by TerryWalstrom 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The quran states it is a confirmation of previous messages and not a new message - I'm not sure about this statement.
As an example, the OT condemns drunkenness but Jews drunk alcohol. The Nt also condemns drunkenness but Jesus turned water into wine.
AFAIK, the Quran condemns drunkenness plus any consumption of alcohol.
Why did God suddenly become a teetotaller c.650CE?!
No, the believers of the bible and quran chose not to agree and also chose to avoid the word "possession" while fundamentally relying on the concept for their beliefs and to peddle their belief that it is inspired.
Please, tell us more about how spirit creatures wrote books. Why can't they now send tweets or write facebook posts to clarify things?
It wasn't a matter of choice, the explanation of, "inspiration" is clear in scripture. And it doesn't agree, and is easy to comprehend with the full harmony of whatever example you want to use from either book.
As far as your last statement, it's because clarification is unnecessary. The bible is no longer outlawed amd locked away by the church, anyone can read it and see what it says. The question then becomes will they except it's message or what someone else says its message is?
if a person denies this message, Christians teach they will die. I disagree, this is not what it says. It says the judge is Christ, and that all those who do good and are righteous will be saved. I would argue for example, that persons such as yourself have very valid personal reasons for hating religion and for deciding to have nothing to do with it or its sources. However this does not make you unrighteous, and it is not condemning you especially because what you've done, really, is deny the false christs - which is actually what it directs us to do. Any spite you feel toward the bible is not without reason, and is because of those people.
So unlike most who call themselves Christian, I feel, personally, that if I can see and understand yours as well as likely others reasons for dismissing everything loosely connected to religion, certainly an immortal, just judge called the Prince of Peace can. I have many friends who are genuinely good people who feel similarly to both yourself and cofty, and of these friends I would say if God could judge them unrighteous then we are all royally screwed.
Simon - "Please, tell us more about how spirit creatures wrote books. Why can't they now send tweets or write facebook posts to clarify things?"
Spirit creatures kick it old-school, yo.
I will say I believe Jesus was the messiah, that he willingly took this role, and that he died and was raised to heaven.
I also believe that something bad will likely happen to those who have assumed the role of a messenger or Christ, as per Jesus stating it would.
And that all religions following a man today are false.
In the end, what I believe, is that people like you and I and others here who have renounced our religions because of their clear hypocrisies and lies will be saved, as well as all those who are in the religions honestly trying to find truth, as well as all those whomever else the judge finds is a good and righteous person, regardless of any errors they may have made.
So, you say you have renounced religion but believe in Jesus as the Messiah, punishment from heaven, Jesus being raised up, etc. In what sense are you not Christian and operating with confirmation bias? You are starting from the position of "I believe this, let me find things to prove it" rather than the position of "Is there any evidence that would make me believe this?"
I would argue for example, that persons such as yourself have very valid personal reasons for hating religion and for deciding to have nothing to do with it or its sources. However this does not make you unrighteous, and it is not condemning you especially because what you've done, really, is deny the false christs - which is actually what it directs us to do. Any spite you feel toward the bible is not without reason, and is because of those people.
Would you mind NOT telling other people what they think and why? They (we) are perfectly capable of explaining it ourselves.
"Well done" for having a blind faith and complete confidence in an accident of history that spewed forth these particular religions as "successful".
But please don't say things are facts when they are just what you chose to believe.
I will repeat - we're not here to be preached to. You seem unable to conduct a rational discussion due to your beliefs and prejudices of any and all evidence based on those beliefs. This is not a religious broadcast site, it is a discussion forum.
I believe that dissecting the books and trying to argue they are untrue for any number of reasons both misses the point of the message and is almost always not factual anyway and merely shows a persons misunderstanding of it.
No, you don't like dissecting the books or asking for more detailed explanations because it shows up the weaknesses in it all. The cracks are revealed and the whole thing collapses if you look at it too closely. That is why, like all the zealots before you and those who will come after, you want to stick to vague and wishy-washy statements like "I believe Christ is the Messiah". But let's not dig too deep into whether he existed, whether accounts are valid or what exactly he was saving us from and why.
You are a fraud. You claim to be a student / scholar and interested in evidence but you are blind to everything except what you chose to put your faith in.
I'm not sure how Ive preached to anyone. I've just put forward verses showing yours and others statements about what the Quran says is false. I didn't need to say it was false, the book did it for me.
I also didn't start the discussion, I replied to others comments.
further, evidence was never being discussed, merely what a book says and doesn't say. Neither yourself or anyone else has put forward any historical evidence or facts or references to such - I, on the other hand, have provided numerous quotes from the book in question. I have done so not with any aim to preach, I don't care what you guys believe. But the discussion began with misunderstood statements about the Quran which I corrected with the context and other verses. I would argue, if the arguement is to be made that preaching has been done, that some of you have also been preaching to me that it's all make believe. But you've done so with merely your opinions and misquotes.
I will gladly read any evidence you wish me to, once its been provided.
I also apologize if I've come across preachy, it wasn't my goal at all.
dear JD...
every muslim scholar agrees that the koran denies that Jesus was crucified. Again, the hadiths put the texts into context...giving further explanation as to what mohammad said. All of the hadiths agree that someone took Jesus' place on the cross. That is what the surah means when it says Jesus wasn't crucified and the jews boast that they had and the christians are in doubt...the christians believe that it was indeed Jesus. the koran has God deceiving Jesus' followers with someone that just looked like Jesus. (Apparently God facilitated a hasty makeover while the romans were at the door to collect Jesus)
the hadiths are not to be taken as mere speculation on the part of the writers...like we might look at some modern biblical interpretation...they are and always have been considered authoritive narration based on the oral teaching etc. of mohammad.
love michelle <3
Cofty, I know that you think you are quite knowledgeable about Islam-and you might well have a lot of knowledge. HOWEVER, all Muslims do NOT accept Hadith as authoritative. I am one of them. Most are picky and choosy about hadith the way Christians and Jews are about commandments and instructions in the Bible. More so, because they are NOT accepted by Muslims as being "inspired".
OTOH, some very dodgy hadiths are accepted by way too many Muslims. They say they are not athoritative, yet they, in fact, do ascribe them (way too much) authority.
I read a recent account of the reason that so many (muslim and non) folks think that Muslims destroyed the library of alexandria in Egypt. Saladin, a Muslim conquerer, when he was actually destroying a library was criticized by many for doing so. He gave the excuse that one of the righteous Caliphs had destroyed the library of Alexandria, so who were these people to question him? (Destroying knowledge is actually considered pretty heinous in Islam, hence the criticism). Well, he was the ruler and he said it, so it was accepted.
I have since thought on that as being an explanation as to how hadiths(and likely some scriptures in the Bible) gets spread and disseminated. People say things to justify their (questionable/dodgy/controlling/ritualistic/ different/ traditional/cultural, maybe even just plain wrong) actions, ascribe it to or associate it with the prophets/holy ones and suddenly they have a free pass. It gets repeated and, suddenly, everyone wanting to do thus and so has a reason/excuse to do so.
Which is why hadith has the authority of any advice. Good or bad, I accept it or reject it on that basis.
I'm not sure how Ive preached to anyone
You are promoting your version of Jesus. Every Christian does that. You are picking the parts you like and ignoring the rest and telling us they've got it all wrong while telling us your version is right. That's pretty much exactly what Christianity is...
every muslim scholar agrees that the koran denies that Jesus was crucified
How many is every?
