Most of the Old Testament was written hundreds or even thousands of years before Jesus supposedly lived. What was the point in cleansing humanity of previous sins, when previously 'Evil' men (if we can call them that) were not changed in any way personally (especially their psyche, their free-will and their attitude towards God), apart from being allowed to torture a man most of them didn't believe was the son of God? If you could just admit that there are huge problems reconciling the points I have made and The Bible, fair enough. But you haven't, apart from on one point. And even then I think you were being sarcastic.
I haven't been sarcastic. I admit there are aspects to the Bible (and Christianity) that I don't understand, and there are things within the Church that I don't agree with.
That's fair enough. But what about the idea of Adam and Eve, who the educated majority of Christians now realise weren't real. Without them, there was no original sin. Without original sin, there was no need for mankind to be saved. Without the need to be saved, there was no need for Jesus. Without the need for Jesus, well... I don't think that needs saying.
Admittedly I don't know much about the concept of original sin but, surely people could still be born with the "ability" (I can't think of a better word) to comit sin regardless of whether the story of Adam and Eve was true?
Yes, but without free-will we would not commit sin. Who gave us free-will? God. The Problem of Evil once again.
Don't start the trash talking! I'm an Account Manager. I do legal compliancy, innovations, cost analysis, reporting, statistics, Carbon Footprinting, consolidated invoicing, project and portfilio management, surveying, auditing etc for my clients, L'Oreal, Cadbury, CSC, Aon and Microsoft, as well as various projects for my company (Market research, creating databases etc). Anyway I'm off, God bless! p)
Ok, long, dull post alert... [NSFW]My opinion but, i think religion stems from when people could not explain the world around them without the idea of a supreme deity, who was in control. When bad things happen, it is natural, with that limited understanding, to want to appease this deity, so this is where worship came from. However, as science has progressed, humans have been able to explain many of these phenomena clearly, without invoking a supreme being. As things like the weather and agriculture became more thoroughly understood, 'pagan' nature gods became surplus, so many religions based on this vastly lost following. Following this trend, at the moment doubts are cast on many aspects of the christian bible (I'll focus on christianity, i know little of other religions), with many of the stories, and 'knowledge' called into question. This has lead to many christians ceasing to take the bible literally, and use it rather for it's morals, rather than its 'facts'. Like with 'pagan' religions, the number of people who believe in the bible blindly are dwindling, although in a few areas this branch of christianity is strong, mainly in those that distrust science. I believe that, over time, more people will move to using religion as a moral compass, with the bible simply as a place to draw stories from, to teach these morals. However, science cannot explain everything, and admits it, so I heartily disagree with atheists who say they believe in science, and therefore god is rubbish. 2 examples: firstly, the beginning of life. How did we go from a collection of chemicals in a primordial soup to a self-replicating cell? Many experiments have been carried out to prove it is possible, by simulating conditions at the time, but none have been successful. Yes, many complex organic compounds have been synthesised in these conditions, and the timescales aren't easy to compare, but fundamentally, science is unable to provide a theory with supporting evidence for the creation of life. Therefore, whilst the scientific belief is that these complex organic compounds eventually led to the formation of RNA, and eventually early cells formed, there is no more evidence for this idea, than there is for the existence of a god. The second point in history science cannot explain is the big bang. Whilst it is thought to be understood from the Planck Epoch onwards, no data collected from the universe can support any theory for where the initial matter came from. Theories of cylic universes or multiverses all fail to explain this, so the work of a deity has to be considered as a potential explanation, for the moment. I'm not saying in both of these cases that it has to be a god, or even that it is the most likely theory, but scientifically they cannot be ruled out. What category (atheist, agnostic, christian...jedi) you put me in for having this belief, I don't know, but as a scientist I believe it is the correct viewpoint. Above someone mentioned that science has created terrible weapons, and it has - but politicians used the weapons, not scientists, and politicans funded the research. Yes, accidents have happened, but no weapon has been wilfully set off by a scientist or engineer. "Necessity is the mother of invention" I believe is appopriate here, politicians felt threatened, and that they needed superior weapons, so scientists were commissioned with designing them. But out of nuclear weapons has come nuclear power, which is a very important tool for the future, if we are ever to shift our dependency away from fossil fuels. Personally I feel Thorium reactors are the best alternative energy in the pipeline at the moment, but because the word "nuclear" is involved, people complain. (But thats an aside). Scientists have managed to harness the destructive power of a nuclear bomb, and use it for good. Human nature, greed mainly, is to blame for the issues in the world. The only other thing I have to add to this very long rant (well done if you've got this far), is that religious and moral objections to scientific development should be separated. The two are often the same, but not always. Morally, I don't believe testing cosmetics on animals is at all acceptable (thankfully this has been banned in the EU for nearly a decade), but whilst religious people might object to scientists changing "gods will", or "playing god", the religious overtones often hide a genuine moral objection, which shouldn't be overlooked.[/NSFW] That sort of rambled (sorry), but I hope my point is clear, I might edit that later to make it more comprehensible, well done if anyone read it all, it's just my $0.02.
no, just a verse no loaded bet, there are of course conditions, which are clearly set out. may thousands have tried/are trying variations in translation are why a knowledge of arabic is important. however the answers lie within the quran and the teachings of muhammad as i explained quran,sunnah, sahabah that is the formula. the rest is mischief making. this includes 'muslims' the battle for god is by karen armstrong, an athiest out to prove that there is no god the reason i mentioned it is due to your assertions, to show i do read/consider outside the box if you will your comment actually confirms that you are 'petty point scoring', and further confirms my assertions of 'anti god' rather than no god and also confirms what i said about people seeing all the religions as the 'same' or 'abrahamic', which is untrue in a nutshell jesus came to reaffirm the message of moses, but Islam actually rewrote the history books as they say and science with every step confirms what islam has revealed
what you say is honest and true you admit you know christianity an little of other faiths. most 'know' christianity, disagree with it and lump all faiths into that category what you say about the beginning of life is true. with science the origin of the 'chemicals' is ignored. it starts with them coming together same with the big bang theory. yes there was a big bang. but what 'banged' and where did it come from? evolution is the same, and what stopped apes becoming men? and not all religions morally object to scientific development. some embrace them and actually tell you 'to go to those with the knowledge'
10 pages ago I, when responding to your post, gave you several examples of modern science contradicting Islam's teachings. It seems you have followed the standard theistic protocol on the matter - when something doesn't fit into your belief, ignore it. Plus there's one major issue you seem to fail to grasp: just because you can fit a scientific discovery to a verse from Quran with some very far-fetched (mis)interpretation does not mean Quran has revealed or taught that. If Muhammad really did know all those things you claim he did and his intention was to spread scientific knowledge to the world then he would have written it in a clear, plain and objective manner like men of science do, to minimise the possibility of misinterpretation and mistranslation, not so vaguely and figuratively that after 1400 years people are still arguing what many parts of it mean. It's the same problem as with Nostradamus' "prophecies". So it's wrong to claim Quran has revealed something when in reality it's only been interpreted so as not to contradict something science has discovered since then.
While I'd agree with most of what DHCanary has said, the fact that the existence of a god cannot be scientifically ruled out is not a reason to accept that a god is probable. There's nothing to suggest that one exists. Matter cannot be destroyed or created, so what's to say that it's not just eternal? What are the clearly set out conditions, as I can only find the challenge and claims that it's impossible to meet? Her work has been described as anything from offensive to Muslims, to Islamic apologetics. Not standard theistic reading, I agree, but far from some atheistic preacher, as you're trying to suggest. It was clearly a joke and your instant jump to call anyone that doesn't agree with you anti-god merely reveals your own preconceptions. You've decided that atheists follow one viewpoint, so they do. Poor. Science really doesn't confirm what Islam has revealed. If Islam had revealed any of the stuff that you've claimed, then it wouldn't need to be discovered, as it already would have been. We don't know. That's the only honest answer at the moment. Does the Quran reveal the answer? Please don't take this an an insuly, but you don't seem to have a great grasp of evolution. Please check out DonExodus' videos on the subject from Youtube, if you have time. He started posting his clips as a Christian. Here's his first video on evolution, that absolutely anyone can understand, so it should be exceptionally easy for you, as you appear to be quite educated. [video=youtube;GpNeGuuuvTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY[/video]
Fallacious BULLSHIT Who knows? At least scientists don't give an answer and tell us to accept it without question cough*religion*cough
