Islam; A Pathway To Peace Or Destruction?

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Hansolo;

 

but I think we have to start the debate with "Does God exist" before we even can establish if there exists a book with words from this God.

 

Well, i would like to make it clear for you that Quran covers all the issues you have raised regarding the initiation of a debate. What we can do is to debate upon verses from Quran reagrding each subject seperately. One may find that the holy book is full of many writings which can be taken for the purpose of debates. By doing this, we would be doing both tasks similarly that is 1. we would be analysing that what is the concept of God, does God even exist or not and if he exists, then what is the state of his existence? 2. In the light of our debate, scientific analysis, proper research and study we would be able to see that what Quran told was right or wrong; if found wrong then I am in error and If found right then we may seek guidance from it.

 

I hope i have clearly stated my oppinion but still i feel that may be you would not understand some of it, so if any further clearifications are required, u r welcome. And even, if you disagree with my viewpoint and wishing to initiate a debate as you require, even for that.. I am all open and ready.

------------------------------------

 

Dear Taylork45;

 

How can you say it's okay to be in another religion when you are not following laws that are potentially corrupted and contradict the quran?

 

Well, the author of Vedas, Gita, Taurah (OT), Zaboor (Psalms), Injeel (NT) and Quran (Final testament) is the same author, the same God. It is impossible that if his natural-laws would contradict each other but I agree the social laws were different for different people and eras. Like the saturday was a holy day for Jews but as for Muslims, it is the friday. But, committing adultery was even frobidden in the Ten Commandments and yet it is forbidden in the Quran, therefore on a bigger or higher level all laws of God are same, in any book of any major-religion but the bylaws or social laws are different for different people and eras.

 

Now if you being a xian (you is meant for general xians) is willing to remain a xian then the requirement is this that u must follow the true commands and laws of Jehovah. As a matter of fact, the whole Bible is highly corrupted but it is also a fact that some of its parts are still the words of God; I ask you to refine your beliefs and laws in the light of Quran. Quran gives a brief description of many important beliefs and social laws of xian/jews or others therefore; in this way you can compare and contrast both texts but should give preference to Quran that what it speaks regarding that particular belief /law of your religion. Quran does recognise all other religions and give a comprehensive material for research and study.

 

I really doubt you did but good job anyway

 

Yes, you have the right to doubt as it is really very difficult in this era to properly study all 4 Vedas. I have not said that i have completely understood them but i have done a very comprehensive research on them and I found them very helpful but all in either mystical sense or metamorphically. Many of its verses make me sceptic about their divine-origin yet, many or its verses allow me to recognise them as words of God. I also did a post-research on Bhagvad Gita, Devi Bhagwatum, Brahma Purana, Vishnu Purana and *chindogiya Upanishad (*not sure abt spelling). In vedas, I found Rig veda and Atharva Veda very fascinating, the Yajur Veda was also full of ample knowledge but greatly metamorphical and Sam Veda was the best one when it comes to understanding the human behavior.

 

What scientific analysis did you do?

 

As i said earlier, any divine text which contradicts with the established facts (not theories) of science is indeed a corrupted text. For this purpose, i took some of those verses of Quran which deal with science. To my surprise, i found all of them complementory to the laws and hence i realised that this scripture is indeed a divine inspiration.

---------------------------

 

Dear Golden Meadows;

 

I would now like , with your permission, turn out attention to another issue in the Quaran. Which son according to the Quaran did Abraham try to sacrifice?

 

Indeed, i am not really satisfy with your summary which u have presented. I think i provided you all the authentic references, history, concepts and practices but u have still not recognised that Quran was not in error. You are still saying that it was in error by presenting a false model of trinity. However, i think that having a further debate on this topic of trinity would be pointless. Let we leave it as it is but with this point of note that; can any student/scholar of Bible defend any of its contradictory- verses to this extent with such authentic information and references as I did? No they cant what they can is to say every thing metamorphically.

 

However, i accept your request to have a debate on another topic from Quran as a matter of hope that if this verse could not satisfy your scepticism then might be some other verses could. With this good hope and faith i initiate my further discussion.

 

About the Son of Adam:

 

[2:133] Were ye witnesses when Death appeared before Ya'qub? Behold he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship thy God and the God of thy fathers, - of Ibrahim, Isma'il and Ishaq, - the One (True) God: to Him we bow (in Islam)."

 

Prophet Abraham had 2 sons, prophet Ismail and prophet Ishaq.Where, Ismail is said to be the elder one.

-----------------------------

 

Dear nivek;

 

"You ready to make the ultimate commitment to Allah?"

 

Yes, by all means. Indeed i was ready and now i have committed myslef with the true- path and consent of Allah, the God of universes.

-------------------------

 

Regards for everyone

A Well Wisher

[Ouroboros]

Dear Hansolo;

 

but I think we have to start the debate with "Does God exist" before we even can establish if there exists a book with words from this God.

 

Well, i would like to make it clear for you that Quran covers all the issues you have raised regarding the initiation of a debate. What we can do is to debate upon verses from Quran reagrding each subject seperately. One may find that the holy book is full of many writings which can be taken for the purpose of debates. By doing this, we would be doing both tasks similarly that is 1. we would be analysing that what is the concept of God, does God even exist or not and if he exists, then what is the state of his existence? 2. In the light of our debate, scientific analysis, proper research and study we would be able to see that what Quran told was right or wrong; if found wrong then I am in error and If found right then we may seek guidance from it.

 

I hope i have clearly stated my oppinion but still i feel that may be you would not understand some of it, so if any further clearifications are required, u r welcome. And even, if you disagree with my viewpoint and wishing to initiate a debate as you require, even for that.. I am all open and ready.

------------------------------------

Sounds like we should then. I will start a new topic in a day or two in the Colosseum where we can dive into the "Does the Quran prove that God Exist?".

 

Yes, by all means. Indeed i was ready and now i have committed myslef with the true- path and consent of Allah, the God of universes.

Universes? There are more than one? How does that fit into science? I think the multiverse idea is just a hypothesis, and not a theory.

[KT45]

Now if you being a xian (you is meant for general xians) is willing to remain a xian then the requirement is this that u must follow the true commands and laws of Jehovah. As a matter of fact, the whole Bible is highly corrupted but it is also a fact that some of its parts are still the words of God; I ask you to refine your beliefs and laws in the light of Quran.

Wait Wait wait. You say, "Now if you being a xian is willing to remain a xian then the requirement is this that u must follow the true commands and laws of Jehovah." Do you think that we are christians? I'm a ex-christian as in not a christian anymore. Just making sure you know that. I don't believe in any god especially the god of abraham

 

What scientific analysis did you do?

 

As i said earlier, any divine text which contradicts with the established facts (not theories) of science is indeed a corrupted text. For this purpose, i took some of those verses of Quran which deal with science. To my surprise, i found all of them complementory to the laws and hence i realised that this scripture is indeed a divine inspiration.

You talk about science a lot. What do you mean when divine text contradits established facts of science and not theories? You mean theories like evolution? Theories like Gravity? Both the bible and the Quran dismiss scientific facts. The old testament has stories about fiery chariots picking up physically present prophets to enter heaven. This is not scientific fact or isn't even plausible. Genies are not scientific facts and can't even be labeled as scientific theory since it can't be tested. Even if they could be scientific theories you'd have to reject them because they aren't scientific fact. I mean you reject evolution too right? You can't be selective on these issues just to make your religion correct. You should reject everything that isn't fact in the Quran since you don't accept theories!!!!!

 

Sounds like we should then. I will start a new topic in a day or two in the Colosseum where we can dive into the "Does the Quran prove that God Exist?".

May I suggest you debate him on issues dealing with science. He gave me this statement

As i said earlier, any divine text which contradicts with the established facts (not theories) of science is indeed a corrupted text. For this purpose, i took some of those verses of Quran which deal with science. To my surprise, i found all of them complementory to the laws and hence i realised that this scripture is indeed a divine inspiration.

To him the Quran agrees completely with science since he feels divine text that contradicts establish facts and science should be dismissed. I'd do it but I'm not really....um....qualified.

[Golden Meadows]

Omniscient,

 

I am sorry we cannot agree on the issue of how the Trinity is treated in the Quaran but moving on: Quote "Prophet Abraham had 2 sons, prophet Ismail and prophet Ishaq.Where, Ismail is said to be the elder one."

 

o.k but according to the Quaran which son does Abraham try to sacrifce? The bible says Isaac but my reading of the Quaran says its Ishmael. What are your comments?

[Dhampir]

That you say you accept facts not theories shows a faulty understanding of scientific theory. At any rate, every holy text cannot have been written by the same god, given their contradictory details, and the fact that some texts by nature of their contents are mutually exclusive to all others, like the quran is to the bible, or like monotheistic religions are to polytheistic ones.

 

Every religion has at least one redeeming quality, as well as a damning one. Or one hundred. That is to say your opening question cannot be answered any more than that same question applied to the bible or some other text. There are people who want to be peaceful about the thing, and others who interperet the text in a way that grants them permission to impose their will as violently as they are allowed.

[DucorpsToo]

I guess that it would be quite interesting to see a debate within the Colosseum about "Does the Quran prove that God Exists?" (I'm not the best debator so I'll sit back and watch this one) "Omniscient" however, is almost sounding like a scientist, attesting to the Quran's accuracy and implying that no errors could have slipped into the Quran......except for one thing. This one thing is the hidden yet crucial premise that the Quran was written at the revelation of each verse

 

I'll also have to agree with Taylork45 when he questions "Omniscient"'s rationale about remaining a christian, jewish or whatever and still follow "God's" law and make it to heaven. If it's that simple as "Omniscient" seems to suggest;then it really shouldn't matter if one has been raised muslim all of his/her life but somewhere along the line he/she is becomes unhappy with theology of the islam and instead converts to, say, christianity, hinduism..etc or become like those of us on this board..and still remain ethical, compassionate human beings nevertheless. The only rub here would be that many would consider such persons who renounce islam in that fashion as apostates..and we all know that apostates pretty much have a tough road ahead of them as they have to literally fear for their lives; and the Quran suggests that such individuals will have quite an uncomfortable afterlife as well.

 

"But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire forever" (Sura 2:217)

 

Also in the same vein it really shouldn't matter then, who a muslim can marry ...now should it? I mean as long as that person follows, as you would put it, "God's Law" ( or as I would put it..being a compassionate, ethical human being) then who gives a flying rat's butt whether this individual believes in what the Quran says or not? Obviously it does, since a muslim man can marry either a muslim, jewish or christian woman (people of the book) yet a muslim woman does not have that same choice...she's only allowed to marry a muslim man.

 

Oh well, I guess that we'll see "Omniscient" conveniently explain away these issues as well as others within the Colosseum.

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Hansolo;

 

Sounds like we should then. I will start a new topic in a day or two in the Colosseum where we can dive into the "Does the Quran prove that God Exist?".

 

Well, i am extremely delighted by having your acceptance for my proposal, though i had been expecting it for the Arena, but even the Colosseum would be a better forum to have such a serious and important debate. What i wish is to agree on some debate-format & rules so none of us would deviate from the topic & to keep it up with the best spirit. I respect you, highly, being an elder and older user of this board therefore i would probably agree on any rules as would be set by you however, i would like to recommend some or any if I found them worth mentioning.

 

Universes? There are more than one? How does that fit into science? I think the multiverse idea is just a hypothesis, and not a theory.

 

Well, I have used "Universes" in a greater sense of recognition for every separate community of this universe. Like within our universe, there are universes/kingdoms of animals, plants, human beings, astral beings and so-called non-living beings. I hope you would understand what i actually meant.

-----------------------------

 

Dear Taylork45;

 

Wait Wait wait. You say, "Now if you being a xian is willing to ........

 

Well, did you not consider what i mentioned in the brackets;

Now if you being a xian (you is meant for general xians) is willing to . I already new that you (Taylork45) is not a xian therefore, i mentioned that the pronoun "You" was used to address the General-xians. However, I apologise if it caused you any inconvenience, i would be more cautious by next time.

 

What do you mean when divine text contradicts established facts of science and not theories? You mean theories like evolution? Theories like Gravity? Both the bible and the Quran dismiss scientific facts.

 

Well, dear fellow as for the case of Bible I agree but as for Quran, i don’t find myself ready to accept that it contradicts with modern science, rather it conciliates. As regards the theories of evolution and gravity are concerned, I openly recognize that Evolution is a fact, not a theory but the theory of evolution is a scientific and intellectual attempt to explain the process of evolution in the species by means of natural selection. So, Evolution, being an established scientific fact, is recognized by me as well as the Holy Quran. Many Muslims may find it astonishing but certain verses of Quran conciliates with the fact of evolution but it actually does not really agree with the theory of Darwinism as proposed by Revered Darwin in his book, origin of species. Similarly, Gravity is a scientific fact, however the Newtonian theory of gravity was an attempt to scientifically and intellectually describe the process / reasons of gravity however we very well know that now the Newtonian theory has been substituted by Einstein’s theory of Gravity. Thus, Gravitation, being an established scientific fact is recognized by me as well as the Holy Quran. As regards the concerned verses of Quran which recognize the process of Evolution of species and the general process of evolution as well as about the recognition of gravitational force, I shall submit them during my forthcoming debate with Hansolo, as per your recommendation.

----------------------------

 

Dear Golden Meadows;

 

The bible says Isaac but my reading of the Quaran says its Ishmael. What are your comments?

 

Well, lets see first that what the New Revised Standard Version of Bible says about it;

 

[Genesis 22]

The testing of Abraham

 

1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you." 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you." 6 Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, "Father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." He said, "The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" 8 Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.

 

9 When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12 He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." 13 And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

 

15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

 

The passage does explicitly takes the name of Issac but the text in bold tells us a very different picture, you will find this picture by considering the following verses from Bible (NRSV):

 

[Genesis:16] 15: Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16: Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.

 

23: Then Abraham took his son Ishmael and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.

 

[Genesis 21] Isaac and Ishmael:

2: Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the time of which God had spoken to him. 3: Abraham gave the name Isaac to his son whom Sarah bore him. 4: And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. 5: Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

 

Well fellow; take an honest look yourself and tell me that who actually was the son which was sacrificed; Issac or Ismail ???

It is evident from these verses that Ismael was fourteen years old at the birth of Isaac, and must have been offered for sacrifice before Isaac was born because Abraham had been asked to sacrifice his only son; after Isaac’s birth of course the words ‘your only son’ would be totally inappropriate and against reality. In the light of this evidence, it is obvious that the word Isaac mentioned in the passage as quoted above was inserted in place of Ismael.

 

In one of the most blatant examples of interpolation, the Jews have inserted the name of Isaac in place of Ismael to cut off the relationship of Muhammad with Arabia and his great ancestor Abraham, but by mistake they forgot to tamper the other words / verses which indicate the real story. However, in spite of this tampering, the Bible contains passages which still point to Ismael as the son offered for sacrifice as rightly told in Quran that:

 

[99] He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

 

[100] "O my Lord! grant me a righteous (son)!"

 

[101] So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

 

[102] Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (the son) said: "O my father! do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one practising Patience and Constancy!"

 

[103] So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

 

[104] We called out to him, "O Ibrahim!

 

105] "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

 

[106] For this was obviously a trial,

 

[107] And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

 

[108] And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

 

[109] "Peace and salutation to Ibrahim!"

 

[110] Thus indeed do We reward those who do right

 

[111] For he was one of Our believing Servants.

 

[112] And We gave him the good news of Ishaq - a prophet - one of the Righteous.

 

[113] We blessed him and Ishaq: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

 

The following Quranic verse conciliates with the verses of Genesis 16 & 21:

[/i][14.39] Praise be to Allah, Who has given me in old age Ismail and Ishaq; most surely my Lord is the Hearer of prayer:[/i]

 

I do hope that now it is evidently cleared to you that which son was sacrificed by Prophet Abraham. Still, if you have any more doubts, i can present you more then a dozen verses from Bible alone to prove the actual name of the sacrificed son.

--------------------------

 

Dear Dhampir & Ducorps Too;

 

Well, i welcome you both to neutrally observe the forthcoming debate and furnish me with your precious opinions time to time to strengthen and vast my knowledge and understanding. Thank you!

------------------------

Regards for every one

A Well Wisher

[Guest obbop]

My first post. Hi.

 

Lots of reading on this thread. None of it new. The same old arguments and circular reasoning. Same old refutations and rebuttals. Not that any of this is "bad."

 

But, I m always amazed how a human-type human can try to argue that this or that is what God is or isn't and that this writing is the Truth and nothing but the Truth and I KNOW it....I KNOW it is God speaking to us. I KNOW IT!!!!

 

How?

 

If the one so absolutely sure their belief is 150% correct had been born in a different culture, reared in a different belief, what would be the odds they would totally abandon that they were acculturated in and take up the beliefs of a "foreign" religion?

 

"Proof" can be defined in many ways. I use the word "proof" as the ability to convince a rational educated human who has not been indoctrinated in any particular belief system that a certain religious system is what God wants us to believe and practice. I have NEVER been exposed to any proof that convinces me that any one religion is the "right" one.

 

When I see/read/hear religious adherants proclaim they possess the Truth I know I am confronted with what I can only term a brainwashed imbecile.

 

The one damning rebuttal to the Islam belief system being the "one true way" that convinces me that Islam is not the Truth (no Truth in ANY religion, in my opinion; only faith) is the different Islam sects that grate against each other and have led to many attocities. Suni, Shiaa, Suffi, and other lesser-known Islamic sects. If Islam was the Truth...... how could there not be one mass of Muslims flocking together under their Allah?

 

Sigh..........

 

Arguing about religion.... a proverbial lesson in futility. Logical discussion....the topic can be interesting. But, when one argument is based upon writings of yore with no proof of their authenticity, how can it be a rational discussion?

 

Such a complex topic. Tis a dreadful shane that an adherent so self-assured of their "correctness" is unable to shed the from-birth conditionaing, the brainwashing, that prohibits rational thought.

[KT45]

Dear Taylork45;

 

What do you mean when divine text contradicts established facts of science and not theories? You mean theories like evolution? Theories like Gravity? Both the bible and the Quran dismiss scientific facts.

 

Well, dear fellow as for the case of Bible I agree but as for Quran, i don’t find myself ready to accept that it contradicts with modern science, rather it conciliates. As regards the theories of evolution and gravity are concerned, I openly recognize that Evolution is a fact, not a theory but the theory of evolution is a scientific and intellectual attempt to explain the process of evolution in the species by means of natural selection. So, Evolution, being an established scientific fact, is recognized by me as well as the Holy Quran. Many Muslims may find it astonishing but certain verses of Quran conciliates with the fact of evolution but it actually does not really agree with the theory of Darwinism as proposed by Revered Darwin in his book, origin of species. Similarly, Gravity is a scientific fact, however the Newtonian theory of gravity was an attempt to scientifically and intellectually describe the process / reasons of gravity however we very well know that now the Newtonian theory has been substituted by Einstein’s theory of Gravity. Thus, Gravitation, being an established scientific fact is recognized by me as well as the Holy Quran. As regards the concerned verses of Quran which recognize the process of Evolution of species and the general process of evolution as well as about the recognition of gravitational force, I shall submit them during my forthcoming debate with Hansolo, as per your recommendation.

Wow, I'm shocked at that last post. I'm really surprised you would even consider it a fact. Good job on that account. There is one person I'd like to see you debate. His name is Kevin_H and he is a christian. He made this claim here.

 

Second, I hope I would discount the Koran at first reading in that is says semen comes from a man's chest, the sun sets in a puddle of mud, and Christ was never crucified, etc.

 

Kevin H

 

Can you comment on that in this thread for me? If not you can keep your comment here. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...0448&st=160

 

Thanks

[Ouroboros]

Dear Hansolo;

 

Sounds like we should then. I will start a new topic in a day or two in the Colosseum where we can dive into the "Does the Quran prove that God Exist?".

 

Well, i am extremely delighted by having your acceptance for my proposal, though i had been expecting it for the Arena, but even the Colosseum would be a better forum to have such a serious and important debate. What i wish is to agree on some debate-format & rules so none of us would deviate from the topic & to keep it up with the best spirit. I respect you, highly, being an elder and older user of this board therefore i would probably agree on any rules as would be set by you however, i would like to recommend some or any if I found them worth mentioning.

Ah. You'd rather do 1-on-1 in the Arena. I think we can arrange that. We'll get Nivek as arena moderator. I usually prefer the Colosseum since I have quite a chaotic schedule. Never know if suddenly work demands all my time or not. It seems quite balanced the last couple of months, so maybe we can try.

 

Universes? There are more than one? How does that fit into science? I think the multiverse idea is just a hypothesis, and not a theory.

 

Well, I have used "Universes" in a greater sense of recognition for every separate community of this universe. Like within our universe, there are universes/kingdoms of animals, plants, human beings, astral beings and so-called non-living beings. I hope you would understand what i actually meant.

Of course.

 

 

Wow, I'm shocked at that last post. I'm really surprised you would even consider it a fact. Good job on that account. There is one person I'd like to see you debate. His name is Kevin_H and he is a christian.

That would be quite interesting!

 

The Christian and the Muslim argue about which book is ontological naturalistic.

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Hansolo;

 

I usually prefer the Colosseum since I have quite a chaotic schedule. Never know if suddenly work demands all my time or not.

 

Well, i understand your problem and myself know that in professional life, tasks appear unpredicted. Therefore, i would like to initiate this debate in the Colosseum. I think you are quite busy to write some rules, therefore i am suggesting the following rules and guidlines and seek your approval & recommendations, if any.

 

Debate Rules

 

1. Opening statements by both sides.

2. 3 questions from your side

3. My answers.

4. 3 supplementary questions from your side (if any)

5. My supplementary answers.

6. Your oppinion about my answers.

7. 3 questions from my side

8. Your answers

9. 3 supplementary questions from my side (if any)

10. Your supllementary asnwers

11. My oppinion about your answers.

12. 6 questions from members. 3 for you, 3 for me.

13. Our replies,

14.a) joint-statement / joint-conclusion (if possible)

14. summarizing statements from both sides.

15. A poll.

16. No time limit but replies would be appreciated to be made within 7 days.

 

Debate Guidelines

 

1. Debators will introduce themselves & their topic formally in the opening statements.

2. Debators should issue a statement that: "debate not intended to hurt anyone's personal beliefs or feelings but for the removal of misconceptions between the debators".

3. Debators must use authentic information in their replies.

4. Debators must indicate their source of information when they cite anything.

5. Debators must not offend one another personally rather the disagreement regarding viewpoints is only permissible.

6. The usage of abusive language shall not be allowed.

 

We can request nivek to furnish our debate with his moderator services in respect to the rules and guidlines as above.

 

I seek your approval and oppinion.

 

--------------------------

Regards

A welll wisher

[Ouroboros]

Looks quite elaborate just to debate if "God exists". Which I assume is still the subject we'll debate first. Right? Other than that, looks good to me. And it's good for me if we have the week to respond like you set there. With those rules we should do it in the Arena.

 

This will be interesting. I have never debated in the Arena before.

[The_Omniscient]

Dear Talylork45;

 

Can you comment on that in this thread for me? If not you can keep your comment here.

 

Well, i made a post in your thread but it does not appear that i would get a reply from him, therefore it would be better if I comment here in order to clarrify the subject to you and others.

 

semen comes from a man's chest,

 

The concerned verses of Holy Quran are;

 

[86:5] Now let man but think from what he is created!

 

[86:6] He is created from a drop emitted,

 

[86:7] Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

 

Well, The Quran does not mention ‘semen production’ in verses 86:5-7. Nor anywhere else. Verses 86:5-7 do not mention ‘kidney’. Nor does any other verse! No such word in the Quran. The Quran simply states that man is created from the ejaculated fluid, which is emitted from within the abdomen. (From “between the ribcage and the spine”)No mention of ‘semen production’ or ‘kidneys’.

 

Semen doesn't come from the testicles,It is neither produced in the testicles, nor does it come from the testicles during the time of coitus. And this is a scientific fact! Thirteen centuries ago even the scientific community thought that semen is produced in the testicles. Does the Quran say the semen is produced in the kidneys? Absolutely not! It says simply that man is created from the liquid that is ejaculated. During coitus that liquid springs from the abdomen (“between the ribcage and the spine”).Semen is stored in vesicles that lie in the abdomen. From there it is ejaculated during coitus. Lay people still think that the ejaculate comes from the testicles. The semen contains many things. Between 95 to 98% of it consists of fructose, prostaglandin hormones, metal and salt ions, lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids. All those are produced from the glands located in abdomen. Between 2 to 5% of it consists of the sperms produced in the testicles. Source. Wikipedia.

 

In fact, if the Quran had said that the semen is produced in the abdomen, (“between the ribcage and the spine”), and not the testicles, it would still be accurate. At least 95 to 98% accurate! Only 2-5% of the semen is contributed by the testicles. The rest is produced in the glands located in the pelvic cavity. But the Quran does not say where the semen is produced, because the Quran is not 98% accurate.It is 100% ACCURATE!

 

the sun sets in a puddle of mud

 

Well, The concerned verses are:

 

[85] One (such) way he followed,

 

[86] Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a people: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority), either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

 

[87] He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before).

 

[88] "But whoever believes, and works righteousness, he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as we order it by our command."

 

Well, If the verses would be taken in their context, they very well tell the reality.These Noble Verses are actually talking about physical places in unspecified locations found by & according to Zul-Quranain.One can easily understand that phrase "setting in the murky water" is actually used as an identification of a certain place of this planet where it appears to an observer that Sun is setting in murky water, similarly as when we go to sea side, it appears to us that sun is setting in the sea. The verses do not say that : Allah is he who sets the Sun in the murky water : Had it been the case, the Quran would have been in gross error but, we actually dont find any such evrse in the whole book of Quran. Interestingly, if we further rea about the verses narrating this whole journey of Zul-Qarnain we find very interesting historical-facts and lessons.

 

Christ was never crucified,

 

Yes, its a fact. Jesus had never been crucified, rather it was someone else who appeared to the romans as Jesus. Might be he was Judas as i have explained in my another thread about Gospel of Judas and Quran.

 

So, dear fellow we have seen that how people take only the parts of verses and intentionally neglect the complete verse and its context in order to twist the facts and prove Quran in an error. I hope my comments would have told u the fact but if u have any questions or need any clearrifications, i am all here.

--------------------------------------

 

Regards

A well wisher

[Golden Meadows]

Omni,

 

Before dealing with the Qurans claim that it was Ishmael that Abrahem tried to sacrifice, i.e not Isaac, I would like bring up your earlier claim regarding the corruption of bible texts as it has a direct bearing on this issue:

 

OMNI: "We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption! "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely ?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!..............Bible itself says that it is corrupted so how one can follow completely such a book which itself denies its authencity? "

I do not interpret the passage from Jeremiah the way you do. Even today you will hear Christians moaning about other Christians who write or speak their own gospel rather than what scripture says, e.g one person exalts Gods mercy whilst ignoring Gods justice whilst another does the opposite. I guess the same happens with the Quaran? It doesn't mean the texts have been deliberately corrupted only that they are being watered down in preaching or popular writing. IMO Jeremiaha is doing the same in this passage, i.e he is criticising those who are diluting the law for popularity. If the Jews had been so corrupt that they actually altered sacred texts do you seriously think they would have left this passage from Jeremiah as witness against themselves? That this passage exists tends to support the veracity of the copyists and not their dishonesty. Even if some person was so fearless of divine retribution and so dishonest that he cared little for altering sacred texts how could they possibly think they could get away with it? The knowledge of the Torah was highly honoured and subject to memorisation through very strong oral tradition. If any had attempted to change one scroll then there were many others to witness the crime as well as the memory of the devout.

 

OMNI: "See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption."

My reading of this passage is simply that Moses knew they would depart from the Law, not that they would deliberately change the texts handed down. This is what happened in practice.

 

OMNI: "For more detailed analysis of corruption of Torah, i would recommend you the following link.

http://www.islamworld.net/torah.html "

This article itemises a number of Torah contradictions. In doing so it witnesses to the veracity of the copyists who would have known these same passages but could not bring themselves to altering the sacred texts in order to smooth out problems. If they had been corrupt they would not have hestitated to do so, instead they simply recorded what had been handed down no matter how problematic the text. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provides ample witness to the accuracy of the copyists down through the ages. The contradictions in the OT are to me due to reasons other than deliberate deceit.

 

Now dealing with the issue of Ishmael/Isaac, i.e which one did Abraham try to sacrifice? According to the bible its Isaac and according to the Quran its Ishmael. Both cannot be correct, one must be in error and therefore not the word of God.

 

Omni: Well, lets see first that what the New Revised Standard Version of Bible says about it;

 

QUOTE

[Genesis 22]

The testing of Abraham

 

1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, [Jerusalem]

and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."

Isaac was the only son of Abraham and Sarah born in wedlock. Ishmael was born through Abraham intercourse with the slave girl Hagar. Isaac was the "miraculous" son promised by Yahweh to Abraham and Sarah his wife. Isaac is the miraculous child of the promise given by Yahweh to Abraham and Sarah whereas Ishamel is the child of normal human intercourse.

 

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you." 6 Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, [john 19:17] and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, "Father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." He said, "The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" 8 Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." [John 1:29] So the two of them walked on together.

9 When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. [luke 23:33] 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12 He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

The only son who was born in wedlock, the "miraculous" child promised by Yahweh.

13 And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. [John 19:2] Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided." [Mat 26:26-29, Mat 27:33] 15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,

Isaac is the only son of Abraham and his wife Sarah, the child of Yahwehs promise. Yahweh gives the child to Abraham and Sarah but in a special kind of way its also Yahweh's child through the miraculous conception of Sarah, foreshadowing the claimed miraculous birth of Jesus and his sacrifice. Yahweh, according the Christian exegisis, did indeed provide the lamb who takes away the sins of the world on the mount on Moriah.

17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

 

Omni: "The passage does explicitly takes the name of Issac but the text in bold tells us a very different picture, you will find this picture by considering the following verses from Bible (NRSV):"

Once you understand the meaning the the term "only son" then its obvious it is Isaac who is being described. As Yahweh says to Abraham: "Grant Sarah all that she asks of you, for it is through Isaac that your name will be carried on" Gen 21:12

 

 

OMNI: "after Isaac's birth of course the words 'your only son' would be totally inappropriate and against reality."

I think I have now explained why it is appropriate.

 

OMNI:"In the light of this evidence, it is obvious that the word Isaac mentioned in the passage as quoted above was inserted in place of Ismael."

Now that you undertand the reason for the use of the term "first born" you can see why this claim of text tampering is not justified based on the evidence supplied.

 

OMNI: "In one of the most blatant examples of interpolation, the Jews have inserted the name of Isaac in place of Ismael to cut off the relationship of Muhammad with Arabia and his great ancestor Abraham, but by mistake they forgot to tamper the other words / verses which indicate the real story. "

If the Jews had wanted to downplay the role of the Arabs as you suggest they would taken out the following passages that appears in their scriptures today:

Yahweh tells Abraham: "But the slave girls son [i.e Ishmael] I will also make into a nation, for he is your child to". Yahweh tells Ishmaels mother, Hagar:" I will make your descendents to numerous to be counted" Gen 16:10-12

 

OMNI: "I do hope that now it is evidently cleared to you that which son was sacrificed by Prophet Abraham. Still, if you have any more doubts, i can present you more then a dozen verses from Bible alone to prove the actual name of the sacrificed son."

Based on the available evidence my thoughts lean very heavily towards Isaac being the child Abraham tries to sacrifice and therefore I cannot agree with the Quran's account. Neither can I find any evidence of deliberate tampering of the biblical text to downplay the role of Arabs - indeed the exact opposite seems to be the case. If I believed the bible was indeed the word of God then its a very easy step to acknowledge that what Yahweh says would happen did indeed happen, not just in the literal sense of the bible passage in question but in its foreshadowing of another child, and its sacrifice, that was to appear almost 2,000 years later.

[KT45]

Hey Omni,

 

I'm curious if you have heard this theory about Jesus' death. Here is a video that you can watch

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=16...060&q=jesus

 

I'm not sure about the name of the theory but it goes something like this. When Jesus was on the cross it seemed kinda unusal that he died so quickly. it would usually take days to die rather than a few hours. It's also strange that the romans didn't break his legs to help suffocate him. It was also strange that one particular soldier in the gospel seemed to be on his side. With all this many think the whole cruxifiction was a conspiracy. Some theologians say that the vingar that was on the rag was really a medicine meant to stimulate death. After they got jesus off the cross they immediately took his body and ran away to treat it with herbs (because of the stab wound). To me this seems why the Jews and the Muslims don't believe Jesus actually died. It seems more probable than the judas thing.

 

My theory right now is that the the whole Jesus thing is all a myth but I'm willing to change if more evidence presents itself.

[ThePureOne]

The_Omniscient,

 

Welcome to the forum. Anyone interested in debating the merits of Islam can see what has already been debated by those far more familiar with Islam. As most here are ignorant of the Qur'an and other Islamic tradition, it might be instructive to start here, a site analogous to this one but dedicated to Islam:

 

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

 

I suspect you may be familiar with it already. Plus, you can make $50,000 for your time if you are successful where no other Muslim has been. While I have spoken to other well-meaning, intelligent Muslims (as you appear to be) who talk about the need for context, and how modern Islam has lost its way compared to the glorious days of the Caliphate, the Qur'an cannot withstand examination as the flawless word of an omniscient being any more than can the Christian bible. Both books are self-contradictory and illogical despite any excuses of context, and, without intend to offend, are often far too base and vile to be worthy of admiration or emulation. Good luck.

[quicksand]

One page into this and I get a headache. Same old bigotry, cognitive-dissonance, non-sequitars, special pleads etc that we get from our fundie xian friends shown here in Omni.

 

Sorry, but one delusional faith-based mythology taken as fact is all I can deal with at the present time.

[Lycorth]

One page into this and I get a headache. Same old bigotry, cognitive-dissonance, non-sequitars, special pleads etc that we get from our fundie xian friends shown here in Omni.

 

Sorry, but one delusional faith-based mythology taken as fact is all I can deal with at the present time.

 

As well as selective interpretation of holy writings (literal or figurative), don't forget those

 

This stuff never changes, does it?

[quicksand]

One page into this and I get a headache. Same old bigotry, cognitive-dissonance, non-sequitars, special pleads etc that we get from our fundie xian friends shown here in Omni.

 

Sorry, but one delusional faith-based mythology taken as fact is all I can deal with at the present time.

 

As well as selective interpretation of holy writings (literal or figurative), don't forget those

 

This stuff never changes, does it?

If there is anything that is true about their respective religions, is just that and that alone.

[ThePureOne]

One page into this and I get a headache. Same old bigotry, cognitive-dissonance, non-sequitars, special pleads etc that we get from our fundie xian friends shown here in Omni.

 

Sorry, but one delusional faith-based mythology taken as fact is all I can deal with at the present time.

 

Yes, God's word will do that. Odd, I haven't seen The_Omniscient lately....

[Ziggy]

I think The_Omniscient is busy in his debate in the Arena with Hans.

 

The_Omniscient if you ever look back on this thread can I ask you to clarify these points about your view on Islam.

 

1. There is a hell but only for those who are not following Allah's Law. All people no matter what religion or non religion are OK in heaven IF they follow a particular law. Leaving aside the fact that I do not exactly what laws you are talking about what happens if some ones does break a law but only once? No person is perfect and everyone will have done wrong at some point .. how bad do they have to be to go to hell? How does anyone know they good enough? What if someone was bad - stealing etc but is now reformed? Or what if they have always been bad but at the end of their life they say .. I am sorry for what I did I think it was wrong. Are they in heaven or hell?

 

2. What is Isalms view on Creationism / age of the earth etc and what specifically does it say in the Quran. Like Christianity do you have any issues with science and theories like evolution that seems to contradict biblical statements Excuse my ignorance I know nothing of the Quran

 

3. The Quarn is the only scripture that can reliably be taken as the word of Gos as given to Mohammed. All other scriptural pieces are corrupted by man. Historically speaking do you not think there may be SOME doubt about this in the same way the bible has serious doubts cast on it by the way throughout history it seems to have been changed - ref Antlermans note on the Quoran coming 150 years after his life ended.

 

4. Would you say that Allah and Islam are the one and only truth? Do you think if i invited Muslims to a Christian Church they would be comfortable worshipping God? If not why not?

 

Your views make Islam sound very open and easy to accept-

It does not matter what God or faith you have or even if you have one at all;

Gods Laws are all the ones proven by science, and if science finds a new one then we can add that to the list;

Hell is only for the really bad people - all goodish people go to heaven;

 

A universal religion indeed

 

I applaud your earlier statement on condeming many of your current Muslim clerics on the way Islam is preached nowadays and that the Jihads and terrorist type actions are NOT what you believe about Islam. Can you say why it is then that there is such a large worldwide section of Islam that does believe in the more violent 'teachings' ? If they can read the Quran in one way who is to say they are not right and you are wrong..?

[SkepticOfBible]

Neither can I find any evidence of deliberate tampering of the biblical text to downplay the role of Arabs - indeed the exact opposite seems to be the case. If I believed the bible was indeed the word of God then its a very easy step to acknowledge that what Yahweh says would happen did indeed happen, not just in the literal sense of the bible passage in question but in its foreshadowing of another child, and its sacrifice, that was to appear almost 2,000 years later.[/color]

 

A very excellent post, however I am alarmed at your last comment. What is the foreshadowment you are talking about?

 

1)The Isaac and the Lamb were not sacrifice for sins. It was basically God testing Abarham

2)Abraham never killed Isaac and was stopped by an angel

3)Neither Abraham nor Isaac worshipped the lamb

 

The story of Isaac and Jacob doesn't foreshadown Jesus's story anymore than Exo 26:2-14 being foreshadowment of martha Stewart

 

BTW, since Omniscient is claiming that the Torah is corrupted. What evidence or standard does he has to demonstrate this corruption?

 

Secondly how does he Omniscient determine between the corrupted text or the authentic one, eg how does he know the Story of Ishmael is not the result of the corruption?

[Golden Meadows]

Neither can I find any evidence of deliberate tampering of the biblical text to downplay the role of Arabs - indeed the exact opposite seems to be the case. If I believed the bible was indeed the word of God then its a very easy step to acknowledge that what Yahweh says would happen did indeed happen, not just in the literal sense of the bible passage in question but in its foreshadowing of another child, and its sacrifice, that was to appear almost 2,000 years later.[/color]

 

What is the foreshadowment you are talking about?

 

1)The Isaac and the Lamb were not sacrifice for sins. It was basically God testing Abarham

2)Abraham never killed Isaac and was stopped by an angel

3)Neither Abraham nor Isaac worshipped the lamb

 

The story of Isaac and Jacob doesn't foreshadown Jesus's story anymore than Exo 26:2-14 being foreshadowment of martha Stewart

 

 

========================================================

Definition:

 

WordNet:

 

"The noun foreshadowing has one meaning:

 

Meaning #1: the act of providing vague advance indications; representing beforehand

Synonyms: prefiguration, adumbration"

==========================================================================

 

Doing a google on "Isaac type Jesus" gives this as first hit:

 

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genesis4b.htm

 

This covers most of the elements of the foreshadowing of Jesus by Issac but not all and would basically be in line with the way church fathers interpreted the text. IMO these are valid using the definition of foreshadowing given above. As a xtian I believed, but did not know for sure, that Calvary was foreshadowed by this passage from the OT because of the number of points of similarity between them. If I still believed the bible to be the word of God then I would still believe this type of foreshadowing was valid. The emphasis is on the word "believed". Maybe one of the forum's xtian guests might like to argue in favour of this point rather than me trying to pretend to be something I am not.

[Vortex]

The_Pure_One hit it right on the head. I was going to add a link to that site before I saw the posting.

 

My examination of Islam has shown it to be just as intolerant if not more so than fundamentalist Christianity.

 

As the FaitFreedom.org site points out - the moderate Muslims are not the "real" Muslims....

[The_Omniscient]

Dear fellows;

 

Indeed I have been quite busy in the Arena but I have not left this thread, the questions raised by my dear fellows would be shortly answered by me. rest assured.

 

Regards

A well wisher