This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Organized Religion, the Bible and the Will of God
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
It's not supposing anything. The Bible was written by a series of men, inspired by God. Revelations for example, was a series of visions. They were also written thousands of years ago. It's easily possible that God's words would be misconstrued or taken out of context.
Post by
432158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
The only one who knows what God will is, is God himself
I disagree. God explained His will in the Bible. Even if you don't believe in the Bible, the idea that an omnipotent and benevolent being created all of the universe, and then didn't bother to communicate purpose for it, seems a bit far fetched. That seems harder to believe than the concept of God itself. One of the reasons that I have arrived at Christianity is that 1) I believe life is art, therefore there is an artist and 2) Any artist who created love would want to be loved in return, therefore 3) that artist would have communicated that desire to His creation. So, I'm left looking for a religion that supposes an omnipotent God, one that supposes to know Him since creation (narrows everything down to the big three), and one that teaches to love Him, and everyone else (narrows it down to Judaism and Christianity). Further, I don't want any religion that is self contradictory. That leaves Christianity. From that understanding, I fail to understand how it could be true that there is a God, and at the same time, He communicated no will to us. That seems contradictory to the nature of love itself.Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MrMojoRisin
Did you not read the article linked to you?
Yes, I read it. But I do not need to read something that is obviously trying to "spin" the words that are written. I would also like to point out that this is only 1 of the more than 100 verses of the Quran that advocate for violence against non-Muslims.
Here is the passage again, with the part that the article claims shows that it is not a call to violence.
“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”.
My question to you brother. Does this verse stop here? No it doesn't. It continues and gives the actual reason as to the fighting. This is the continuation: –
“until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”.
As the article explains, the Jizya is a tax that is paid by Muslims, and is required by Muslim law. It goes on to say that the call to violence in Quran 9:29 is only stating that Muslims are compelled to fight non-Muslims only in Muslim states, because the tax only applies in those states.
Now, even if we just stop there, and take the explanation as truth, is that really "OK" by your standards? The only violence that this has supposedly "condemned" is violence outside of Muslim states. It still justifies it in Muslim states. So much for tolerance. This would indicate that the violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt is acceptable.
The real issue lies in that Islam teaches that all non-Muslims lands must be conquered, and all those within must be converted or expelled. At the time that this verse was written, Muhammad and his armies had conquered nearly 2/3 of all the Christian land, and were intending to eliminate it entirely. So to say that this verse "only applies to Muslim states" is a fallacy.
We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that
We gradually reduce the land in their control from its outlying borders
? Is it not they who shall win.
Post by
Skreeran
I am too tired to address that right now. I'll see about getting to that after a nap.
Post by
MyTie
It's not supposing anything. The Bible was written by a series of men, inspired by God. Revelations for example, was a series of visions. They were also written thousands of years ago. It's easily possible that God's words would be misconstrued or taken out of context.
I see. An omnipotent, all knowing, perfect being, choose a method of communicating His word, which He commanded everyone to follow, and at the same time choose an imperfect method for His word to be disseminated. A perfect being erred. An entity that cannot make mistakes made a mistake. That's what you are saying here?Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I'm going to have to put up with this crap for pages and pages, aren't I? Yes, it is my opinion. Yep. These are my beliefs. Yes, others have different beliefs. Can I just say that once, or should I put a disclaimer at the bottom of every post so that everyone feels my posts are cultural enough?
Edit: Also lol Lebowski.
Post by
Gone
I see. An omnipotent, all knowing, perfect being, choose a method of communicating His word, which He commanded everyone to follow, and at the same time choose an imperfect method for His word to be disseminated. A perfect being erred. An entity that cannot make mistakes made a mistake. That's what you are saying here?
That's not what I'm saying at all, maybe God decided that people should be intelligent enough to distinguish for themselves what they believe his true intent is from his words. You are delusional if you don't think that God's word in the Bible has been misconstrued. A few hundred years ago people used to use Genesis 9:22 and on as justification of why black people should be slaves. During the middle ages people used Exodus 22:18 as justification to start killing pagans. This literally is an example of a mistranslation. The word "witch" originally meant devil worshiper, however during the middle ages people changed the word to describe any practitioner who claimed to have power that derived a source from anything besides God.
The reason I know that the word of God can be mistranslated and misconstrued, is because it has been in the past.
Post by
MyTie
You are delusional if you don't think that God's word in the Bible has been misconstrued.
I agree that people have misunderstood what the Bible says, but that doens't mean that the Bible is flawed, it just means that people's understanding of it is. For instance, I've gotten answers wrong in math. That doesn't mean that math is wrong, it just means my understanding of it was flawed. You cannot use people's incorrect actions based on incorrect understanding of the Bible proof that the Bible is flawed. I'm saying that God is perfect, and put out a perfect word, and claimed that the word was perfect, and claimed the word became flesh, and claimed that that perfect flesh self sacrificed for sin, as only perfection could pay that debt. To say that that person, that word, that communication from God was flawed, is to misunderstand the Bible. How ironic.
Post by
Gone
You are delusional if you don't think that God's word in the Bible has been misconstrued.
I agree that people have misunderstood what the Bible says, but that doens't mean that the Bible is flawed, it just means that people's understanding of it is. For instance, I've gotten answers wrong in math. That doesn't mean that math is wrong, it just means my understanding of it was flawed. You cannot use people's incorrect actions based on incorrect understanding of the Bible proof that the Bible is flawed. I'm saying that God is perfect, and put out a perfect word, and claimed that the word was perfect, and claimed the word became flesh, and claimed that that perfect flesh self sacrificed for sin, as only perfection could pay that debt. To say that that person, that word, that communication from God was flawed, is to misunderstand the Bible. How ironic.
If I write my own version of the Bible and change a few words around, and then sell it or distribute it, then that's a flawed Bible. Are you saying that you think God would intervene and destroy my flawed Bible? Or are you saying that you think the version of the Bible sitting on your shelf is the same one that was written thousands of years ago?
God is perfect. His word is perfect. Publishing companies are not. The people who changed his word during the middle ages were not. The Romans were not. And it's thanks to these people that we have our modern Bible. We have no way of knowing if it's the same one that God wanted us to have.
Not to mention that not all of Gods words are in the Bible, just the ones men deemed worthy of inclusion.
Post by
MyTie
Or are you saying that you think the version of the Bible sitting on your shelf is the same one that was written thousands of years ago?We have original Greek manuscripts, as well as thousands of years old Hebrew old testaments. The great thing about the Greek is, that it is a dead language, so the meanings of the words doesn't change. Wonderful for understanding what was written, really.
Now, I'm saying that it could be mistranslated, or just rewritten by anyone who wants to do so. However, God designated certain people to write, and we have texts written back then, that we can compare modern texts to for accuracy.
The question isn't whether the most original texts we have are good enough to follow or not. The question is, is God omnipotent. If He is, He gave us texts and told us to follow them. To question that is to either question the existence of God, which you are more than welcome to do, but be clear that is what you are doing, or is questioning the omnipotent decision making of God. If God did designate the texts to be followed, then you are saying that He was mistaken because they aren't good enough. At least, that's what I'm getting from this.
Post by
Gone
You could turn that same argument against anything. God says murder is bad, and if God is omnipotent, then therefore nobody can ever murder anybody else. See where it doesn't make sense?
Post by
Adamsm
The issue with that is that the texts have changed...just look at the New Testament compared to the Old after all.
Post by
Gone
The issue with that is that the texts have changed...just look at the New Testament compared to the Old after all.
That's different. Those are two entirely different texts, written thousands of years apart. I'm talking about a singular text where the meaning could potentially get lost in translation over the eons.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
The Old and New Testament are basically what separates Judaism and Christianity. The Old Testament is a separate book (or series of books I should say) written about 1400 years before Christ was born.
After Jesus was born the new Testament was written. Christians believe that Christ was the Messiah that was prophesied in the Old Testament, and so follow both books, where as the Jews do not, and only follow the Old Testament, and reject the New.
Then of course 500 years or so after that we have the birth of Islam, which states that Jesus did fulfill the Jewish prophecy, but that his message was misconstrued generations later. This brings us to the Quran, which was written by Muhammad, who the Muslims believe to be Gods final prophet.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Christians believe that Christ was the Messiah that was prophesied in the Old Testament, and so follow both books
Only in a manner of speaking, is it not? I mean, the New Testament is considered to be the primary guiding light, with the Old Testament there as contextual support, rather than to be followed literally, from what I understand. Leviticus isn't to be taken as a literal instruction anymore, following Jesus.
Post by
Gone
Well that's the thing. You have three separate religions that all worship the same God, with three separate books, each claiming that theirs is the true word of God.
Speaking purely of the Biblical combination of the Old and New Testaments, the Christian standpoint is this:
The old Testament was written for a harsher time, and when God saw that people were ready, he sent his son to lay down a new set of rules. The New Testament is the main source of the Christian faith. The Old Testament is still followed, except in areas contradicted by Christs teachings in the New Testament, and those that are obviously outdated by society. Muhammad is basically considered a false prophet and the Quran is rejected outright.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.