The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison
small giant
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great
significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are
differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences
of this noble Messenger.
Source of information about Jesus in Islam
Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the
Quran.
The Quran was revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
be upon him), and memorized and written down in his lifetime. Today,
anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete
authenticity of the Quran as the original revealed guidance from God.
Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
Christians take their information about Jesus from the Bible, which
includes the Old and New Testaments.
These contain four biblical narratives covering the life and death of
Jesus. They have been written, according to tradition, respectively by
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are placed at the beginning of the
New Testament and comprise close to half of it.
Encyclopedia Britannica notes that none of the sources of his life and
work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known
written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his
life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus
depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially
on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark,
Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and
its faith in Jesus.
Below are the views of Islam and Christianity based on primary source
texts and core beliefs.
ISLAM
1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES
Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental
article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus,
Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a
requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person
claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of
Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.
The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:
"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before
whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly
to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how
We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning
away!" (Quran 5:75).
2. Do Muslims believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES
Like Christians, Muslims believe Mary, Maria in Spanish, or Maryam as
she is called in Arabic, was a chaste, virgin woman, who miraculously
gave birth to Jesus.
"Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her
family, to a place in the East. She screened herself from them; then
We sent to her Our spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her
as a man in all respects. She said: I seek refuge from you in God Most
Gracious (come not near) if you do fear God. He said: Nay, I am only a
Messenger from your Lord, to announce to you the gift of a pure son.
She said: How shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, and
I am not unchaste? He said: So it will be, your Lord says: 'That is
easy for Me; and We wish to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy
from Us': It was a matter so decreed" (Quran 19:16-21).
3. Do Muslims believe Jesus had a miraculous birth? YES
The Quran says:
"She (Mary) said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has
touched me.' He (God) said: 'So (it will be) for God creates what He
wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: 'Be!'- and
it is" (3:47).
It should also be noted about his birth that:
"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam.
He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: 'Be!'-and he
was" (Quran 3:59).
4. Do Muslims believe Jesus spoke in the cradle? YES
"Then she (Mary) pointed to him. They said: 'How can we talk to one
who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: 'Verily! I am a slave
of God, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;
" (19:29-30).
5. Do Muslims believe he performed miracles? YES
Muslims, like Christians believe Jesus performed miracles. But these
were performed by the will and permission of God, Who has power and
control over all things.
"Then will God say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you
and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit
(the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood
and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and
the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure
of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird
by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My
leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I
did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you
did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said:
'This is nothing but evident magic' (5:110).
6. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity? NO
Muslims believe in the Absolute Oneness of God, Who is a Supreme Being
free of human limitations, needs and wants. He has no partners in His
Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate
from His creation.
God says in the Quran regarding the Trinity:
"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in
your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The
Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His
command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe
in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: 'God is a Trinity.' Give
up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One
God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him
belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient
for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).
7. Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God? NO
"Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not
fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable
to Him!" (Quran 112:1-4).
The Quran also states:
"Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about
which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God,
that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a
matter, He only says to it, 'Be' and it is" (Quran 19:34-35).
8. Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected?
NO
""They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought
they did." (Quran 4:156) "God lifted him up to His presence. God is
Almighty, All-Wise" (Quran 4:157) .
CHRISTIANITY
1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God?
YES & NO
With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early
followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity, most
Christians now believe in the Divinity of Jesus, which is connected to
the belief in Trinity. They say he is the second member of the Triune
God, the Son of the first part of the Triune God, and at the same time
"fully" God in every respect.
2. Do Christians believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES
A chaste and pious human woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ, the
second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, and at the same time
"fully" God Almighty in every respect.
Christians believe however, that while she was a virgin, she was
married to a man named Joseph (Bible: Matthew:1:18). According to
Matthew 1:25, Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son;
and he called His name Jesus".
3. Do Christians believe he had a miraculous birth? YES
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary
had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Bible: Matthew 1:18)
4. Do Christians believe he performed miracles? YES
"And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to
speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretches out thy hand to
heal, and sign and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy
servant Jesus (Bible: Acts 4:30).
Christians believe that Jesus performed these miracles because he was
the Son of God as well as the incarnation of God.
5. Do Christians believe in the Trinity? YES
With the exception of the Unitarian Christians, who do not believe in
the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, according to the Catholic
encyclopedia, is the term used for the central doctrine of the
Christian religion. The belief is that in the unity of the Godhead
there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
These three Persons or beings are distinct from each another, while
being similar in character: uncreated and omnipotent.
The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed
to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a
truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from
Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by
the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of
darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). The First Vatican Council
further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly
so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the
Trinity is of the number of these. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes
that of all revealed truths, this is the most impenetrable to reason.
6. Do Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God? YES
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever
believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent
the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world
might be saved through Him (Bible: John 3:16).
However, it is interesting to note that the term "son of God" is used
in other parts of the Bible to refer to Adam (Bible: Luke 3:38),
Israel (Bible: Exodus 4:22) and David (Bible: Psalms 2:7) as well. The
creatures of God are usually referred to in the Bible as children of
God.
The role of Paul of Tarsus in shaping this belief and the belief in
Trinity
The notion of Jesus as son of God is something that was established
under the influence of Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul), who had
been an enemy of Jesus, but later changed course and joined the
disciples after the departure of Jesus.
Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian
teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas,
who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met
with Jesus.
Paul is considered by a number of Christian scholars to be the father
of Christianity due to his additions of the following ideas:
that Jesus is the son of God,
the concept of Atonement,
the renunciation of the Law of the Torah.
Paul did these things in hopes of winning over the Gentiles (non-
Jewish people). His letters are another of the primary sources of
information on Jesus according to the Christian tradition.
The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant
misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject
the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas. He was
a Jew born in Cyrus and a successful preacher of the teachings of
Jesus. Because of his closeness to Jesus, he was an important member
of the small group of disciples in Jerusalem who had had gathered
together following the disappearance of Jesus.
The question of Jesus's nature, origin and relationship with God was
not raised amongst Barnabas and the small group of disciples. Jesus
was considered a man miraculously endowed by God. Nothing in the words
of Jesus or the events in his life led them to modify this view.
The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the
Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support
of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity
doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He
quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his
views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation
in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met at Nicaea and made
Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine. It also ordered
that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which contradicted Paul's
beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued that anyone in
possession of these Gospels would be put to death.
The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
7. Do Christians believe he was killed on the cross? YES
This is a core Christian belief and it relates to the concept of
atonement. According to this belief, Jesus died to save mankind from
sin. However, this is not stated explicitly in the four gospels which
form the primary source texts of Christianity. It is found, however,
in Romans 6:8,9.
Christians believe Jesus was spat on, cut, humiliated, kicked, striped
and finally hung up on the cross to endure a slow and painful death.
According, to Christian belief, the original sin of Adam and Eve of
eating from the forbidden tree was so great that God could not forgive
it by simply willing it, rather it was necessary to erase it with the
blood of a sinless, innocent Jesus.
Resurrection
The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul are the main sources of
Christianity which discuss the Resurrection of Jesus after his
crucifixion. According to St. Matthew, Jesus appeared to the holy
women, and again on a mountain in Galilee. Mark's Gospel tells a
different story: Jesus was seen by Mary Magdalene, by the two
disciples at Emmaus, and the Eleven before his Ascension into heaven.
Luke's Gospel says Jesus walked with the disciples to Emmaus, appeared
to Peter and to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem. In John's
Gospel, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the ten Apostles on
Easter Sunday, to the Eleven a week later, and to seven disciples at
the Sea of Tiberias.
Another account of the resurrection by St. Paul is found in Bible:
Corinthians 15: 3-8.
According to Christian belief, Resurrection is a manifestation of
God's justice, Who exalted Christ to a life of glory, as Christ had
humbled himself unto death (Phil., 2: 8-9). This event also completes
the mystery of Christian salvation and redemption. The death of Jesus
frees believers from sin, and with his resurrection, he restores to
them the most important privileges lost by sin (Bible: Romans 4:25).
More importantly, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus indicates
Christian acknowledgment of Christ as the immortal God, the cause of
believers' own resurrection (Bible: I Corinthians 4: 21; Phil.,
3:20-21), as well as the model and the support of a new life of grace
(Bible: Romans 4: 4-6; 9-11).
MORE ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY
The other Ansar: Companions of Prophet Jesus
John the Baptist: A Prophet of Islam
Muslim-Christian Relations, The Good, the Bad
For further study of a Muslim view of Jesus and Christianity read the
following books:
Jesus, Prophet of Islam by Muhammad 'Ata'ur-Rahim
For Christ Sake by Ahmad Thomson and Muhammad 'Ata'ur-Rahim
For a unique Christian view of the Islamic contribution to the West
read the following book:
Islam and the Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane
see this site for more information www.sultan.org
and this is my mobile number 00966566299135
BaJoRi
Christians, Jesus is a peacable figure for whom they need to kill. For
muslims Jesus is a symbol for those who will get strapped and blow up a
Sbarro Pizza or school bus. Nice and simple.
John VanSickle
> Here is the difference on the Christian and Islamic views of Jesus. For
> Christians, Jesus is a peacable figure for whom they need to kill.
Would you mind showing me the verse in the Bible that requires
Christians to kill in Jesus' name?
> For muslims Jesus is a symbol for those who will get strapped and blow up a
> Sbarro Pizza or school bus. Nice and simple.
Muslims claim to honor Jesus as a preliminary prophet, but most of what
they claim to know about Him came from rumors spread by people who
didn't like Him.
Regards,
John
Thom Madura
authors wanted him to be in the various religious texts - just as Harry
Potter is written the way JK Rowling wanted him to be in her books. It
would take a true idiot to think that a religion would not write its
fictional stories with their own point of view in mind - ie - to support
their basic beliefs. That they do not agree with each other is just
another way of saying that they are ALL made up - with no supporting
documentation.
Isn't it "coincidence" that the two most "important" religious figures
of Middle Eastern Religion BOTH managed to rise to heaven - leaving no
bodies behind - and therefore no ability to prove they ever existed?
Gavin Christie
muddied to the point of unprovability.
As for any 'religion' that believes in him or that he was the son of some
supernatural entity that created everything, that's utterly laughable.
I prefer not to look to some non-existant supernatural being to solve all my
daily problems for me. when things get dodgy I dont pray, I get off my arse
and act. I suspect this is the way most people in this day and age handle
life. My condolences if you live in an area where there is a lot of religion
flying about.
No amount of crosses and ancient hymns is going to stop any of the shit we
must all face.
Get a grip.
G
p.s. stupid religions have killed millions of people throughout history. If
we are to evolve further we must reject all religions.
"small giant" <mutaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7cf4c9a8-34c7-4a12...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Green-Eyed Chris
Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
A DNA analysis would certainly be interesting. IIRC, one was done on
Jesus' foreskin, which is venerated as a relic somewhere, and it turned
out to be a piece of (pig?) leather.
--
Chris
BaJoRi
"John VanSickle" <evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13od19j...@corp.supernews.com...
> BaJoRi wrote:
>> Here is the difference on the Christian and Islamic views of Jesus. For
>> Christians, Jesus is a peacable figure for whom they need to kill.
>
> Would you mind showing me the verse in the Bible that requires Christians
> to kill in Jesus' name?
There isn't. Hence the IRONY!
>
>> For muslims Jesus is a symbol for those who will get strapped and blow up
>> a Sbarro Pizza or school bus. Nice and simple.
>
> Muslims claim to honor Jesus as a preliminary prophet, but most of what
> they claim to know about Him came from rumors spread by people who didn't
> like Him.
>
> Regards,
> John
Again. The word is "irony". I am sure that there are osme online
dictionaries that will helpo you to understand.
Thom Madura
>
> "John VanSickle" <evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13od19j...@corp.supernews.com...
>> BaJoRi wrote:
>>> Here is the difference on the Christian and Islamic views of Jesus.
>>> For Christians, Jesus is a peacable figure for whom they need to kill.
>>
>> Would you mind showing me the verse in the Bible that requires
>> Christians to kill in Jesus' name?
>
> There isn't. Hence the IRONY!
Obviously - Muslims did not write the bible. They wrote their own fiction.
John VanSickle
>
> Again. The word is "irony". I am sure that there are osme online
> dictionaries that will helpo you to understand.
You seem to forget that on this topic, not everyone is purposefully ironic.
Regards,
John
John VanSickle
> There is no true comparison here. The Christ is written as what the
> authors wanted him to be in the various religious texts - just as Harry
> Potter is written the way JK Rowling wanted him to be in her books. It
> would take a true idiot to think that a religion would not write its
> fictional stories with their own point of view in mind - ie - to support
> their basic beliefs. That they do not agree with each other is just
> another way of saying that they are ALL made up - with no supporting
> documentation.
So if someone robbed you, should the jury conclude that both your
version of events and the robber's version of events are both inventions?
Regards,
John
roger....@googlemail.com
> Source of information about Jesus in Islam
> Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the
> Quran.
Composed 7 centuries after he died. Hmm.
> Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
> ... four biblical narratives covering the life and death of
> Jesus. They have been written, ... respectively by
> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
People who knew him, or their sidekicks. Hmm.
> CHRISTIANITY
>
> 1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God?
> YES & NO
>
> With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early
> followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity,
Early Christians all believed in the divinity of Christ. What the
heretics denied was his *humanity* (docetism). So this is all rather
anachronistic.
Unitarianism is a modern (and apparently not very popular) movement.
Few Christians would consider them members of the church.
> Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian
> teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas,
> who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met
> with Jesus.
Moslem statements about Barnabas are derived from a 15th century
forged 'gospel of Barnabas' composed in Italian by a renegade of that
period.
I'm ignoring the tendentious stuff in favour of things which we can
all just look up.
> The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant
> misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject
> the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
There is no evidence for this; the evidence is the reverse.
> One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas....
See above.
> The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the
> Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support
> of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity
> doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He
> quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his
> views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation
> in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
Irenaeus does not quote from any 'gospel of Barnabas', tho.
He does not hold the views here attributed to him, as any examination
of his two works "Adversus haereses" and "Proof of the apostolic
preaching" will show; he is a perfectly orthodox Christian, as might
be expected of a pupil of the apostle John's disciple Polycarp.
English versions of his works can be found here.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
> In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met atNicaeaand made
> Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine.
This is very strange, and a look at the ante-Nicene fathers reveals
this. In fact they discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity
was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First or of like
substance. They also harmonised the date of the celebration of Easter
(problematic for the same reasons as today; an event on a lunar
calendar celebrated by people who live by a solar calendar).
All the ancient data on the council can be found linked from here:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
> It also ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which contradicted Paul's
> beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued that anyone in
> possession of these Gospels would be put to death.
This is pure fiction, I'm afraid.
> The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
The modern text is a crude forgery. Many ancient texts were composed
under the names of apostles in the 2nd and 4th centuries, sometimes
for fraudulent reasons, sometimes simply as novels. A long list
appears in the Decretum Gelasianum (the church considered all these
dubious), which includes an otherwise unknown 'gospel of Barnabas'.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Thom Madura
No - My point was that two religions are scamming the public. They
create documents that support THEIR own point of view - and of course -
support their story. You really cannot expect the Muslims to create a
book that would support the christian religion - anymore than you would
expect the christian bible to support the muslim religion. Why would
they sabotage their own scam in writing? Money is a stake!!! Neither
side is presenting facts. They might actually use real places and things
in their stories to make them seem authentic - but that is like saying
that the Wizard of OZ exists because there is a Kansas.
IN a criminal trial - the Police and DA will have established a certain
amount of facts. While it is possible that both side may not be telling
the whole truth - there will at least be some truth - or the case will
never get to trial.
John VanSickle
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Thom Madura wrote:
>>> There is no true comparison here. The Christ is written as what the
>>> authors wanted him to be in the various religious texts - just as
>>> Harry Potter is written the way JK Rowling wanted him to be in her
>>> books. It would take a true idiot to think that a religion would not
>>> write its fictional stories with their own point of view in mind - ie
>>> - to support their basic beliefs. That they do not agree with each
>>> other is just another way of saying that they are ALL made up - with
>>> no supporting documentation.
>>
>> So if someone robbed you, should the jury conclude that both your
>> version of events and the robber's version of events are both inventions?
>
> create documents that support THEIR own point of view - and of course -
> support their story.
I used to accept the idea that all religions were something that
somebody, somewhere, had made up. I used to make the same broad-brushed
assumptions and statements about religious people as well.
I eventually came to realize that this represented a gross inversion of
logic. Instead of treating my position as something that requires
proof, I had been regarding it as something which was so clearly
established that it needed no proof, and had been treating the evidence
in a Procrustean manner, bending it and stretching it to fit the notions
I was not willing to abandon. I had held the position, not because I or
anyone else had offered proof in support of it (in some cases there
simply is no proof at all), but because it supported the course of
action that I had already chosen, and had chosen for reasons having
nothing to do with the state of the evidence.
Since that time (twenty years ago), I have carefully considered not only
the arguments I made in favor of my old way of thinking, but many
arguments made by others in support of the same position. Instead of
the perfect, detached logic I had prided myself on exercising, I instead
found unproven assumptions, circular reasoning, straw man attacks, ad
hominem attacks, and a host of other logical fallacies. Not one of the
arguments for my old position was free of this; each one depended on
fallacy in some way, shape or form.
This new viewpoint was not chosen in order to justify anthing; I still
harbor a number of desires that conflict with it. If you think that
makes me a hypocrite, you have a mistaken idea of the meaning of that
word. I call it recognizing my fallibility; I do not deny that I am
capable of desiring things that are wrong.
Regards,
John
Thom Madura
Faith and religion are TWO different things. It is the "religion" - the
man made business of selling faith for profit that I do not believe in.
If you separate faith and religion - you will find that you can have a
belief system - one even similar to those that some religions espouse -
without the ridiculous and stupid rules and money grubbing tactics that
a true "god" has no need for.
Stand up, sit down, kneel down, cross your hands, cross your chest,
shake hands, bow your head - this is all nonsense. So is repeated from
rote any number of "prayers" to which most people don't even know what
they are really saying much less mean it. If your god is everywhere -
you don't need to be in a particular place to be with god. If your god
made everything - your god will not be impressed with trinkets, candles,
medals, or anything else religion sells. Your god will not need a new
$15 million dollar jet that one religion's god apparently does - as seen
on TV. Why would a god want included in his "bible" the directions to
properly sell your daughter into slavery? Why do religions in general
treat women so poorly? In fact - why do religions treat those with less
means so poorly as well? Which is better - to give to a food kitchen to
feed the hungry - or give to a religion to pay for some ministers
Chauffeur driven Rolls Royce and driver?
I do not need proof to know that a religion that espouses genocide of
non-believers is morally bankrupt. Nor do I need the same proof from a
religion that would force its beliefs on others by force. IT is self
evident.
The bible and the koran are both document created by their respective
religions - to support the teachings of their religions - and not
competing religions. That they conflict is a no brainer. Why would a
religion choose stories to include in their documentation that did not
support what they teach? They wouldn't. IF there were 12 apostles - why
are there not bible books from ALL of them? Why do we get "Excerpts"
from a letter from Paul to the Romans - why not the whole letter? What
was the context of the statements?
If YOU were creating advertising for your own product - You would not
include the benefits of your competitors product in it either.
If you go back through the thread - the original author was quoting the
koran about the christ - as if their side of the story was real and
others were not. Gee - now there is a surprise!!!!!!! This is just two
religions using unsupported documents to make spurious claims. Since
neither side can prove their claims - it is rubbish.
John VanSickle
> Faith and religion are TWO different things. It is the "religion" - the
> man made business of selling faith for profit that I do not believe in.
Well, to say that all religious practices are of human origin is
something requiring more evidence than the obvious fact that they
conflict. To prove that any given religious practice was invented by a
human requires that you identify the time when the practice first began,
and bring forth specific evidence about the reasons that person
instituted the practice.
The fact that a significant number of religious figures are involved in
religion for purely material gain is detestable, but in no way proves
that all religion is of human origin, and to argue that it does is to
commit the fallacy of ad hominem.
> If you separate faith and religion - you will find that you can have a
> belief system - one even similar to those that some religions espouse -
> without the ridiculous and stupid rules and money grubbing tactics that
> a true "god" has no need for.
Exactly who are you to say what God will have use for? It is true, men
who have no authority to speak for God have made claims about what He
wants, but unless you can bring forth evidence that He wants something
else, your claims are no more valid than theirs.
> Stand up, sit down, kneel down, cross your hands, cross your chest,
> shake hands, bow your head - this is all nonsense. So is repeated from
> rote any number of "prayers" to which most people don't even know what
> they are really saying much less mean it.
If you think that the difference between the different religions of the
world amount to things no more substantive than these, your knowledge of
religion is minimal.
> If your god is everywhere - you don't need to be in a particular place
> to be with god.
You can physically be as close to God in one place as in another.
Whether you are spiritually close to God can depend on where you are
physically located. Unless of course you think that people in a strip
club are as spiritually close to God as are a man who is, say, bringing
groceries to a poor widow.
> If your god
> made everything - your god will not be impressed with trinkets, candles,
> medals, or anything else religion sells. Your god will not need a new
> $15 million dollar jet that one religion's god apparently does - as seen
> on TV.
And since I've read no passage in the Bible claiming that God is
impressed by these things, the point is moot.
> Why would a god want included in his "bible" the directions to
> properly sell your daughter into slavery?
You are projecting modern perspective onto an ancient historical
practice, and thereby forgetting that the Biblical commandments
regarding slaves were a step *up* from the common practices of the time.
The instructions on the sale of daughters required that the daughter not
be used as a concubine, but either was married to the master honorably,
married to a son honorably, used only for non-sexual work, or freed
without any recompense.
> Why do religions in general treat women so poorly?
I can only speak for mine, and it prescribes no different standard of
treatment for women versus men.
> In fact - why do religions treat those with less
> means so poorly as well?
Again, I see nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat the poor any
differently than the rich; in fact, there are passages that expressly
prohibit this.
> Which is better - to give to a food kitchen to feed the hungry
>or give to a religion to pay for some ministers
> Chauffeur driven Rolls Royce and driver?
Well, if all of the religious institutions in the world eschewed the
former in favor of the latter, this might be a point worth answering; as
things are, it's a straw man.
> I do not need proof to know that a religion that espouses genocide of
> non-believers is morally bankrupt. Nor do I need the same proof from a
> religion that would force its beliefs on others by force. IT is self
> evident.
And I seen no command in the Bible for either forcibly conversion to
Christianity or for Christians to kill anybody at all, let alone for
religious reasons.
> IF there were 12 apostles - why
> are there not bible books from ALL of them?
Why should there be?
> Why do we get "Excerpts" from a letter from Paul to the Romans - why
> not the whole letter?
I am not aware of any evidence that the Roman epistle is incomplete.
> If you go back through the thread - the original author was quoting the
> koran about the christ - as if their side of the story was real and
> others were not.
I know this. I joined the thread in order to rebut the broad-brushed
assertions about religion made by certain posters. The rebuttals have
been largely ignored but the assertions continue.
Given that just about everything I've said has gone without serious
answer, I am bowing out of this thread.
Regards,
John
Thom Madura
IT says - from a letter - not a letter - right in the bible.
Thom Madura
Actually - is is YOU that have not given a serious answer to your side -
by simply saying that some things do not have to be proven. That clearly
points out that you are not telling the truth.
It would be true only if you believed every assertion of every religion
that ever existed on earth. But you do not.
My statement was quite clear - THe bible(at least the New Testament) is
a document that was created by the religion (In this case the catholic
church) in order to support its beliefs. It was created by people on
earth - and THEY chose to put some things into it - and also leave
things out of it. We have historical record of the creation of the New
Testament - and even you cannot dismiss or argue against my statement.
THe Koran was created for Islam in the same manner - the people writing
it chose not to include some things and include others. It wa also
created by man to support the intended beliefs of a particular religion.
Among the things both decided not to include are Buddha, Mount Olympus,
Odin, Hadji, and thousands of other gods, large and small. To say that
some things do not need to be proven - even you cannot prove that all of
those other gods do not exist - so therefore you must accept all of them
- but you do not. For what reason? (Certainly not proof - is it?)
Once cannot use one religions "bible" to explain another religions
belief. It would be stupid to believe that any religion would include
information that would directly contradict its own beliefs - isn't it.
It is simply not even logical to use the "koran" to explain the christ
to a christian. That is what the original poster was trying to do. And
it won't work.
A christian can easily say that Mohammad is wrong - because he does not
appear in the bible at all. I could easily say that both the christ and
mohammed are wrong because Buddha never mentioned them - nor are they
mentioned in the Egyptian religious texts of which we have lots of
historical fact about.
Another FACT is that Paul - in his lifetime - certainly said a lot more
than is documented in the bible - which calls in to question what is -
and the context of what is. For example - we know that the christ was
not god - John says that in the bible - flat out.
As far as the ten suggestions - they are clearly bogus as well - as
proven by the bible itself. When the moses came down from the mountain -
he saw the golden calf and threw down and destroyed the tablets on which
the "orginal" ones were. IN THE bible - god says that he will help Moses
create a new set of tablets that would be exactly the same as the first.
ANd - in the bible - the second tablets do not contain anything close to
what we believe was the ten commandments - however - these ten which
nobody knows - were seen by everyone.
Now - if the god says that the second set were exactly the same as the
first - and the second set were seen by multitudes of Jews - that calls
into question the validity of the first set that were seen by no-one
except Moses. Obviously - the writer of the bible did not see them
either - it is not written in first person - but only moses could have
written it. Any other person has the word of god that the second set is
an exact copy of the first, plus their own eyes to see the words - that
are documented in the bible. I assume the word of the god takes
precedence over the word of a sinner like moses.
Of course - you can bow out of this thread. You have no place to go
otherwise.
Alex Clark
wrote:
> BaJoRi wrote:
> > Here is the difference on the Christian and Islamic views of Jesus. For
> > Christians, Jesus is a peacable figure for whom they need to kill.
>
> Would you mind showing me the verse in the Bible that requires
> Christians to kill in Jesus' name?
Since when does anything have to be in the Bible in order for
"Christians" to believe it? A lot of them believe that a human fetus/
embryo/zygote is a person from the moment of conception, and if they
can believe that they can believe anything.
--
Alex Clark
Arm Molotov Riddle
Louis Epstein
: Thom Madura wrote:
:> John VanSickle wrote:
:>> Thom Madura wrote:
:>>> There is no true comparison here. The Christ is written as what the
:>>> authors wanted him to be in the various religious texts - just as
:>>> Harry Potter is written the way JK Rowling wanted him to be in her
:>>> books. It would take a true idiot to think that a religion would not
:>>> write its fictional stories with their own point of view in mind - ie
:>>> - to support their basic beliefs. That they do not agree with each
:>>> other is just another way of saying that they are ALL made up - with
:>>> no supporting documentation.
:>>
:>> So if someone robbed you, should the jury conclude that both your
:>> version of events and the robber's version of events are both inventions?
:>
:> No - My point was that two religions are scamming the public. They
:> create documents that support THEIR own point of view - and of course -
:> support their story.
:
: I used to accept the idea that all religions were something that
: somebody, somewhere, had made up. I used to make the same broad-brushed
: assumptions and statements about religious people as well.
:
: I eventually came to realize that this represented a gross inversion
: of logic. Instead of treating my position as something that requires
: proof, I had been regarding it as something which was so clearly
: established that it needed no proof,
The fallacious assumption that NOTHING meets this criterion
causes as much trouble as rashly including something that
doesn't qualify.
(There simply MUST be an Infinitely First Cause of all-that-is;
atheism argues for an impossibility).
: and had been treating the evidence in a Procrustean manner, bending it
: and stretching it to fit the notions I was not willing to abandon.
An attitude typical of Christian "apologists".
: I had held the position, not because I or anyone else had offered proof
: in support of it (in some cases there simply is no proof at all), but
: because it supported the course of action that I had already chosen,
: and had chosen for reasons having nothing to do with the state of the
: evidence.
:
: Since that time (twenty years ago), I have carefully considered not
: only the arguments I made in favor of my old way of thinking, but many
: arguments made by others in support of the same position.
And have you critically examined arguments AGAINST it?
: Instead of the perfect, detached logic I had prided myself on exercising,
: I instead
Two insteads?
: found unproven assumptions, circular reasoning, straw man attacks,
: ad hominem attacks, and a host of other logical fallacies. Not one of
: the arguments for my old position was free of this; each one depended on
: fallacy in some way, shape or form.
And the contrary arguments?
: This new viewpoint was not chosen in order to justify anthing; I still
: harbor a number of desires that conflict with it. If you think that
: makes me a hypocrite, you have a mistaken idea of the meaning of that
: word. I call it recognizing my fallibility; I do not deny that I am
: capable of desiring things that are wrong.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: Jesus, is so hypothetical an entity so that his very existence has been
:
: As for any 'religion' that believes in him or that he was the son of some
: supernatural entity that created everything, that's utterly laughable.
:
: I prefer not to look to some non-existant supernatural being to solve all my
: daily problems for me. when things get dodgy I dont pray, I get off my arse
: and act. I suspect this is the way most people in this day and age handle
: life. My condolences if you live in an area where there is a lot of religion
: flying about.
:
: No amount of crosses and ancient hymns is going to stop any of the shit we
: must all face.
:
: Get a grip.
:
: G
:
: p.s. stupid religions have killed millions of people throughout history.
: If we are to evolve further we must reject all religions.
Millions of people have been killed in the furtherance of atheism,
which definitely needs to be rejected as denying that all existence
is necessarily contingent on that of an Infinitely First Cause,when
without an IFC nothing could exist.
The NATURE of the IFC is debatable.
No credible evidence that it writes books or founds official
fan clubs for itself has ever been produced.
But the EXISTENCE of the IFC can NOT be rationally questioned.
: "small giant" <mutaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:7cf4c9a8-34c7-4a12...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
:> The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison
:> The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great
:> significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are
:> differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences
:> of this noble Messenger.
:>
:> Source of information about Jesus in Islam
:>
:> Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the
:> Quran.
:>
:> The Quran was revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
:> be upon him), and memorized and written down in his lifetime. Today,
:> anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete
:> authenticity of the Quran as the original revealed guidance from God.
Almost no one who does NOT call himself a Moslem believes that the
Koran was in fact revealed by God to Mohammed and written down as
is in his lifetime.Some who are nominally Moslem question this as well.
:>
:> see this site for more information www.sultan.org
Don't forget to consult http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Louis Epstein
: On Jan 10, 7:58?am, small giant <mutawafa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> Source of information about Jesus in Islam
:> Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the
:> Quran.
:
: Composed 7 centuries after he died. Hmm.
:
:> Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
:> ... four biblical narratives covering the life and death of
:> Jesus. They have been written, ... respectively by
:> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
:
: People who knew him, or their sidekicks. Hmm.
:
:> CHRISTIANITY
:>
:> 1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God?
:> YES & NO
:>
:> With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early
:> followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity,
:
: Early Christians all believed in the divinity of Christ. What the
: heretics denied was his *humanity* (docetism). So this is all rather
: anachronistic.
The EARLIEST Christians probably didn't believe Jesus was God...
: Unitarianism is a modern (and apparently not very popular) movement.
: Few Christians would consider them members of the church.
...the earliest Unitarians DID consider themselves Christians
but Unitarianism has effectively ceased to hold any definitive
beliefs.
:> Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian
:> teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas,
:> who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met
:> with Jesus.
:
: Moslem statements about Barnabas are derived from a 15th century
: forged 'gospel of Barnabas' composed in Italian by a renegade of that
: period.
:
: I'm ignoring the tendentious stuff in favour of things which we can
: all just look up.
:
:> The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant
:> misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to
:> reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
:
: There is no evidence for this; the evidence is the reverse.
The evidence preferred by modern Christians who want to stay that way.
Those striving for a rational view of God disagree.
:> One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas....
:
: See above.
:
:> The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the
:> Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support
:> of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity
:> doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He
:> quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his
:> views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation
:> in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
:
: Irenaeus does not quote from any 'gospel of Barnabas', tho.
:
: He does not hold the views here attributed to him, as any examination
: of his two works "Adversus haereses" and "Proof of the apostolic
: preaching" will show; he is a perfectly orthodox Christian, as might
: be expected of a pupil of the apostle John's disciple Polycarp.
: English versions of his works can be found here.
:
: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers
: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
:
:> In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met atNicaeaand made
:> Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine.
:
: This is very strange, and a look at the ante-Nicene fathers reveals
: this. In fact they discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity
: was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First or of like
: substance.
St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
but both overestimate the importance of Jesus.
: They also harmonised the date of the celebration of Easter
: (problematic for the same reasons as today; an event on a lunar
: calendar celebrated by people who live by a solar calendar).
:
: All the ancient data on the council can be found linked from here:
:
: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
:
:> It also ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which
:> contradicted Paul's beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued
:> that anyone in possession of these Gospels would be put to death.
:
: This is pure fiction, I'm afraid.
Well,reminiscent of the stories told of the Moslem destruction
of the Library of Alexandria (also prone to exaggeration).
:> The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
:
: The modern text is a crude forgery. Many ancient texts were composed
: under the names of apostles in the 2nd and 4th centuries, sometimes
: for fraudulent reasons, sometimes simply as novels. A long list
: appears in the Decretum Gelasianum (the church considered all these
: dubious), which includes an otherwise unknown 'gospel of Barnabas'.
:
:
: Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> roger.pea...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> : On Jan 10, 7:58?am, small giant <mutawafa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> Source of information about Jesus in Islam
> :> Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the
> :> Quran.
> :
> : Composed 7 centuries after he died. Hmm.
> :
> :> Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
> :> ... four biblical narratives covering the life and death of
> :> Jesus. They have been written, ... respectively by
> :> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
> :
> : People who knew him, or their sidekicks. Hmm.
> :
> :> CHRISTIANITY
> :>
> :> 1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God?
> :> YES & NO
> :>
> :> With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early
> :> followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity,
> :
> : Early Christians all believed in the divinity of Christ. What the
> : heretics denied was his *humanity* (docetism). So this is all rather
> : anachronistic.
>
> The EARLIEST Christians probably didn't believe Jesus was God...
I'm afraid that such evidence as exists says the contrary, tho. This
idea is a modern one.
> : Unitarianism is a modern (and apparently not very popular) movement.
> : Few Christians would consider them members of the church.
>
> ...the earliest Unitarians DID consider themselves Christians
The opinion of the Christians, however, was different.
> :> Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian
> :> teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas,
> :> who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met
> :> with Jesus.
> :
> : Moslem statements about Barnabas are derived from a 15th century
> : forged 'gospel of Barnabas' composed in Italian by a renegade of that
> : period.
> :
> : I'm ignoring the tendentious stuff in favour of things which we can
> : all just look up.
> :
> :> The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant
> :> misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to
> :> reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
> :
> : There is no evidence for this; the evidence is the reverse.
>
> The evidence preferred by modern Christians who want to stay that way.
This seems to be an ad hominem, which isn't really very useful.
> Those striving for a rational view of God disagree.
Perhaps while priding themselves on their rationality, they might care
to argue rationally? Starting with evidence?
In what respect? And... what's the evidence?
> but both overestimate the importance of Jesus.
Erm, for **Christ**ianity? That sounds like a curious statement.
Louis Epstein
: On 21 Sep, 06:03, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> roger.pea...@googlemail.com wrote:
:>
:> : On Jan 10, 7:58?am, small giant <mutawafa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> :> Source of information about Jesus in Islam
:> :> Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the
:> :> Quran.
:> :
:> : Composed 7 centuries after he died. Hmm.
:> :
:> :> Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
:> :> ... four biblical narratives covering the life and death of
:> :> Jesus. They have been written, ... respectively by
:> :> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
:> :
:> :
:> :> CHRISTIANITY
:> :>
:> :> 1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God?
:> :> YES & NO
:> :>
:> :> With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early
:> :> followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity,
:> :
:> : heretics denied was his *humanity* (docetism). ?So this is all rather
:> : anachronistic.
:>
:> The EARLIEST Christians probably didn't believe Jesus was God...
:
: I'm afraid that such evidence as exists says the contrary, tho.
: This idea is a modern one.
It's a reasonable conjecture that in pre-modern times would be
suppressed as heresy.
:> : Unitarianism is a modern (and apparently not very popular) movement.
:> : Few Christians would consider them members of the church.
:>
:> ...the earliest Unitarians DID consider themselves Christians
:
: The opinion of the Christians, however, was different.
Indeed,many subsets of those seen by outsiders as Christian
have regarded themselves as the only Christians and all others
as heretics.
:> :> Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian
:> :> teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas,
:> :> who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met
:> :> with Jesus.
:> :
:> : Moslem statements about Barnabas are derived from a 15th century
:> : forged 'gospel of Barnabas' composed in Italian by a renegade of that
:> : period.
:> :
:> : I'm ignoring the tendentious stuff in favour of things which we can
:> : all just look up.
:> :
:> :> The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant
:> :> misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to
:> :> reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
:> :
:> : There is no evidence for this; the evidence is the reverse.
:>
:> The evidence preferred by modern Christians who want to stay that way.
:
: This seems to be an ad hominem, which isn't really very useful.
It's a characterization of the reasoning by which evidence is
selectively preferred or interpreted.
:> Those striving for a rational view of God disagree.
:
: Perhaps while priding themselves on their rationality, they might care
: to argue rationally? Starting with evidence?
It seems doubtful that evidence would be agreed upon by
those predisposed to different conclusions.
:> :> One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas....
:> :
:> : See above.
:> :
:> :> The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the
:> :> Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support
:> :> of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity
:> :> doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He
:> :> quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his
:> :> views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation
:> :> in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
:> :
:> : Irenaeus does not quote from any 'gospel of Barnabas', tho.
:> :
:> : He does not hold the views here attributed to him, as any examination
:> : of his two works "Adversus haereses" and "Proof of the apostolic
:> : preaching" will show; he is a perfectly orthodox Christian, as might
:> : be expected of a pupil of the apostle John's disciple Polycarp.
:> : English versions of his works can be found here.
:> :
:> :http://www.tertullian.org/fathers
:> :http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
:> :
:> :> In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met atNicaeaand made
:> :> Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine.
:> :
:> : This is very strange, and a look at the ante-Nicene fathers reveals
:> : this. ?In fact they discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity
:> : was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First or of like
:> : substance.
:>
:> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
:> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
:
: In what respect? And... what's the evidence?
Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
above,a rational view of God.
:> but both overestimate the importance of Jesus.
:
: Erm, for **Christ**ianity? That sounds like a curious statement.
I'm not a Christian.
If I didn't think subscribing to Christianity
to be founded upon logical fallacy,
I WOULD be a Christian.
Roger Pearse
I'm afraid that this won't do. We can't assert that Jesus was black,
and then, when the lack of evidence is pointed out, claim that "the
church must have suppressed it." Every statement must be based on
evidence; if it is not based on evidence, it must be withdrawn.
The remainder of the comments seem to have the same problem.
> :> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
> :> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
> :
> : In what respect? And... what's the evidence?
>
> Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
> that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
> above,a rational view of God.
You ignored my query about evidence. But in response to this
remarkably vapid comment, the query is the same: In what respect?
And... what's the evidence?
Anyone can make vague assertions. Only liars do it persistently, so
you need to shape up here.
> :> but both overestimate the importance of Jesus.
> :
> : Erm, for **Christ**ianity? That sounds like a curious statement.
>
> I'm not a Christian.
Sadly this has no relevance to the comment above.
Louis Epstein
: On 23 Sep, 06:59, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
:>
:> : On 21 Sep, 06:03, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote::>
Such as the assertion that he was God Incarnate,
attested to only by those with extreme self-interest
in making that claim?
: The remainder of the comments seem to have the same problem.
:> :> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
:> :> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
:> :
:> : In what respect? ?And... what's the evidence?
:>
:> Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
:> that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
:> above,a rational view of God.
:
: You ignored my query about evidence. But in response to this
: remarkably vapid comment, the query is the same: In what respect?
The Arian view of God makes more sense than the Nicene.
: And... what's the evidence?
The thesis that one can be one's own son is the one
on which the burden of proof must rest.
: Anyone can make vague assertions.
To make paradoxical ones and explain away their
impossibility as "mystery of faith",however,
takes a Trinitarian.
: Only liars do it persistently, so
: you need to shape up here.
:
:> :> but both overestimate the importance of Jesus.
:> :
:> : Erm, for **Christ**ianity? ?That sounds like a curious statement.
:>
:> I'm not a Christian.
:
: Sadly this has no relevance to the comment above.
Of course it does.
Overestimating the importance of Jesus
is characteristic of Christians.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> : On 23 Sep, 06:59, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote::>Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> :>
Change of subject noted. I don't notice your apology for the
misstatement earlier, tho. And you don't make clear whether you are
objecting to my comment or not.
As for yours; produce the documentation for your claims or withdraw
them.
> : The remainder of the comments seem to have the same problem.
> :> :> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
> :> :> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
> :> :
> :> : In what respect? ?And... what's the evidence?
> :>
> :> Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
> :> that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
> :> above,a rational view of God.
> :
> : You ignored my query about evidence. But in response to this
> : remarkably vapid comment, the query is the same: In what respect?
>
> The Arian view of God makes more sense than the Nicene.
A one line assertion? Oh dear. The reply is the same; offer evidence
or withdraw it.
> : And... what's the evidence?
>
> The thesis that one can be one's own son is the one
> on which the burden of proof must rest.
ROTFL! You make claims and it's for everyone else to prove you
wrong? <chortle>
<snip>
But frankly I think we're done. I'm going to make an assertion back;
you don't know or care whether what you say is true, and respond to
any query with further assertions. That makes you a troll at best and
a liar at worst. Don't do that.
Thommadura
That's because there was not mistatement
IF every statement must be based on evidence - As YOU said - then YOu
have failed to provide any evidence that your god even exists.
>
> As for yours; produce the documentation for your claims or withdraw
> them.
>
>> : The remainder of the comments seem to have the same problem.
>> :> :> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
>> :> :> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
>> :> :
>> :> : In what respect? ?And... what's the evidence?
>> :>
>> :> Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
>> :> that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
>> :> above,a rational view of God.
>> :
>> : You ignored my query about evidence. But in response to this
>> : remarkably vapid comment, the query is the same: In what respect?
>>
>> The Arian view of God makes more sense than the Nicene.
>
> A one line assertion? Oh dear. The reply is the same; offer evidence
> or withdraw it.
>
>> : And... what's the evidence?
>>
>> The thesis that one can be one's own son is the one
>> on which the burden of proof must rest.
>
> ROTFL! You make claims and it's for everyone else to prove you
> wrong? <chortle>
ROFL !!!
AS we have already led to
If your god was not a lie - you would have no problem producing him.
Hard to beleive your own comeback being used against you.
It is for those who make the claim of existence to prove it -
Until proven - something does not exist.
And since you have still failed to prove any statement you have made -
we are done
Religion and gods remain myths and legends.
Roger Pearse
"The EARLIEST Christians probably didn't believe Jesus was God..." was
a misstatement; at least, the author was unable to produce evidence
when challenged.
> IF every statement must be based on evidence - As YOU said - then YOu
> have failed to provide any evidence that your god even exists.
Where do I discuss the subject?
> > As for yours; produce the documentation for your claims or withdraw
> > them.
>
> >> : The remainder of the comments seem to have the same problem.
> >> :> :> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
> >> :> :> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
> >> :> :
> >> :> : In what respect? ?And... what's the evidence?
> >> :>
> >> :> Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
> >> :> that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
> >> :> above,a rational view of God.
> >> :
> >> : You ignored my query about evidence. But in response to this
> >> : remarkably vapid comment, the query is the same: In what respect?
>
> >> The Arian view of God makes more sense than the Nicene.
>
> > A one line assertion? Oh dear. The reply is the same; offer evidence
> > or withdraw it.
>
> >> : And... what's the evidence?
>
> >> The thesis that one can be one's own son is the one
> >> on which the burden of proof must rest.
>
> > ROTFL! You make claims and it's for everyone else to prove you
> > wrong? <chortle>
>
> ROFL !!!
>
> AS we have already led to
>
> If your god was not a lie - you would have no problem producing him.
> Hard to beleive your own comeback being used against you.
Would you explain the connection of this comment to my post?
> It is for those who make the claim of existence to prove it -
> Until proven - something does not exist.
Indeed so. The difficulty with this is that those who make it most
readily fail this test when it is directed to their own belief-
system. If you can expound just why you think we should live by
societal values -- or whatever positive position you silently support
-- then we can see whether you pass this test.
It is, after all, very easy for any idiot to go around demanding
people prove things to him -- so long as he doesn't have to pass the
same test!
Louis Epstein
:> >> : and then, when the lack of evidence is pointed out, claim that "the
:> >> : evidence; if it is not based on evidence, it must be withdrawn.
:>
:> >> Such as the assertion that he was God Incarnate,
:> >> attested to only by those with extreme self-interest
:> >> in making that claim?
:>
:> > misstatement earlier, tho. ?And you don't make clear whether you are
:> > objecting to my comment or not.
:>
:> That's because there was not mistatement
:
: "The EARLIEST Christians probably didn't believe Jesus was God..." was
: a misstatement; at least, the author was unable to produce evidence
: when challenged.
It is certainly a position held by some scholars
that seems more reasonable than the contrary.
:> IF every statement must be based on ?evidence ?- As YOU said ?- then YOu
:> have failed to provide any evidence that your god even exists.
:
: Where do I discuss the subject?
:
:> > As for yours; produce the documentation for your claims or withdraw
:> > them.
:>
:> >> : The remainder of the comments seem to have the same problem.
:> >> :> :> St. Arius was certainly closer to the truth than the authors
:> >> :> :> of the Nicene Heresy that dominates modern Christianity,
:> >> :> :
:> >> :> : In what respect? ?And... what's the evidence?
:> >> :>
:> >> :> Drawing the necessary distinction between God and Jesus
:> >> :> that leads one away from Christianity toward,as noted
:> >> :> above,a rational view of God.
:> >> :
:> >> : You ignored my query about evidence. ?But in response to this
:> >> : remarkably vapid comment, the query is the same: ?In what respect?
:>
:> >> The Arian view of God makes more sense than the Nicene.
:>
:> > A one line assertion? ?Oh dear. ?The reply is the same; offer evidence
:> > or withdraw it.
:>
:> >> : And... what's the evidence?
:>
:> >> The thesis that one can be one's own son is the one
:> >> on which the burden of proof must rest.
:>
:> > ROTFL! ?You make claims and it's for everyone else to prove you
:> > wrong? ?<chortle>
:>
:> ROFL !!!
:>
:> AS we have already led to
:>
:> If your god was not a lie - you would have no problem producing him.
:> Hard to beleive your own comeback being used against you.
:
: Would you explain the connection of this comment to my post?
:
:> It is for those who make the claim of existence to prove it -
:> Until proven - something does not exist.
:
: Indeed so. The difficulty with this is that those who make it most
: readily fail this test when it is directed to their own belief-
: system. If you can expound just why you think we should live by
: societal values -- or whatever positive position you silently support
: -- then we can see whether you pass this test.
:
: It is, after all, very easy for any idiot to go around demanding
: people prove things to him -- so long as he doesn't have to pass the
: same test!
There MUST be a God,or there could not be anything;
but the "scriptures" of various religions fail any
reasonable test of credibility as history texts.