(January 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm)AtlasS Wrote: The basic message that all prophets were teaching, is the perfection of god, nobody else is to be worshipped, anything but god is unworthy of worshipping.

So were these new teachings or rehashings of old ones?

If new, then the Muslim Jesus failed since he's credited with the opposite message (that he is the intercessor).

If old, then what does "great" mean?

Quote:About the other teachings, nobody knows exactly.

Interesting admission. So why doesn't anyone know exactly? Is this also a failure on Jesus' part?

(January 21, 2013 at 3:12 pm)AtlasS Wrote: There are arabic forums (you'll find the regular stereotypical arab sunni muslims in them), they believe that the prophet left prophecies about the end of times, they're studying it.

http://alfetn.com/vb3/index.php?

http://www.najahmenalfetan.com/vb/

those are the most famous two. I had to register there to know if it's right or not(got kicked out and banned).

Of course, you see a great contradiction in here, between what quran says, and what the muslim scholars said.

I'll have to pass on that because, going by what you said, they're posting in Arabic. Even if the posts were in English I don't know enough about Islam to follow any in-depth discussions.

Quote:Atheists also think that their believe is right

It is not a belief, my friend.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of ANY god. Find some and I'll reconsider my position.

In the meantime I consider theists to be superstitious assholes who uncritically accept whatever some guy in a funny hat tells them.

(January 21, 2013 at 3:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(January 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm)AtlasS Wrote: The basic message that all prophets were teaching, is the perfection of god, nobody else is to be worshipped, anything but god is unworthy of worshipping.

So were these new teachings or rehashings of old ones?

If new, then the Muslim Jesus failed since he's credited with the opposite message (that he is the intercessor).

If old, then what does "great" mean?

Quote:About the other teachings, nobody knows exactly.

Interesting admission. So why doesn't anyone know exactly? Is this also a failure on Jesus' part?

they were new teachings. That's why the jews were mad. I -personally- believe that jesus might've completed the message with all the teachings, and the responsibility to keep them fell on the monks.

A prophet actually cannot fail, because it's all about the people. If they believed or didn't, god will give the prophet his paycheck ->heaven.

He failed to continue due to jewish intervention (even the bible mentions how the jews convinced the romans to kill jesus), that if we followed the theory of the incomplete message.

so jesus didn't fail, as an individual he passed the test.
yet, the people around him, who refused to believed, were damned (the dark ages is one of the examples of that damnation).

about the other teachings, they were lost. The quran described how the monks changed the bible, bit by bit, in order to increase their budget , for example, putting a new religious worshipping type, called the pilgrimage to monks' shrines, which include paying gold to monks to "cure sickness" with the will of jesus christ.

obviously, the changing of the bible brought gold to the church.

that's why nobody knows what the teachings of jesus were. They are all changed.

---

(January 21, 2013 at 3:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Atheists also think that their believe is right

It is not a belief, my friend.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of ANY god. Find some and I'll reconsider my position.

In the meantime I consider theists to be superstitious assholes who uncritically accept whatever some guy in a funny hat tells them.

As I always though, looking into details & studying natural system is itself a proof.

Scientists cracked the code of electricity, that's how they were able to understand it & manipulate it. That code itself proves creation.

It's just a matter of deep thinking, when you think for real, based on science, the evidence is everywhere.

Quote:For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.

Issac Newton

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.

Issac Newton

Newton Wrote:As in mathematics, so in natural philosophy, the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis, ought ever to precede the method of composition. This analysis consists in making experiments and observations, and in drawing general conclusions from them by induction and admitting of no objections against the conclusions, but such as are taken from experiments, or other certain truths. For hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental philosophy. And although the arguing from experiments and observations by induction be no demonstration of general conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the nature of things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the induction is more general. And if no exception occur from phenomena, the conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any exception shall occur from experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such exceptions as occur. By this way of analysis we may proceed from compounds to ingredients, and from motions to the forces producing them; and in general, from effects to their causes, and from particular causes to more general ones, till the argument ends in the most general. This is the method of analysis: And the synthesis consists in assuming the causes discovered, and established as principles, and by them explaining the phenomena proceeding from them, and proving the explanations.

Isaac Newton, two pages later.

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: yet, the people around him, who refused to believed, were damned (the dark ages is one of the examples of that damnation).

It depends on how one defines Dark Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

Quote:In the 19th century, the term "Dark Ages" was widely used by historians. In 1860, as John Barber notes, Burckhardt in The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy "formulated the classic contrast between the medieval period as the 'dark ages' and the achievements of the Renaissance as a period of revived antiquity that included literature, elegance and erudition".[31] However, the early 20th century saw a radical re-evaluation of the Middle Ages, and with it a calling into question of the terminology of darkness,[10] or at least of its pejorative use. Historian Denys Hay exemplified this when he spoke ironically of "the lively centuries which we call dark".[32]

and

Quote:However, from the mid-20th century onwards, other historians became critical of even this nonjudgmental use of the term for two main reasons.[10] First, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved,[39] means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether.[40]

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: about the other teachings, they were lost. The quran described how the monks changed the bible, bit by bit, in order to increase their budget , for example, putting a new religious worshipping type, called the pilgrimage to monks' shrines, which include paying gold to monks to "cure sickness" with the will of jesus christ.

obviously, the changing of the bible brought gold to the church.

I don't recall anything in the Bible which teaches that Christians should venerate what they regard as Holy Relics or pay priests for indulgencies. There's also the problems caused by conflicting theology. This isn't to say that the Bible has never been changed for political purposes because there is evidence that it has been.

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: that's why nobody knows what the teachings of jesus were. They are all changed.

---

Why are Muslims 100% sure that nothing in the quran has ever been changed over 1300 years?

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: they were new teachings. That's why the jews were mad. I -personally- believe that jesus might've completed the message with all the teachings, and the responsibility to keep them fell on the monks.

The historical re-write is mind-boggling.

Actually, what allegedly made the Jews mad according to Christian folklore (about as reliable as Muslim folklore) and, more dependably, the theological differences between Chrsitianity and Judaism that cause Jews then and today to reject the teachings of Jesus, is precisely the same reasons you suggest that Muslims reject Christianity. It's the opposite of what your folklore claims.

The Jews reject Christianity because it breaks with Jewish monotheism and places Jesus not just as the Son of God but as a required intercessor, something wholly blasphemous to the god of the OT.

There is absolutely no reason to even speculate that the Jews were angry because Jesus was teaching a message of monotheism or that a new prophet would be coming along soon. These are teachings quite consistent with Jewish theology and OT precedent.

Quote:A prophet actually cannot fail,

Then a prophet cannot be "great".

It's a simple rule: if anybody can do it and the task is effortless, nobody can be considered "great" by doing it.

(January 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm)AtlasS Wrote: So the people had failed jesus, result ? group of bandits invade rome & set it on fire.

Dark ages hit europe

Devastating climate changes, leading to plagues & sickness.
The result, is a super torment that fell on rome (especially), for what they did to jesus..

I think that those davestating event are the main reason for the early islamic victories over rome .

Rome thrived and flourished for two centuries after Jesus blew through like a beer fart. The empire's greatest territorial span came in the second century C.E.

What happened next? Constantine came along, converted to Christianity to make better killers out of his soldiers, and forced the entire empire to convert.

A little more than a century later, the Roman Empire went virtually extinct.

Quote:As I always though, looking into details & studying natural system is itself a proof.

Oh, fuck...NOT the teleological argument AGAIN!

Will you god fucks work up some new material?


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

(January 21, 2013 at 4:38 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.

Issac Newton

Newton Wrote:As in mathematics, so in natural philosophy, the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis, ought ever to precede the method of composition. This analysis consists in making experiments and observations, and in drawing general conclusions from them by induction and admitting of no objections against the conclusions, but such as are taken from experiments, or other certain truths. For hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental philosophy. And although the arguing from experiments and observations by induction be no demonstration of general conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the nature of things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the induction is more general. And if no exception occur from phenomena, the conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any exception shall occur from experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such exceptions as occur. By this way of analysis we may proceed from compounds to ingredients, and from motions to the forces producing them; and in general, from effects to their causes, and from particular causes to more general ones, till the argument ends in the most general. This is the method of analysis: And the synthesis consists in assuming the causes discovered, and established as principles, and by them explaining the phenomena proceeding from them, and proving the explanations.

Isaac Newton, two pages later.

Newton wasn't contradicting himself. The method of analysis has already been done on the natural system around us.

All creations share basic features, we knew they were shared after (the experiments & observations ). We know that any substance (including the human) must be a composition of different minerals, this is showing in any physical thing around you (considering gas a physical thing).

Mathematically, the alignment of planets is almost parallel in each planet (I mean the way they move, certain steps can be carried away to identify the movement), which indicates a mutual design, know how to calculate the movement of any planet, you'll calculate anything else that moves & rotates.

The movement of physical objects itself indicates a design.

Believe me, newton wasn't kidding himself : )

---

(January 21, 2013 at 5:25 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: It depends on how one defines Dark Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

The guy down there is wondering why they were called dark ?
The fall of rome itself, was consisted of too many factors (the same page you gave me), which indicates a very very hard age, unlike any other, full with disease, death & wars.

Europe was crumbling since that time, that's why history doesn't record any battle between them & muslims. And still, those years weren't dark for europe ?

]

Quote:I don't recall anything in the Bible which teaches that Christians should venerate what they regard as Holy Relics or pay priests for indulgencies. There's also the problems caused by conflicting theology. This isn't to say that the Bible has never been changed for political purposes because there is evidence that it has been.

The concept of a person being a saint, capable of curing disease and sickness by mere touch, this theme is always there in the bible.

This itself is a change in the message, because as I told you : the main message is worshiping god, pray for god, nobody else.
But christianity allowed that for saints.

Quote:Why are Muslims 100% sure that nothing in the quran has ever been changed over 1300 years?

Ancient versions of the quran were found ; no contradiction with that we have today.

BTW, do you know that the arabic grammar is like a lie detector ? if something is made up, the grammar experts would fetch it up.

The quran is flawless, grammatically , nothing is like it (studied it for years,from a grammatical pov). It's almost impossible to forge that.

And still, evidence proves that ancient qurans are the same as the one we have.

---

(January 21, 2013 at 5:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)AtlasS Wrote: they were new teachings. That's why the jews were mad. I -personally- believe that jesus might've completed the message with all the teachings, and the responsibility to keep them fell on the monks.

The historical re-write is mind-boggling.

Actually, what allegedly made the Jews mad according to Christian folklore (about as reliable as Muslim folklore) and, more dependably, the theological differences between Chrsitianity and Judaism that cause Jews then and today to reject the teachings of Jesus, is precisely the same reasons you suggest that Muslims reject Christianity. It's the opposite of what your folklore claims.

The Jews reject Christianity because it breaks with Jewish monotheism and places Jesus not just as the Son of God but as a required intercessor, something wholly blasphemous to the god of the OT.

There is absolutely no reason to even speculate that the Jews were angry because Jesus was teaching a message of monotheism or that a new prophet would be coming along soon. These are teachings quite consistent with Jewish theology and OT precedent.

Quote:A prophet actually cannot fail,

Then a prophet cannot be "great".

It's a simple rule: if anybody can do it and the task is effortless, nobody can be considered "great" by doing it.

A big difference comes in this theory, when the idea of the "messiah" is presented. Jesus was (as far as I know) believed to be coming by the jews, they refused him.

The christians also had predicted the coming of mohammad (one the verses states that, it's real stuff, but I can't recall the verse, I shall search for it again).

You see, it's not the same, with this idea presented, they knew, and denied.

And don't forget : the reason for jesus's coming, is the corruption of the jewish religion.

About great prophets. No, it is not effortless.

Mohammad was stoned, beaten, made fun of, they tortured his companions for years & years.

The consequences of being a prophet, is simply forgetting your old life, and go out facing nations by your own.. people tend to forget that.

You can be killed. You can be tortured. and of course, you might sin.
Jonah, one the prophets mentioned in Islam, has sinned.

Mohammad is of course better than Jonah.

---

(January 21, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(January 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm)AtlasS Wrote: So the people had failed jesus, result ? group of bandits invade rome & set it on fire.

Dark ages hit europe

Devastating climate changes, leading to plagues & sickness.
The result, is a super torment that fell on rome (especially), for what they did to jesus..

I think that those davestating event are the main reason for the early islamic victories over rome .

Rome thrived and flourished for two centuries after Jesus blew through like a beer fart. The empire's greatest territorial span came in the second century C.E.

What happened next? Constantine came along, converted to Christianity to make better killers out of his soldiers, and forced the entire empire to convert.

A little more than a century later, the Roman Empire went virtually extinct.

Your choice of words is astonishing.
The fall of rome was due to factors, all of them didn't start until the end of jesus's story.

Read about it, it's all in wikipeida.

And rome ? even the eastern empire got attacked by plagues just a short time before Mohammad comes ( According to scholars, one of the main reasons for islam victory, the eastern roman empire suffered millions of casualties from the plague ).