it doesn’t and mainly because he is not CHRIST which in translation means of divine roots/savior or as we say it Messiah.
Islam doesn’t accept the premise of a God that has physical form, substance and shape so how can something that doesn’t have those three qualities have an offspring?
So he is simply called Jesus after the name that his biological parents gave him and since he had a deep connection to God is a prophet. Second biggest after Mohammed.
The thing is that according to the Bible, Israel had a half brother by the name of Ishmael whom was banished along with his mother and who turns to be the father of all Islam.
Unlike the Bible that drops his story, the Quran tells his story along with the one of Israel and his descendants. Not in such great detail as the Bible but still!
That is how the Islam recognizes Moses and Joseph and a few others as prophets. 
What the Bible does is called omission of events/facts by choice in an attempt to depict Christianity as the only true religion. All others are “pagans” or “savages” or “infidels” and they are suppose to be alright with the name given to them by Christianity but God forbid that someone else calls Christians with the name of “infidel”.

Israel (Jacob) was the son of Isaac, who was Ishmael's half-brother. Hence Israel was Ishmael's half-nephew, not his half-brother.

Isaac was given the birthright by Abraham. Isaac's descendants through Jacob (Israel) were the Israelite peoples, including the sons of Judah, namely the Jews. Christianity and Judaism recognize Isaac as having the birthright. God in the Old Testament is therefore often referred-to as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".

The descendants of Ishmael, of whom Mohammad was one, have never recognized Isaac as the holder of the birthright under Abraham. They dispute the veracity of the Torah (the Old Testament) at this very early point, believing Ishmael (patriarch of Arabs) to have received the birthright blessing. See here for details.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 2, 2018 23:53:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 2, 2018 22:01:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

We all know that the Bible had been translated in English from Greek or Latin which in turn were translated or interpreted from manuscripts that were in Aramaic a dead language. All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean. All the church had to do is to interpret these key words in a manner that would befit the scope of the church

You might as well be arguing we can't rightly translate Shakespeare's works into modern English.

There are disputed words and passages in the books of the Bible, variances between manuscripts, and uncertainty in the denotation and connotation of some words, but to say "All possible translations are pure suppositions as far as what the key words mean." is to throw away the 99% for the sake of the 1%.

Hermeneutics is an inexact science at times, but if we get to throw away all of scripture based on a marginal bit of uncertainty, we might as well throw out all of climate science based on its inexactitude, and archaeology based on its inexactitude, and all of human history, for that matter, based on its inexactitude.

The scriptures are the inspired word of God, inerrant in their original manuscripts. I know their history and the many challenges to their legitimacy. Any document of ancient origin is subject to a degree of uncertainty, but if I have faith in anything, it's that God has preserved His Word to our generation. If you want to go after a religion for using religious texts that bear no resemblance at all to their original manuscripts, try Islam.

Oh, so rabbits DO chew cuds? Could have fooled me, as well as all biologists.

[mroped]

Ok, you’re right, Ishmael was Isaac’s half brother so Israel’s uncle. 
Here is the kicker: why did God turn on his word?
He told Abraham that he would make his first born the father of his people but later on turns to “I will make him the father of a great nation...” or something of the sorts. “ His hand will be against everybody and everybody’s hand will be against him”.
Or maybe your version of the Bible doesn’t talk about that?

Regardless of what people think on who’s religion is the right one and so on I always thought on the whole story of the Bible with one question in mind: why did God choose the people of Israel? 
Why didn’t he choose the people of Gengis Khan? Or Eric The Red?
What drove him to decide on that specific people?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2018 13:54:22 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oh, so rabbits DO chew cuds? Could have fooled me, as well as all biologists.

*sigh*

This is the third time I've done this on YMAM.

Excerpted from here (bold by me):

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. [1] Rock badgers and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense. It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.

Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

In particular, another name for this process is called cecotrophy, because the material is taken in a pouch at the beginning of the large intestine called the cecum or ‘blind gut’ (Latin caecus = blind). In the cecum, a process called ‘hindgut fermentation’ occurs, where bacteria help digest the food by breaking down cellulose into simple sugars. Then the special dropping, called a cecotrope, is expelled and re-eaten. This cecotrope is very different from normal feces, thus cecotrophy is very different from other forms of coprophagy (eating dung) practised by animals such as pigs and dogs.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

It does, however, emphasize the importance of mroped's point that we need to be careful in going back to the original manuscripts to ensure accurate word meanings.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2018 17:00:39 GMT -5 mroped said:

Ok, you’re right, Ishmael was Isaac’s half brother so Israel’s uncle. 
Here is the kicker: why did God turn on his word?
He told Abraham that he would make his first born the father of his people but later on turns to “I will make him the father of a great nation...” or something of the sorts. “ His hand will be against everybody and everybody’s hand will be against him”.
Or maybe your version of the Bible doesn’t talk about that?

Regardless of what people think on who’s religion is the right one and so on I always thought on the whole story of the Bible with one question in mind: why did God choose the people of Israel? 
Why didn’t he choose the people of Gengis Khan? Or Eric The Red?
What drove him to decide on that specific people?

The link in my previous post addresses your first question.

God chose to bless Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and enter into a covenant with them and their descendants, because they were faithful to him. Abraham was the last of what are called the Shepherd Kings, descended from Adam, through Noah, Eber (being the root of "Hebrew") and Shem (being the root of the modern term "Semite"), among others. He's one of few men in the Bible described as a "friend of God". Scripture doesn't tell us precisely why God chose Isaac over Ishmael, but Ishmael is described as a "wild ass of a man", constantly fighting with neighbours, factious (sound like any race we know?), which could well be why Isaac received the preeminence. In any case, if you visit the link in my previous post on the subject, you'll see that God did indeed bless Ishmael and make a great nation of him for Abraham's sake.

[billisonboard]

Jan 2, 2018 17:44:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Those who repent of wrongdoing will inherit eternal life. Those few who are utterly incorrigible will be judged by Christ (according to His Word) and destroyed in Hellfire. Not even their memory will persist; it will be as though they'd never existed. ...

So let me get this straight. Existing like for - - ev - - - er in a theocracy or simply not existing. Hmmmm. That isn't really a tough call for me.

[MJ2.0]

oh, I thought this was going to be about designer jeans.  Carry on.

[weltschmerz]

Coprophagy is not the same as a ruminant, Virgil.

[weltschmerz]

"It took me 21 years to prove it to myself. Also a crisis of faith, a desertion of my Catholic upbringing, four churches, thousands of hours of study, countless answered prayers, and an inexplicable drive to continue throughout the process."
----------------
I too, had a crisis of faith, a desertion of my Russian Orthodox upbringing.
I too, studied for thousands of hours, went to bible study, went to churches of different denominations, then looked into everything from Buddhism to Jews For Jesus. Studied all their tenets and texts.
I wanted God to call me, because without my faith, I felt I was operating without a safety net.
God most certainly did not call me. Instead, he pushed me straight into the arms of Secular Humanism.
That's when I realized I did not NEED a safety net. I discovered that I had wings.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 3, 2018 18:14:15 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Coprophagy is not the same as a ruminant, Virgil.

Coprophagy isn't cecotrophy. The word in Hebrew refers to cecotrophy. Did you not read the excerpt?