Israel no more? :(
#46
Posted 02 November 2005 - 08:05 PM
I haven't read the Koran, but I've read about it and I know some bits out of it, so, no. It's not plausible that Muhammed just took the new testamen and changed a few names. According to your arguement, the god of the Jews is different from the god of Jesus the Jew and Christians?
#47
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:56 PM
And answer the question of why two of God's angels went to deliver the Quran to Muhammad? Do you think they were maybe interning with a false god, or something?
Quote
#49
Posted 02 November 2005 - 10:29 PM
alright...
firstly, christians DO have to put with people saying that to them ALL the time.
christians are quite often jerks who think they're the only ones going to heaven, but most of the ones i know are nice people who are pretty excepting of everyone else... sure they may have an opinion, but everyone does...
budhists also have a nice ethos on the all are created equal front with a slight variation...
equality doesn't seem to be a strong point of the islamic faith, and calling everyone who wasn't born in their part of the world an Infadel is MORE than a little insulting.
at this point in time i find myself labled by every religion as either some form of sinner, traitor, face of evil or whatever, even evolutionists question my intelligence for noting 'theory is NOT fact'
overall, i'm bored with all... and if someone is going to insult a religion they've had little posative exposure to i think that's fair enough...
i'm sure islam will get along fine without ion eon's approval, and i'm sure he'll be fine without theirs...
that IS actually the case.
that's what makes religious wars so bloody stupid...
the episode of Red Dwarf (season one): 'Waiting for God' covered this to a tea...
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#50
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:21 PM
These links have a heavy Christian bias, but it explains a few reasons from the Christian perspective why God and Allah aren't the same entity:
http://www.everystud...connecting.html
http://www.gospelway...roups/islam.htm
http://www.bluelette...aq/nbi/301.html
Because the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed contradict the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, it follows (to many) that the gods are not the same.
I'd say that given the nature of Christianity, if God and Allah did "turn out to be" one and the same, that would make Christianity completely crumble (as it's partially built on the belief that YHWH is the one and only God), and it just wouldn't matter anymore! :-D
P.S. The Koran definitely does have passages of intolerance towards Christians/non-Muslims. Try "a disgraceful chastisement" (4.102) and "the fire of hell" (9.6) for "unbelievers," do not "take the unbelievers for friends" (3.28), "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" (9.123), "kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out. . . . Such is the recompense of the unbelievers" (2.191), "We have prepared for the unbeliever, whips and chains and blazing fires!" Koran 76:4.
Of course, the same could be said about the Old Testament... Luckily for a lot of people, few choose to follow the laws of the Old Testament very closely. I sure would have hated to have been killed every time I cursed at my parents...
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 02 November 2005 - 11:22 PM
#51
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:55 PM
ROFL, Islam is not the old testament. Infact many muslims claim the documents are tampered with. They don't think the OT in the Christian bible speaks the truth.
THey get all their words from the Coran. And that's about it.
Yes, the Coran does have violent words about non-believers
But liberals refuse to believe that any culture is bad or religion etc...
I laugh how the same people that attack the bible are also the same people that defend the Koran. "it does not preach violence". Ya right. Read the New Testament in the bible and then read the KOran and tell me which one calls for wars.
The old testament laws and practices are not applicable to Christians. That is why we are chirstians, we don't follow the OT, but the NT.
THose were good sites, Spoon.
THis is why Islam is a crock of shit. Christ claimed to be GOd, how could Mohammed pull rank on Christ if he was God? How can Islam even recognize him as a minor profit if he was a liar?
ROFL, ya great profit, walking around claiming to be God. What a load.
Muslims must either admit that Jesus was the Divine Son of God, or else they must admit they do not believe that Jesus and the Bible are true.
Got those quotes from the first link spoon posted.
John 5:22,23 - The Father has committed all judgment to the Son.
2 Corinthians 5:10 - Jesus will be our judge; we must all appear before Him. Jesus will be Mohammed's judge! How can Mohammed be as great? [Acts 17:31; Matt. 25:31ff]
What mere human prophet could create the universe or judge all mankind? Mohammed makes no such claims. These are the claims of a Divine Being. How can Muslims deny these teachings and yet claim to believe the Bible is true and Jesus was a prophet?
This post has been edited by Jordan: 03 November 2005 - 12:11 AM
#52
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:07 AM
Jesus claimed to be God... What a load?
And just because Mohammed/the Koran contradicts the Bible/Jesus, that doesn't automatically mean the Bible/Jesus is right. There is no logic in that. That's like saying, because Jordan and JM contradict each other, but JM came first, Jordan is a liar.
I was just throwing in some perspective with shit to back it up, as well as explain to non-Christians why Allah and God are not the same to a Christian, as opposed to some people throwing insults around without giving anything but personal belief to back it up.
I think some of you would have some fun with this site... *Hopes I don't come to regret this* Note: Whoever wrote this site has some of it wrong - he's pulling out individual verses in some areas where it has to be taken on context with the surrounding verses, the story in general, the culture at the time, and you have to take into account various translations, and you have to note when Jesus was being sarcastic, etc. Still a fun site.
http://www.evilbible.com/
#53
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:35 AM
So: most of it is embarrassing crap that can be shrugged away, the rest is the Divinely-Inspired Word of God, and it shall not be doubted!
#54
Posted 03 November 2005 - 02:16 AM
#55
Posted 03 November 2005 - 02:31 AM
#56
Posted 03 November 2005 - 02:52 AM
How is it irrelevent? Whether you ARE or ARENT supported by the US has shown little difference in whether you are going backwards. I don't care if your pro or against US, I care about those countries being successful and the bottom line is their not and a primary reason is because of the stupidity of their religious states.
The point is that you were acting like you didn't know what a state run govt meant as shown by your statements so either you looked it up while you were gone or just decided to take what I said serious. The end of the day, most Mid East countries are based on a lot of control by the state on economic matters and extreme religious states. And no, why do you put words in my mouth. I don't want them to be CHRISTIAN states, i want them to be secular ones that are beholdent to their people and not some stupid flaming religion or stupid flaming cause (israel) that doesn't effect them.
Umm... ok..? So now Iraq and Saddam were screwed out of winning the war because of a power grab that happened 27 years before he even invaded? So many fallicies in this assertion. First off, your claim was originally that Iraq invading Iran was a move that they should of won in 1980, which wasn't, because at that time they had no shoot to win. I merely pointed this out and you had to go back 27 years in the past to say OH WELL SADDAM WOULD OF WON IF THAT DIDNT HAPPEN. The point is he invaded a country in 1980 knowing what they had. Also, while the Shah did get support from America, he was hardly a single american buyer. The Shah, unlike the Islamic Regime was smart and bought everything from different places. He bought weapons from the US, Russia, Great Britain etc. He wasn't just a puppet, he was just a nationalistic leader who happened to not be anti US (he certaintly wasn't anti USSR either though). Also, Saddam invaded Iran not because he had some quest to unite arabs (persians aren't even arabs NEWAY), he simply invaded because he saw the iran MAY be weak cause of the revolution and that meant he had a chance to beat em while they were down.
Well the leaders of Egypt and Saudia Arabia are also Arab they just happened to be pro US heh. Saddam had a chance to be a great leader till he squandered his country into economic downfall once he invaded Iran. Unfortunetly his greed for power lead his country downwards instead of actually making progress like he was when he initially gained power.
The S Vietnamese never wanted to be communist.. they may not have wanted to FIGHT communism like America wanted em too,but they certaintly didn't want to be under communist rule either.
My claim about Hezbollah is simply that its an organization that believes in spreading its own values onto other countries just like any other imperialist power or idea. Now you may consider this a better imperialistic idea than America's, but it non the less is a group built on getting its own agenda outside of areas it directly has anything to do with.
And Saddam got in trouble because of his own fault. He was sitting pretty even after invading Iran but he had to go and invade Kuwait too. Sucks for him, don't go invading countries and expect not to get owned yourself by another foreign power. Btw, no his intention in invading Kuwait wasn't because of some arab empire, it was because Iraq owed Kuwait money from the iran-iraq war and Kuwait refused to wipe the debt clean. Also, Iraq wanted to drive oil prices up because of its economic short comings but Kuwait also refused to stop supplying the West. So basically, Saddam went to war with another sovereign nation for the same reasons you'd say we do- economic benefit. Only difference is, he isn't capable of doing it and we are.
Well, i personally don't like the blockade but I don't think it violates any real international law as i've stated. Having said that, its a stupid policy specially in the 21st century that someone should get the balls to get rid of. As for the assasination attempts ya they were wrong. The olympic stuff I dunno about but neway. Point is, Cuba can do whatever it wants specially now that the USSR is gone.
#57
Posted 03 November 2005 - 02:56 AM
Muhammad didn't EXIST until 600 years AFTER Jesus and the apostles died. There's no way that can be right. I think I agree with the Muslims when I say that the bible has been fucked with,
And I don't think that those quotes from the Quran are in context. Ubelievers could have been mistranslated and mean a great many things, and it could also be relating to unbelievers who make war on Islam. The other thing is that Christians are more or less to be considered believers since they hold dear many of Islam's prophets.
Quote
#58
Posted 03 November 2005 - 03:05 AM
#59
Posted 03 November 2005 - 12:13 PM
I think we're all guilty of breaking that one, so come on, first stones, right?
#60
Posted 07 November 2005 - 04:16 AM
I think they had really stringent codes for being clean.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 07 November 2005 - 04:17 AM