(January 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm)AtlasS Wrote: 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.

That's the Christian story. When you actually study the OT, you get a different picture.

The messiah the Jews were expecting was an earthly warlord who would lead Israel to glory and ultimate triumph, a figure who bore little resemblance to a meek and mild Lamb of God that Jesus supposedly was. Any converts from their ranks to Christianity could be best explained as some of them despaired of ever beating the Romans and decided their promised kingdom was somewhere in the sky.

Quote: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).

I'm already familiar with that apology and can point out the verse from John that was wrenched out of context and obtusely interpreted by Muslim apologists.

Quote:JOHN 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

The "Comforter" is a reference to The Holy Spirit.

Don't use someone else's scripture to try to prove your religion. In a surprise move, their scripture is written to prove their religion. You're just asking to get your proverbial butt handed to you.

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

All religion is corrupt. Hearkening back to a Pure True Church ™ is nothing more than the nostalgic fantasy of the heterodox. See my new post on that score.

Quote:About great prophets. No, it is not effortless.

I thought you said they could not fail.

Can't fail = effortless.

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

While none proves that anything in them is an accurate account of reality.

(January 21, 2013 at 8:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: That's the Christian story. When you actually study the OT, you get a different picture.

The messiah the Jews were expecting was an earthly warlord who would lead Israel to glory and ultimate triumph, a figure who bore little resemblance to a meek and mild Lamb of God that Jesus supposedly was. Any converts from their ranks to Christianity could be best explained as some of them despaired of ever beating the Romans and decided their promised kingdom was somewhere in the sky.

I'm already familiar with that apology and can point out the verse from John that was wrenched out of context and obtusely interpreted by Muslim apologists.

Quote:JOHN 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

The "Comforter" is a reference to The Holy Spirit.

Don't use someone else's scripture to try to prove your religion. In a surprise move, their scripture is written to prove their religion. You're just asking to get your proverbial butt handed to you.



All religion is corrupt. Hearkening back to a Pure True Church ™ is nothing more than the nostalgic fantasy of the heterodox. See my new post on that score.

Quote:About great prophets. No, it is not effortless.

I thought you said they could not fail.

Can't fail = effortless.

It wasn't taken out of context, taken the variability of the context itself, which christians change with each interpretation. So my proverbial butt is a little bit out of range, since christians themselves are not sure. I shall use their same claim : translation failure .

You have a major flow in understanding what the heck destiny, punishment, winning & losing means in islam.

Winning = heaven, you believe in god & you go to heaven. it goes for prophets and normal people.

Losing = lose your faith ; ending up in hell.

Now about getting the job done, you put your best effort, if god wanted he would aid you, if he didn't aid you, you shall go on, until you finish, or die & fail. in both cases, you tried your best.

That's why, in paying to the poor for example , a person who pays one dollar but he's poor, is the same as somebody who pays 1000 while he's rich.

In conclusion, the person who pays the best he can come up with from his budget, is almost the same as a person who pays thousands but rich.

it's not about result, it's about the action itself ; are you willing to do it or not, and did you put all your all power in it, or half of it, ... etc.

(January 21, 2013 at 9:08 pm)AtlasS Wrote: It wasn't taken out of context, taken the variability of the context itself, which christians change with each interpretation. So my proverbial butt is a little bit out of range, since christians themselves are not sure. I shall use their same claim : translation failure .

I hate to advocate Christian bullshit but theirs is at least internally consistent bullshit.

The Christian "interpretation" of that verse is because that's what it was. The context of the Gospel of John followed up by the Book of Acts spells out the arrival of The Holy Spirit at the Pentecost. The Islamic interpretation only works for those who have not read the Bible.

Quote:You have a major flow in understanding what the heck destiny, punishment, winning & losing means in islam.

I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion that my understanding is based on reality (the natural world) and yours is based on fantasy (Heaven and Hell). We're talking about the internal inconsistency in your own story. Don't change the subject.

(January 21, 2013 at 9:31 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(January 21, 2013 at 9:08 pm)AtlasS Wrote: It wasn't taken out of context, taken the variability of the context itself, which christians change with each interpretation. So my proverbial butt is a little bit out of range, since christians themselves are not sure. I shall use their same claim : translation failure .

I hate to advocate Christian bullshit but theirs is at least internally consistent bullshit.

The Christian "interpretation" of that verse is because that's what it was. The context of the Gospel of John followed up by the Book of Acts spells out the arrival of The Holy Spirit at the Pentecost. The Islamic interpretation only works for those who have not read the Bible.

Quote:You have a major flow in understanding what the heck destiny, punishment, winning & losing means in islam.

I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion that my understanding is based on reality (the natural world) and yours is based on fantasy (Heaven and Hell). We're talking about the internal inconsistency in your own story. Don't change the subject.

Hmm, good point.
Thanks, I didn't consider the "seyaq", which is one the most important factors in interpreting holly books, specially in arabic.

"Seyaq" is an arabic word means what you just said : a certain verse is meaningless without it's pre-verses. Stupid mistake from my side.

About the side-tracking, Nope, that wasn't wrong.
To debate a certain religion, you need to see how its people think. In details.

I don't believe in fantasy, because 1000 years ago, the idea of bacteria & viruses was a fantasy, the idea of flying was a fantasy, who knows what the scientists are going to find out tomorrow ?

What you call fantasy might be (very easily) a reality.

Never heard about the "Loch Ness" fairy tail ? fossils in that area shows that the vikings weren't crazy after all.

It's not fantasy..It's just a thing that wasn't discovered yet.

(January 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm)AtlasS Wrote: 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 ?

The article explains why it was originaly called the Dark Ages and is now called Early Medieval. The 19th Century scholars had a biased world view so this period of history was presented as Europe being overrun by uncouth, unwashed savages. Disease has always been a part of human history because there were other periods with devastating diseases - the Black Death was in the 14th Century. Bubonic Plague turned up every so often. Then there was the 1918 flu pandemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Quote:The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920)[1] was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic which infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50-100 million people of them—1 to 3 percent of the world's population[3] at the time—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history

If Dark Age is defined by disease, death and wars you could say that the whole of human history has been one long Dark Age.

(January 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm)AtlasS Wrote: 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.

The Roman faction of Christianity chose to interpret things that way. As they were the dominant faction, other Christian groups with different interpretations were eradicated. The Cathars are, perhaps, the most well known example of Christians with a different interpretation being wiped out. Millions of Christians these days don't pray to saints or the Virgin Mary.

Christianity is a term covering many thousands of different viewpoints. This is why I wish Christians would say things like "I'm a Southern Baptist" or "I'm a Roman Catholic" rather than just presenting themselves as Christians.

Islam isn't just one viewpoint either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslims_by_sect

I was surprised to find there are so many. The way you refered to Sunni Muslims in Post 42 of this topic leads me to suspect that you're a Shi'a Muslim but it would be helpful if you could confirm this. I could then google Shi'a Muslims.

Millions of Muslims believe that Islam is a religion of peace while others interpret things to mean that suicide bombing is OK. There are arguments about the real status of women in Islam. (I read a fascinating discussion on separate areas for women in mosques in the Beliefnet forum. Some women were insisting they liked it that way and didn't want men and women together. A man insisted that this custom wasn't true Islam.)

(January 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm)AtlasS Wrote: Ancient versions of the quran were found ; no contradiction with that we have today.

When I get time I'll google that and see if I can find an unbiased article on the subject.

(January 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm)AtlasS Wrote: 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.

Almost impossible isn't the same thing as completely impossible, though. Not that a possibility is concrete proof, of course, which is why I'd like to find an unbiased opinion. Even though I'm an atheist I'm still interested in things like the quran and Nag Hammadi texts as historical documents.

Quote: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.

Um, that's a crock.

http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Academi...ontroversy

Quote:The Koran is the holy book of Islam, the direct word of Allah as spoken through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Unlike the variations and translations of the Bible, the Koran exists today in the exact same wording and format as when it was first recorded by the third Caliph nearly fourteen centuries ago. Or so everyone believes.

Until recently, some of the oldest variations of the Koran were paper fragments discovered during a Mosque restoration in Sana’a, Yemen. When the thousands of fragments were studied it was learned that not only did some date back as far as the 7th century, but many of them did not match to the modern version of the Koran. The Sana’a fragments stirred controversy in the 1980s when a German expert in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography began studying them. "They don’t want it made public that there is work being done at all, since the Muslim position is that everything that needs to be said about the Koran’s history was said a thousand years ago," said Gerd-R. Puin. "These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."

Again, as Bart Ehrman has shown with xtian documents....no difference. Much editing and massaging of the message went on.

And it sure as shit didn't come from any god, pal.

(January 22, 2013 at 10:38 am)Confused Ape Wrote: The article explains why it was originaly called the Dark Ages and is now called Early Medieval. The 19th Century scholars had a biased world view so this period of history was presented as Europe being overrun by uncouth, unwashed savages. Disease has always been a part of human history because there were other periods with devastating diseases - the Black Death was in the 14th Century. Bubonic Plague turned up every so often. Then there was the 1918 flu pandemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Quote:The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920)[1] was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic which infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50-100 million people of them—1 to 3 percent of the world's population[3] at the time—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history

If Dark Age is defined by disease, death and wars you could say that the whole of human history has been one long Dark Age.

The Roman faction of Christianity chose to interpret things that way. As they were the dominant faction, other Christian groups with different interpretations were eradicated. The Cathars are, perhaps, the most well known example of Christians with a different interpretation being wiped out. Millions of Christians these days don't pray to saints or the Virgin Mary.

Christianity is a term covering many thousands of different viewpoints. This is why I wish Christians would say things like "I'm a Southern Baptist" or "I'm a Roman Catholic" rather than just presenting themselves as Christians.

Islam isn't just one viewpoint either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslims_by_sect

I was surprised to find there are so many. The way you refered to Sunni Muslims in Post 42 of this topic leads me to suspect that you're a Shi'a Muslim but it would be helpful if you could confirm this. I could then google Shi'a Muslims.

Millions of Muslims believe that Islam is a religion of peace while others interpret things to mean that suicide bombing is OK. There are arguments about the real status of women in Islam. (I read a fascinating discussion on separate areas for women in mosques in the Beliefnet forum. Some women were insisting they liked it that way and didn't want men and women together. A man insisted that this custom wasn't true Islam.)

When I get time I'll google that and see if I can find an unbiased article on the subject.

Almost impossible isn't the same thing as completely impossible, though. Not that a possibility is concrete proof, of course, which is why I'd like to find an unbiased opinion. Even though I'm an atheist I'm still interested in things like the quran and Nag Hammadi texts as historical documents.

Dark ages talk :

I think that all the talk about "dark age" europe being "not so dark" is caused by something I have already seen.

Europe took its science foundations from the arab books (i.e during the crusades), stories say that knights used to go back with hundreds of books, many of them contributed largely on the European evolution.

The same tone is repeated by many arabs today, who claim that the dark ages in the arab peninsula were "full of life".

When I tracked back why they're saying that, it was mere arrogance. They just don't want to admit that their ancestors were really bug eating savages, who barry little girls because "it's a shame to have a baby girl instead of a baby boy".

Then, I would like to add : countries like china & japan didn't witness such darkness ; even there wars were more organized & less devastating (for thousands of years).

I still hold to my view, I wasn't convinced by the other opinion . Wars & sickness increased in the dark ages, in a very strong way.
=====
My Islamic pov talk :

I was a sunni, born & raised in a sunni family. I struggled for years, my teenage years included anger & grudge against god.

Then I knew that the sunni way contradicts with science, in it's core foundation. Sometimes stuff turn into plain fairy tails, including a donkey with ears spreading for like 50 meters.

Right now, I have no certain path, I don't follow any faction. I consider them all "brothers & sisters, with different intake on the issues at hand".

I have big problems also with the shia, there faith is more messed up, including a messiah (a muslim one) who went inside a basement in iraq and stayed there for a 1000 years, then he would appear by the end of times. If you didn't believe in this, shia would consider you an infidel .

I follow the Quran, literally. I think it's obvious, and whoever can't understand it should take an arabic course.

Consider me ( a guy who only takes info from the Quran as a first source ; and consider the other sources "lame & incomplete".

(January 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm)AtlasS Wrote: Dark ages talk :

I think that all the talk about "dark age" europe being "not so dark" is caused by something I have already seen.

The term is used in English history to refer to the time when England was invaded by Saxons and Vikings who wanted to settle. A second meaning of Dark Ages here was the scarcity of written records so there was very little idea of what was actually going on. These days there have been many new archaeological finds and studies so historians have a much better knowledge of this historical period.

(January 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm)AtlasS Wrote: Europe took its science foundations from the arab books (i.e during the crusades), stories say that knights used to go back with hundreds of books, many of them contributed largely on the European evolution.

I find this period of history very interesting. (Giving a link and a quote here because I can't assume that everyone who finds this topic is interested in medieval history.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_con...val_Europe

Quote:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe were numerous, affecting such varied areas as art, architecture, medicine, agriculture, music, language, and technology. From the 11th to 13th centuries, Europe absorbed knowledge from the Islamic civilization. Of particular importance was the rediscovery of the ancient classic texts, most notably the work of the Greek natural philosopher Aristotle, through retranslations from Arabic.

Not that all this learning transformed medieval Europe into a Golden Age, though. For the most part the Europeans remained 'bug eating savages' (Couldn't resist borrowing your description.)

Quote:The same tone is repeated by many arabs today, who claim that the dark ages in the arab peninsula were "full of life".

When I tracked back why they're saying that, it was mere arrogance. They just don't want to admit that their ancestors were really bug eating savages, who barry little girls because "it's a shame to have a baby girl instead of a baby boy".

I think a lot of modern historians try to take a more objective view of history. The Arabs in the Arab peninsula in those days acted like bug eating savages in a lot of respects but there were cities and trading etc. For myself, I think it's the only way to look at history. The Romans had an impressive civilisation but they were also bug eating savages in a lot of respects. For example, the Roman Games were spectacles of sickening cruelty for public amusement.

http://www.historytoday.com/keith-hopkin...cient-rome

(January 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm)AtlasS Wrote: I still hold to my view, I wasn't convinced by the other opinion . Wars & sickness increased in the dark ages, in a very strong way.

I've come to look at history as a 'human species' thing. The Dark Ages was a dreadful period but the world has never been free of dreadful goings on somewhere or other. The 20th Century was another horrific period even though we had all that knowledge and technological progress. There were two world wars plus horrific goings on around the world throughout the century. Humans are capable of great things but we can still revert to being bug eating savages and often do.

(January 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm)AtlasS Wrote: Consider me ( a guy who only takes info from the Quran as a first source ; and consider the other sources "lame & incomplete".

That's an interesting perspective. Thank you for explaining it.

Quote:The term is used in English history to refer to the time when England was invaded by Saxons and Vikings who wanted to settle. A second meaning of Dark Ages here was the scarcity of written records so there was very little idea of what was actually going on. These days there have been many new archaeological finds and studies so historians have a much better knowledge of this historical period.

I always wondered why books & records were scarce at that period, even in the 13th century, where almost all civilizations had libraries & numerous books (the arabs, the christians of Constantinople, the chinese, the japanese, even some far away civilizations like the mayans).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wl7gPDAelY

But this documentary shows some historical records, but only for kings. I sense a very monopolized community.

Quote:I find this period of history very interesting. (Giving a link and a quote here because I can't assume that everyone who finds this topic is interested in medieval history.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_con...val_Europe

Quote:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe were numerous, affecting such varied areas as art, architecture, medicine, agriculture, music, language, and technology. From the 11th to 13th centuries, Europe absorbed knowledge from the Islamic civilization. Of particular importance was the rediscovery of the ancient classic texts, most notably the work of the Greek natural philosopher Aristotle, through retranslations from Arabic.

Not that all this learning transformed medieval Europe into a Golden Age, though. For the most part the Europeans remained 'bug eating savages' (Couldn't resist borrowing your description.)

It is interesting, I would pay anything just to go back in time & see that era.

About the books, I did reach a conclusion that the royal court & the church monopolized any kind of knowledge, which explains the contradictions of the amazing cathedrals which are built with a very sophisticated technology and arts, while peasants live in grass huts.

Quote:I think a lot of modern historians try to take a more objective view of history. The Arabs in the Arab peninsula in those days acted like bug eating savages in a lot of respects but there were cities and trading etc. For myself, I think it's the only way to look at history. The Romans had an impressive civilisation but they were also bug eating savages in a lot of respects. For example, the Roman Games were spectacles of sickening cruelty for public amusement.

http://www.historytoday.com/keith-hopkin...cient-rome

lol, it's true to some aspect, but I hold a great respect to the romans, they had a very good civilizations, but ruined it with blood & savagery will. But through out history, I think they were one of the closest to modern humanity. Or so I was told :p the truth can always differ.

Quote:I've come to look at history as a 'human species' thing. The Dark Ages was a dreadful period but the world has never been free of dreadful goings on somewhere or other. The 20th Century was another horrific period even though we had all that knowledge and technological progress. There were two world wars plus horrific goings on around the world throughout the century. Humans are capable of great things but we can still revert to being bug eating savages and often do.

A great point.
Killing is killing, it doesn't matter if it took place during a medieval battle or by a modern jet fighter in a world war, it's always the same.

Even massacres, they took place in a very "dark ageish" way, in serbia & Palestine ( Bashar al Asad is doing the same also).

I really want to know what moves humans into that behavior, it seems like a constant since the time of the romans. Even if it's decreasing, but it's still there, kinda.

(January 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm)AtlasS Wrote: Consider me ( a guy who only takes info from the Quran as a first source ; and consider the other sources "lame & incomplete".

That's an interesting perspective. Thank you for explaining it.
[/quote]

You are welcome : )