The debate "The who don't believe in Jesus are condemned to eternal damnation" was started by
August 27, 2016, 4:40 pm.
By the way, blakelovesjesus is disagreeing with this statement.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 59 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 3 arguments, wdz posted 4 arguments, fadi posted 34 arguments, blakelovesjesus posted 31 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 20 arguments, wdz posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 8 arguments, Nemiroff posted 28 arguments, Gaurangi posted 1 argument, armygirl44 posted 3 arguments, blakelovesjesus posted 17 arguments, neveralone posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
thereal, dalton7532, Najam1, jack_tim_45, fadi, Isabel, Vayney333, princess100 and 19 visitors agree.
blakelovesjesus, NotoriousBishop, north, Gaurangi, Nemiroff, armygirl44, phantrash55, mafiajo, historybuff, ElvisKim_22, PsychDave, debatingdalek, makson and 46 visitors disagree.
again that is why if u notice I don't use Bible verses in my debates because they could be wrong. I pray and listen to God and I listen at my church and sometimes I even disagree with what there saying so I pray. pretty much I use God as my faith more than the writings because I have thought about if man stopped listening to God and started to put stuff down that God didn't say to. but I think some of them listened to God and wrote what he said. so when I read scripture I ask God of its true.
but the Bible you read, the church you belong to, the things Jesus supposedly wants you to believe are all based on the ideas that were violently forced on Christianity.
that is true which is why as Christians we believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus and God. I pray for wisdom and understanding and knowledge everyday and that I will be his instrument to help people.
even if Jesus was perfect, he didn't write the Bible. men did. men who never met Jesus because he had been dead for decades. the Bible is a bunch of parables written by men who are getting them second had at best.
@nemiroff actually that is kindof what happens after the devil is put back in hell forever more God remakes the earth like how it was supposed to be and we all live there for eternity. now what comes next is just my personal belief but I think that everyone else who chooses to can come and live with us on the new earth forever.
@buff I don't think misinterpret is the right word I think that both people can see the same parable and draw diff. meaning and wisdom that they needed from it. and in the Christian faith men were the tool God used to get his word out.a and Jesus was perfect so I think that since He was perfect then the message is still good.
does worse mean just?
if you God is forgiving don't you think a temporary punishment followed by sending you back to Earth to try again not seem more just then 1 shot and then burn forever?
so since parables are rediculously easy to misinterpret, and since your entire religion is based on long dead men's interpretation of these parables, your entire religion could be completely different than what Jesus intended.
@buff .no what I am saying is when u were a child u probably didn't understand things so ur parents tried to put it in a way u could understand. am I right? it's not that diff. with God. He is trying to describe something we can't understand. much like Jesus did with parables.
@nemiroff I think an eternity of pain and suffering and sadness is much worse than utter destruction. I don't understand the last part of ur argument please explain.
the original abrahmic faith, Judaism had no hell at all, just a form of purgatory to which you were sentenced to temporarily depending on your deeds and possibly resurrection to try again to fulfill your purpose. the worst thing that could happen to a soul was utter destruction, not eternal damnation.
if this is the same god, I don't think the universe would change that much, especially considering the new testament took a more tolerant and forgiving tone.... I would defer to the source material here.
so you're saying the Bible can't be trusted to be factual. but you are still willing to believe it?
a) read the section right before that and it will answer ur question on who goes to hell.
b) the Bible uses many analogies like how it describe heaven having diamond roads. it really won't it's just describing how it's like in a way we can understand.the same goes for hell
That idea of hell is straight from the bible. Matthew 13:50. Where are you getting your idea of hell from?
ur idea of hell is a stereotype. what hell is a place without love or joy or happiness. i never said u had to believe in him. hell is a sad place to be but people have made a choice like this where they know God is real and hate him so much that they rather go to hell.
No one should just believe in something just because that's what they were born into. only children do that. when u become an adult and even before then u should look at everything and make ur choice instead of what others told u. buff isn't Christian and he even agrees with the last statement.
considering the alternative is fire and torture, it's not that difficult of a choice.
also there is a great difference between hating God and not believing in him, or believing in a different God that does not involve christ. many people stick to the religion they are born into, and that is like sentencing people to eternal damnation due to their birth.
there is a chance in the Christian faith as well. also if u absolutely hated God would u want him to force u in heaven to be with him for eternity. I don't think anyone would like to be forced. by the chance I mean either they have heard of us through us or with God's intervention. the principle behind this is good to if properly thought out.
the is untrue, not every offense gets you life, and even then there are chances for parole. there are many things wrong with our justice system, but the principles behind it are good. a punishment that fits the crime and innocent until proven guilty.
alright that's fine but u must also hate our justice system as well because it's based pretty much the same. think about it. Someone lives a good life then does one mistake and there now in jail for life.
I'm sure God can read minds and knows when someone is faking it. my issue comes when someone leads a good life, helps people, but was not born into a Christian family. according to Christianity, he burns. I find that concept a disgusting attempt at self promotion.
u have said "accepts Christ" like it's a get out of jail free card but it isn't. only if u truly accept him does that situation become true.
idk. in the Christian faith everyone has a chance sometime or times where they can become Christian.its not like ur picturing it where God gets angry at u and condemns u. our God is a forgiving God.
So if someone lives his life killing and raping people but "accepts christ" before death, he will spend eternity being rewarded. While another spends his life loving his family, donates to charity, doing good works, but was brought in a different religion so he will spend eternity being tortured.
It is not works which gets us to heaven. it is simply accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior, You can't just live a pretty good life and expect to just walk into heaven. It doesn't work that way.
Yep. We cannot know the circumstances of somebody's soul. Only God knows if it were an omission.
a lot of times people can't change their faith. people who have never heard of Jesus, or the all they have heard is "Christians bad". if that person lives a good life, doing what they think is right, they have a good chance at heaven. Even people who know about the catholic faith real well can be saved of the live a good life. it all depends on the Mercy of Jesus.
on the other hand believing in Jesus does not mean heaven, as sone people will tell you. the Devil believes in jesus, but he is far from heaven. so a person who believes in Jesus can go to hell, while a person who doesn't can eventually go to heaven.
they can make their own choice to change what they believe in
In other words the main reason people are tortured for all eternity is being born in the wrong religion or time.
John 15:22 says the have no excuse for their sin.
I disagree fadi once you have done something wrong you are immediately serperated from God. Paul is talking about something different. You are condemned if you don't except him, you can a free be into heaven.
The Law brings about wrath, but where there is no Law, there also is no violation.
? Romans 4:15
If I had not come and spoken to them [the world], they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
? John 15:22
so god will not condemn people who never heard about him
That I can understand, but even within this debate there are examples of Christians who feel that never knowing Christ condemns you to Hell, and they can support their belief with scripture. That is why I have such trouble with Christianity.
And if they grow to age without hearing the gospel then? Never receiving an opportunity to consciously follow God. We can truly say nothing of it.
What about those who die shortly after birth?
Jesus saves those souls. They never had a life to live.
What about the aborted?
There is one thing we do know, God is in ultimate control. Jesus came for the sinners. We must reach out to them. We must help them. that's why he said to go out into the world.
Thered no way to know.
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (Acts 4.12). Yes, the only way to salvation is through Christ, for if Christ was never here we could not follow him. We know that through Christ and the Church lies salvation, but there is no way to know the mercy of God. We pray for the souls of those who have never seen Christ, and pray they have an unconscious relationship to God. The truth is we don't know who beyond the Church will be saved.
*****Time for disclaimer: I may be wrong lol*******
What about those who lived at the same time as Jesus, but not close enough to have heard his message? Are they doomed to Hell by geography?
Jesus says the only way to the Father is through me, so based off that standard they won't get to heaven
What if nobod had showed them the Word of God. There was no possible way they could know?
It is believed by most but not by all. In either case I personally held this belief and its what started me to question other aspects .
Anyone! That means anyone who doesn't believe by biblical Stander's will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So you believe that a Jew, born into the faith, who devotes their entire life to God is going to hell? What about an isolated man who was the kindest heart ever met. If he was never showed the way to a Christian life, he has damned himself to hell? Both cases are lacking of someone who has rejected God.
No it's an established belief, it's are job to spread the word to those people who are born to different religions, but there is no advantage. We all go through the same evil.
I dont think there is an established belied that only Christians go to heaven
Well it started with the belief only saved Christians went to heaven. I eventually realized how obsurd this belief is since billions of other people are born in a different religion. If this belief were true, people born a Christian culture would have a significant advantage. And after i no longer feared hell, I was able to question other aspects more objectively and without bias which ultimately led to my conclusion. Along with all other religions, Christianity is man made. I could no longer find any good reasons to hold on to these beliefs.
What caused you to not believe anymore?
And dont confuse being skeptical for stubbornness. Skepticism is part of critical thinking.
I understand you believe that but i dont. And without evidence thats where this debate ends. But I used to be a Christian so i undertand how easy it is to have these beliefs.
We get to live for Jesus in this life to pursue the next. What troubles me about people who think this is they tend to be stubborn. If we they just opened there eyes God would meet them where they are.
I believe all religion is man made. The bible was written over 2000 years ago in the middle east. So im skeptical when it claims it has knowledge of the afterlife or any other supernatural belifs.
Sure it may bring comfort to some people, but theres no logical reason to believe we get to be immortal after this life. As far as we know, this is the only life we get to live.
How do you know this is wishful thinking? It is mentioned in the scripture multiple times.
We will most likely go back to not existing like we were before we were born. Any other beliefs are no more than wishful thinking.
And he said to them, ?Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:15-16
now that is a nice question
Everyone answer this, what do you think happened after we die?
well because things have changed now we are in an interconnected world they are no more isolated culturally like before
God has called many people to spread his word there. God bless them.
Those days. will not be a good time for non-believers, If you had read the Bible, you'd see why.
why? what would possibly make you think that when the last 1000 years have proven it isn't going to happen?
well i don't think so things have changed now i think asia will become a Christian continent soon
Christianity has tried for over 1000 years to spread into Asia. it has always failed miserably. there is no reason to believe that will change now.
and yes Muslim growth is because they have more children and they have a younger median age. these are concrete reasons why they are going to continue to expand. your only point seems to be hoping something unexpected and very unlikely happens.
short of Jesus showing up Muslims are going to outnumber Christians in the next 50 years.
yes that is what statistics say but most of the growth of islam and strength in reproduction and not in conversion christianity might grow in unexpected areas such as asia all of the equation and calculations will change so we must wait and see i don't think islam is gonna have the upper hand
Christianity is still growing that much is true. but all of that growth is in South and Central America. it is only in extremely poor areas with high birth rates that Christianity is continuing to thrive.
not to mention that alot of the "Christians" that are officially Christian aren't really. an official census asks what religion you are and people tick off the box they were born to, it doesn't mean they believe in it. according to the government of Canada I'm a Christian.
also, Muslim population is growing far faster than Christianity and will likely over take it by 2050. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/23/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/
yeah man they don't know how to face the words of god so they slip away
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
by whom we will see which religion will be the dominant in 2050
you are wrong and the future will prove for you that christianity is growing and not declining
Unfortunately you are not a credibility source, so "believe me" isn't a persuasive argument. Many religions have claimed to be the one true faith. Christianity is currently the largest, but is being overtaken.
Aside from that, Judaism has changed substantially. Restrictions and punishmentss for various religious offences has changed. No longer are people stoned on religious grounds.
Do you have anything else for me, you sound like a broken record.
well first of all it is not a cult it is the living word of god secondly it is not how old an idea is that determines if it is righy or wrong but rather it 's Continuation for centuries to be believed by people and christianity and Judaism have been unchanged these stories were are and will be believed in for ever believe me
because a 2000 year old book with no supporting evidence tells you so?
Everyone is a sinner
adam the whom every man on earth carries his y chromosome is the father of all humanity and and he was a sinner
God didn't make another women, he kept with his plan, that wasn't his plan
And for the record, yes, it is impossible for us to come from a single pair. The human race would have died out from inbreeding many years ago if the population had started with two people.
So even if God created new women (who would be without sin for not having eaten the apple) and forgot to mention it in the Bible, we still have a horribly inbred population after Noah's flood. At least we are up to a slightly larger, though still not viable population.
I'd agree with fadi, it's not impossible for us to come from one pair anyway, plus if you want to look at it from this way, we came from Noah after the flood, we came from his different three sons, we are all related in this way
no it says that they had sons but does not mention their marriages so yeah it is a probability in the christian faith
the Bible doesn't say that. it says all humans come from Adam and Eve. you are just making stuff up so your version of events isn't completely impossible.
we don't know if adams sons married new creations or not may be god created women for the descendents of adam
no it is not
then you are wrong
You have yet to establish how two individuals can form a viable population without inbreeding killing it. If you can't refute the argument, why would we not simply repeat the argument you cannot overcome.
Let's take a theoretical approach. Would you have a problem with your son marrying your daughter and having kids?
I'm presenting my argument. The fact is you are talking in circles. I'm making biblical claims that I know My Lord Jesus is telling me. He gave us the choice to believe in him, and once we do it is are mission to convert the lost. All of been doing is presenting arguments. You sound like a broken record. You just say the same thing over again
How can Christian beliefs be bogus? When in Mormanism, if you are good enough, you can inherit your own planets and become a god, plus when you and I both believe in the bi or, how is it that your deeds get you eternal life when Jesus says the complete opposite
Because you are no longer presenting arguments. You seem to have no argument to support your claim, so you hide from the argument by demanding proof if a negative.
our story is much more believe able
so I am a Morman and I believe that everything Christian people believe is bogus.
I can't deny that the story of Adam is true. It's in the word of God and that's what I believe. There have been numerous accounts to prove the story of Adam is true. And if preaching was a admission for defeat, the why did I already win the battle? Jesus got the victory on the cross, so how am I defeated?
so you given up any attempt to deny that the story of Adam is impossible and are just going back to preaching. unfortunately this is a debating app. preaching is just an admission of defeat.
I understand what you are saying. But where is your evidence? You can't say I have no evidence. My evidence is in the word of God. You can't just give the thought of inbreeding. He who has ears let them hear.
God is giving you a second chance. You can choose to accept it or ignore it. He is calling after your heart.
I assume they didn't. but it doesn't make a difference. their children will share alot of DNA. when their children marry each other they will be inbreeding. I'm not sure how this is confusing.
How do you know Adam and Eve had the same DNA?
I'll try and go slowly for you. Adam and Eve are the only humans in existence. their children will be the only humans once their parents die. which means the only possible mates for their children are each other. or their parents. this is inbreeding. a population can't come from only two people. the every generation would be breeding with their close blood relatives.
there's no inbreeding what are you talking about????
and that much inbreeding would cause increasing health problems until everyone died.
it's not impossible. would be lots of inbreeding tho.
I didn't say we didn't have a common ancestor. I said we didn't come from one pair. if there had only been 2 humans mankind would have gone extinct.
and fadi is right. there is a mitochondrial eve and a y-chromosmal Adam whose genes are shared by all living humans.
and you literally can't come up with any other reason why living things would die?
cause the logical default is that we should be immortal?!?
well science proves that we are all one race
there is a 0% chance that all of the human race came from one pair of people. it is literally not possible.
well it is in our dna we inherited it from adam as we inherited sin from him so
sin = death by genes because you are a sinner human
Let me ask you this question: If every deed you did built up a brick in your after house, the Everytime you sined took one down the how can you live in a house? Because we will always keep sinning that's human nature, If you accept Jesus your how is already built. it's got a better construction than any thing your deeds built for you. I going to try to keep converting everyone because that's my mission
there are scientific reasons why we die, I doubt your interested in them. but clearly the amount of sin has nothing to do with it as proven by dead relatively innocent children, and old and prosperous murderers.
well simply said god is merciful and for He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous
well what iam saying is the question why everybody dies ?
if we die because of our sins, how is it that many good people die younger than people who commit much more grievous sins and more often?
how do you explain children and newborns who die? is it their sins? while murders grow old?
yes there is mother teresa was a human so she sinned yes she was a saint but a human and so is the pope
why would I assume we would be immortal. all things decay, all machines wear out. nothing lasts forever. are you saying we die because we sin.... 70 years after we sin....
why did mother Teresa die? why do popes and cardinals die? younger than atheists and criminals in some cases. there is no correlation between sin and lifespan.
death and you what my evidence is have you ever known or seen a human who has achieved immortality all humans die haven't you asked why
of course you remove the weed. but you won't remove it by prayer or accepting christ. you gotta get up, and work, just like in an earthly garden. except in the afterlife example, this work is the work of committing mitvahs, aka the work of god.
talk (prayer) is cheap.
the punishment of sinning is not death! that's stupid... not all sins are the same, and according to some, we are already born sinners. if that was the case we should promote abortion in all cases, even if the mother wants to keep the kid lol. the newborn is a sinner!!!!
there is no divine punishment for sinning. you either get judged at death, eventually by some karma (not always death) or you shit all over your afterlife turning it into an equivalent to hell.
punishment of sinning is death is such a vague and nonsensical statement.
well will you leave a weed in your land to take space and nourishment of your wheat of course not so a weed will be thrown into fire to give place for the wheat to grow
well don't you that according to the law of god as a jew that the punishment of sinning is death well can you say that you haven't committed any sin of course you committed thousands of sins so the only result would be your death but god wanted to help those who believed in him and so he sent his only son to die instead of you so that might have eternal life if you believe in his redemption of your sins
so you do you believe in the after life as a jew ? if so how are you going to heaven ?
no he was humiliated it is not heresy it is the truth he was mocked at and treated unfairly to forgive our sins
it is conditional. I must accept jesus, or I'm screwed. no matter what else I may do.
that is not only a condition, it is an ultimatum.
your own tenants say I have a seperate covenant with god. I do not need to follow your rules, and actual, you should not even try to convert me. :)
the Jewish afterlife is very different. hell doesn't even exist for us. our salvation is based entirely on deeds.
our afterlife is already set, a plot of land. everytime I do a good deed, I lay a brick for my afterhouse. everytime I sin, I shit on my lawn. that is my afterlife. supposedly.
thinking like that would make this world a better place. the world God created, but that Christian disregard. btw, Jews actually came up with a word for good deed as well. mitzvah. and it is mentioned far more than any term for sin in the bible. modern Christianity is the religion of negativity. I do not respect it.
You can't earn your way to heaven, but Jesus was a jew
It's is by grace you are saved through faith. Not by works
I reject such a conditional love.
No it's the exepting Jesus as your Lord and. savior, your saved from your sins, everyone is sinner, it's a matter of if you choose to follow him, or reject him, I've told you you are saved if you believe, do you believe and exempt him as your savior
and I'm jewish. according to your religion, I have my own covenant with god, I do not need your saving. my afterlife is judged by the deeds I do, not subservience to an idol.
saved from what?
I can still sin, I'm apparently a sinner even at birth! I am unaffected by his actions. only his teachings have had any meaning in my life, and his supposed followers have apparently forsaken those teachings of charity love and acceptance of others.
all they obsess over is forgiveness and acceptance for themselves.
nemiroff you were saved
wdz you were saved
His love is unconditional but salvation is by faith through grace
so gods true love is conditional on him sacrificing himself?
God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners he died for us, and that includes you wdz, do you have a friend that you know that would certainly lay down his life for you? Yes you do. His name is Jesus and he already has.
God allowed himself to be humiliated and his pride didn't get in the way of his mission. This is true love shown by God to us we he laid down his life for his creation
forget the humiliation. crucifixion is a horrendous way to die. and after that I will be dead.
had he known that after that he would come back, or a guarantee that after that he would be by the side of God (as opposed to the finality and uncertainty of anyone else going through the same torture) makes it that much less of a sacrifice.
so your saying almight and all powerful god can be humiliated? that is heresy you know that right?
of course but for god to accept to be humiliated in such a way to save humanity is a way of god telling humanity that he loves his creation his people just imagine it the creator being humiliated by his own creation
Jesus said it is finished on the cross, he calls himself the son of man on numerial accounts, He also went to the garden and sweated blood because of his stress about it, he said to God not mine but your will be done. And it was an ultimate sacrifice because he not only cleaned us, but triumphed over death, that's why the resurrection took place.
but based on the bible, Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours. Cruxifiction is supposed to be a slow, painful death lasting several days
i bet you must try being crucified and humiliated to try and know it's value
sin = bad deed correct?
human beings do commit bad deeds, but they also do good deeds.
to just say "humans are sinners" is dismissive of the good they do, is ignorant, and is the flaw of modern Christian ideology.
I say modern because I do not believe Jesus or early Christians would agree with you at all.
he knew that he was going to resurrect for he said that he was going to destroy the temple and build it in three days (he meant his body )
so a murderers sins are forgiven if he has faith in Jesus as his saviour?
What more can we sacrifice than your life? What more can you give? The Bible gives numerical accounts of things he gave for us. nemiroff, you need to understand this
all sins of course
because a human being is a sinner and the punishment of sin is death and the only way to erase your sins is to believe that christ was crucified to forgive your sins he died instead of us
well, he never calls himself God, or the divine son of God. Unless Blakelovesjesus can prove otherwise
well it would still be ultimate if he had no knowledge of his resurrection or guaranteed heavenly access. therefore, did he already know of his divine lineage prior to the crucifixion is my question.
I agree. How can it be considered an ultimate sacrifice when he apparently was resurrected?
did jesus know he was the son of God at the time of sacrifice? because if he knew heaven existed and he was guaranteed a spot there, or bound for resurrection... it wasn't that much of a sacrifice.
the death was brutal and all, but it wasn't ultimate.
Jesus's sacrifice atoned all sin, that if you may believe in him your are saved and will in inherit the kingdom of God
so let me ask clearly, did Jesus's sacrifice atone for all sin? or some sin?
Your thinking to much that's not what I said
so apparently Jesus was not sacrificed for all sins of man? If that's the case, that would be a poor sacrifice wouldn't it (assuming it were true)
If he continues to be a serial rapist then he hasn't been born again, but I want to tell you also that rape is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord
from what I understood from your explanation is that actions are meaningless and only subservience will earn you reward.
I personally find such a gospel as disgusting. a good person who never heard of jesus or simply chose to not believe a story and just live his life right will be damned. while far less deserving man who was simply raised in a Christian house and had christ beaten into him by a belt will be saved. f*** that, maybe that's why this world is so screwed up. people are more concerned for who's name you praise then how you actually treat your neighbors. absolutely disgusting.
So do you believe a serial rapist who believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, and that they believe Jesus died for their sins, would they attain grace and enter paradise?
How long have you been carrying that montra around with you? You can be free of that if you want to. It's for freedom that Christ set us free.
historybuff do you have anything else, your getting a little repetitive
You Cant earn your way to heaven, it's by grace we are saved through faith in Christ Jesus our Savior, original sin is just disobedience, Christ atoned for all disobedience. but to walk in peace with God means that you except that atonement for yourself. God won't force you to except him to except him if you don't want to.
if jesus atoned for the sins of the world before him, why is original sin still a major tenet of christianity?
if God is all love and mercy, why would you be damned for the sole reason of not accepting christ regardless of our actions towards others?
wow. listening to a bunch of religious people talk about fictional characters like that is just weird.
god is loving and just at the same time
We have been told and so we have known what we have been told but God is the judge
God can apply perfect Justice and exercise his righteousness with mercy, love and grace. Since Jesus atoned for the sins of the world once and for all. Thanks gor the conversation brother.
And who are we to decide What will happen to us on our final judgement day
I would be lying if I said that I have read the whole Bible, but Yes, I have read a reasonable amount of it, mostly the new Testament and it's four main gospels, and some of the old Testament. Which version of the Bible do you read? (king James, NIV, RSV, others)
I don't deny your point; god is all-loving, along with many other attributes such as being all-just, all-powerful, all-merciful, all-knowing, all-seeing etc. But God cannot be only loving as it would contradict his attribute of being all-just
Have you ever read the Bible? Even though my post sounded a little harsh, God is love.
I would love to have that debate. I will start a new topic for it though rather than derail this one.
Bring your reasons and evidences if you want to have a sensible and civilised discussion, and I will gladly discuss with you in a respectful manner. if you don't want to, than I will happily ignore your posts
Re. validity of the quran - God actually provides in the quran its own falsification tests for us to perform, which may seem unintuitive to some, but an indication of divine origin for others. Without going into specifics it firstly challenges people of all times to try to produce a single chapter like it (smallest chapter is only 3 small verses) with all your knowledge and witnesses (I.e. resources, evidences, scientists, philosophers etc.), but it declared that all will failure in trying to achieve its excellence in any field (E.g. rhythm, structure, poetry, content, knowledge, mathematical and scientific nuances, and much more)
It says that if it were from man, it would have many errors and contradiction, so to try to proof it is from man, it challenges those of knowledge and sincerity to try find errors and contradiction within itself, ensuring that the fields if Islamic study are taken into account (E.g. Quranic studies, hadeeth, seerah studies, Islamic law, Arabic language studies etc.)
Like I mentioned previously, the quran never ever claims to be a book of science; it claims to be a book of guidance to all of mankind who is conscious in some way of a creator, like mentioned right near the beginning (2:2 - "This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, containing guidance for those who are mindful of God"). So god is not trying to convey scientific knowledge, which god has made clear to us.
Re. the vagueness of some of the statements in the quran - what needs to be firstly understood is that I have revealed the English translation of the Arabic. the true meaning cannot be derived from the English, only from the Arabic. But the translation allows us to comprehend what it is conveying. Secondly, the quran was revealed to the generation from the time of prophet Muhammed and for all generations to come afterwards, including us. For all these generations with different levels of knowledge, making specific "scientific only" statements would make it difficult for people of previous generations to fully comprehend them in light of their knowledge, while for us it seems vague in light of our current, detailed knowledge. So though it may seem vague, it still makes statements which accepts scientific knowledge without contradicting it (considering this point, there may also be many statements about knowledge we have not discovered yet)
come on lier the quran is nothing but a collection of rubbish oh come on i mean does anyone in this time believe that there is something above the fly and believe or not guys mohammad ordered his people to drink the urine of camels because he claimed that it has medical benefits lol muslims and their madness i suggest you go and drink some camel urine o mean your prphet said that it is tasty
the references in Qur'an are vague though. they might be vaguely correct, or they might be vaguely wrong. it's impossible to tell. if God wanted scientific knowledge to prove the validity of the Qur'an he could have done a much better job.
I don't have the knowledge to answer that specifically. But I must emphasise that the Quran isn't a book of science, it's a book of guidance and signs. Though it makes references to natural phenomena which we can explain with science, it is not a source of scientific understanding. its ultimate purpose is a guidance to all of mankind, not just Muslims. When natural phenomena are referenced, it is more to make us reflect on the signs around us of an intelligent designer/creator instead of trying to explain the phenomena
I'm sorry. I misinterpreted it as claiming to prevent earthquakes.
How do mountains stop the top layer of crust from swaying?
The quran agrees, they can go up and down, hence the description of mountains like "pegs" or "stakes" on earth, like a stake which is hammered down in soil to hold a tent. Like I stated regarding the text, it doesn't say that mountains prevent earthquakes (doesn't use the word 'zalzala' in that context), instead it uses the word 'Tamida' which means to swing or sway, and in the context, it says that mountains help to prevent the movement of the top layer of crust above the mantle from swaying. Surah 99 verses 1-2 uses the word 'Zalzala' to describe an aspect of earthquakes
How does that quote show that the mountains prevent the top layer of crust from moving? They are a result of the crust itself moving from being pushed.
They can go down as well as up, but they still denote a fault line between two plates. The mountains do not hold the earth stable, they are a side effect of the same forces that cause earthquakes.
when the quran states "...mountains stand firm on the earth, to prevent it shaking under you...", the word "shaking" does not mean earthquakes. the word shaking in Arabic is 'Tamida', which can mean to shake, to swing, to sway. The word for earthquake is 'zilzaal' or 'zalzala', which is not used in the quran to say mountains prevent earthquakes, nowhere in the quran does it state that. The point it is making here is that mountains prevent to top layer of crust from sliding or swaying beneath our feet; it is not referring to earthquakes
In fact, regarding earthquakes, there is a chapter called "Surah 'Zalzala'", which literally starts off in the first 2 verses; "When the earth is shaken to her (utmost) convulsion, And the earth throws up her burdens (from within)" (99:1-2)
"Compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upward. To balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots" [see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)".
That is not an accurate description of mountains though. Mountains show where there is instability since they are two plates meeting.
"It is He who made the sea of benefit to you: you eat fresh fish from it and bring out jewellery to wear; you see the ships cutting through its waves so that you may go in search of His bounty and give thanks. He has made mountains stand firm on the earth, to prevent it shaking under you, and rivers and paths so that you may find your way" (16:14-15)
" Did We not make the earth smooth, and make the mountains to keep it stable?"(78:6-7)
alternative translation: "Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs" (78:6-7)
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?. And We placed within the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shift with them, and We made therein [mountain] passes [as] roads that they might be guided. And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away"
"It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things" (2:29)
those are all scientific claims, but where in the quran are the located?
particularly the atmosphere and tectonic movements.
btw, mountain have nothing to do with tectonic plates. the plates create some mountains, the mountains themselves are simply results of their movement. they don't create nor affect the movement of plates.
- earths atmosphere having 7 layers
- Relativity of Time
- Internal waves & darkness of deep seas
- the role of sperm as the determinant of the sex of a child
- benefits of mothers breast milk to child
- fingerprint identification
Points referred to in the Quran:
- early stages of universe, and expansion
- human embryonic development
- physiology of human cerebrum, specifically prefrontal cortex
- structure of Mountain like "pegs"
- role of mountains in tectonic plate movements
- cloud formation / meteorology
- "barriers" in oceans due to salinity
- origin of life from water
- Source of Iron on earth from space
- The role of the atmosphere as a "protective ceiling"
- Orbiting of Sun & Moon
- Pain receptors on skin
it appears to have applied to the Hebrew people as a whole following the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel several hundred thousand years before Christ, and thus he would be a y'hudi.
The Israelites, or the Children of Israel, is what I would consider the "Jews" at the time of Jesus, and that Jesus was sent as a messenger to "the Children of Israel"
I know it has its critics, but this is from Wikipedia regarding "Israelites" - "In texts of Jewish law such as the Mishnah & Gemara, the term 'Yehudi', meaning Jew is rarely used, and instead the ethnonym "Yisraeli", or Israelite, is widely used to refer to Jews.
I know the term Christian was not in existence at the time of Jesus, but can you back up the idea that the Jewish people of that time did not identify as such?
I mean, English clearly did not exist, but they most definitely considered themselves a named group at that time, and jesus was a member of that group.
as for the topic,
any God that enforces such a rule is not worthy of my worship. Such a God is not one who is worshiped out of love, but out of fear. it represents the worst face of Christianity and is a betrayal of everything Jesus is said to have stood for.
by any chance, could you actually cite some of these scientific truths of the quran? last we spoke you made the case that the quran does not contradict science, mostly through lacking specifics such as the judeachristian creation story. ambiguity is an excellent counter to contradiction but a poor demonstration of substantiating a positive point.
No that's fine. Even with sources like these, which support the idea that there is a very low likelihood of the Quran being a human creation, I would always suggest reading up well-known translations of the quran (if u cannot read and understand Arabic) along with scholarly commentary yourself & form your own opinions as you can always judge your own biases, and not others.
I prefer reading multiple translations together as different writers, though translating the same text, will naturally not use the exact same words (which makes it even more difficult when the Arabic and English language are very different in literary form)
I suggest reading from the following: Sahih international, Abdul Haleem, Yusuf Ali & Mohammed William Pickthall (though his translation is very Shakespearian)
That's very interesting. Thank you. I want to actually research this so I'm going to look into them and get back to you. I didn't want you to think I simply ignored your response.
Arthur J. Arberry, THE KORAN INTERPRETED, London: Oxford University Press, 1964, p. x.
"A totally objective examination of it [the Qur'an] in the light of modern knowledge, leads us to recognize the agreement between the two, as has been already noted on repeated occasions. It makes us deem it quite unthinkable for a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements on account of the state of knowledge in his day. Such considerations are part of what gives the Qur'anic Revelation its unique place, and forces the impartial scientist to admit his inability to provide an explanation which calls solely upon materialistic reasoning."
Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, pp. 526-527.
"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"
though an Islamic site, the scholar can be researched further from other sources
Could you give me a link to a few of those atheist or Christian scholars claiming it could not have been authored by a human? I went looking and while I can find many people saying that, all are Islamic. I am aware it is somewhat off topic but I am honestly curious.
The Quran discusses many topics which are in agreement with a lot of subjects from Christianity and Judaism as there is undeniably lots of things which are in line with the Unitarian God and the beliefs surrounding the prophets, angels, day of judgement etc. So the Quran in that sense corroborates many of the things which are correct. But it also dismisses and corrects many of the errors from previous texts which have come about due to different reasons (E.g. additions, deletions, poor transmission, lost transcripts, recollections from incomplete manuscripts and so on). It also dismisses many of the assertions made by the people at the time of the different prophets, including during the time of Jesus
Islamic scripture were not derived from previous scripture. Unlike previous abrahamic scripture, which is a mixture of revelation, human accounts, 1st eye witnesses, 2nd hand witnesses and also widely agreed upon additions and fabrications, Islamic scripture (the Quran) was not authorised from a human account. It is verbatim word of God. It has been agreed by Islamic scholars, and many (not all) christian scholars, atheistic scholars and academics that it could not have been authored by any human due to much of the miraculous and broad scientific content, along with other aspects such as the linguistic and mathematical prowess.
I've looked at the article, and there are a lot of poorly supported claims made by firstly making a statement which aligns with their beliefs, and then picking out ambiguous isolated verses to support that belief, instead of actually looking at all the clear unambiguous verses and then deriving what they actually mean. For example, one of the verses they used (Matthew 28:19-20) has been clearly explained by academics and scholars alike:
In recently discovered Hebrew manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew, which was originally written in Hebrew, the text was not present. Dr G. Reckart, Prof of Theology at the Apostolic Theological Bible College of Kaufman, Texas, said that it was definitive evidence that this text was added. He said "The catholic church has willingly lied about Matt 28:18 and the Catholics in general (& eastern orthodox) have lied to the world. Everyone who was baptised with this false baptism has died lost and without salvation"
Since I am not, and would not claim to be, a biblical scholar, I will provide a link to one who cites where Jesus did claim to be divine. While not all Christian believe Jesus was divine and said so, the vast majority do.
As to the reliability of the Bible, I do think it is questionable at best. There are some parts (creation story, global flood) that are directly contradicted by observable evidence, which raises questions about the accuracy of the rest of the text. That said, it is likely more reliable than the texts of older religions as those have seen many more years of oral tradition, translation and substantially more time for original texts to degrade or be lost. That casts similar shadows over any younger religion that branches off of them. Relevant to this topic, Jewish texts have been translated through many languages, some of which are dead. If they have been corrupted, how could Christian or Muslim texts not be, as they are based on earlier texts? Since meaningfully debating these topics is impossible if you simply dismiss the core texts, I try to cite them as though they are reliable since, to those who believe, they are.
And on the other hand, can the Bible currently be considered a reliable source, considering the numerous changes it has undergone, fabrications, alterations, additions and deletions?
I don't claim to know what Jesus believed, I just base it on what Christians themselves use as their religious scripture, which would be the OT & NT.
And it cannot be unanimous as some christian denominations do not consider Jesus to be a divine son of God.
Did Jesus himself declare, in any clear, unambiguous statement, that he is a divine son of God? Even the early Christians did not believe he was a divine son of god, and the disciples many times referred to him as a prophet
How do you claim to know what Jesus himself believed? The best records of his life are Christian texts, which pretty unanimously believe him to be the Son of God. Whether they believe in a holy Trinity or not, they still hold Jesus as divine.
I am agnostic.
btw, what are your beliefs so I know what standpoint you are coming from?
Again, depends on definitions.
A Christian who believes Jesus to be God or "the son" of God, and interprets the Bible in a way which aligns with their beliefs on Jesus, cannot be a Muslim, in both the broad and specific sense, as they are not following gods will (which would be to believe Jesus as not "the son" of God, or as part of a trinity) (broad sense), and also they do not believe in the final revelation, the Quran (specific sense).
However, if a Christian practiced and believed what Jesus himself believed, practiced & preached, regarding believing in one and only god, with no associated partners, taking him as a prophet/titular "son" of God, praying to God only, and believing in another spirit of truth/prophet to come, then they could be Muslim.
It all depends on what specifically an individual truly believes, as just saying a Christian who follows the Bible does not specify what they actually believe based on the Bible. The same applies to Muslims; just calling yourself Muslim doesn't mean anything at all. It depends on what you actually believe, how sincere you are in your belief, and how you practically live your life, and whether it is in accordance with Gods message
So a Christian who follows the Bible is Muslim?
Depends in what you mean as "Son" of God as people can mean it to be different things. Biological son, No. Genelogical son, No. But son of God as a title of respect, Yes, just like in the Bible where Adam is called the son of God, we would in that sense call Jesus a "son" of God. But I am assuming you mean how Christians typically call him the Son of God; as Muslims we do not believe that. But the false assumption you have made is that he cannot still submit his will to the will of God. Like it is mentioned many times in the Bible where Jesus does not follow his own will, but Gods will (Luke 22:42, John 5:30, John 6:38), so he has submitted his will to god.
So there is no doubt for me in that regard on Jesus
If you don't believe him to be he son of God, that would mean he didn't submit himself to God's will. If you do believe he is the son of God, how can you interpret Mohamed's word as being definitive when contradicted by Jesus?
Muslim in Arabic literally means "one who submits to God". So in the broad sense, did Jesus submit his will to God...yes. So he is a Muslim (in the broad sense). I am not saying his is Muslim in the specific modern sense where we label people of faith into religious categories, but I am basically acknowledging that he submitted his will to the will of God.
They were in no way shape or form Muslims however. The term is only to be applied to members of the Islamic faith.
Islam, in terms of the moment new revelation was revealed to prophet Muhammed to continue the message of previous revelations while correcting the wrongs of previous generations, was revealed around half a century later. But the submission of a person's will to the will of God (which is the "broad" definition of a Muslim) was what all the prophets from the time of Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Jonah, Zachariah, Moses & Jesus, and all the other prophets, believed and declared. They may or may've not labeled themselves Muslims, Christians or Jews, or any religion for that matter, but they ultimately submitted their wills to the will of God and believed in the one and unique God
Islam didnt exist until over half a millennia later
It all depends on what perspective you are looking from and so the criteria you use to determine what he was will differ. Jews (mostly) consider Jesus a false Messiah, and to the best of my knowledge, wouldn't have considered him a Jew. Muslims understand him in terms of his lineage as one of the Children of Israel, but in terms of his message, he would have been regarded as a Muslim (one who submitted his will to God)
For those arguing that Jesus was not Jewish, you are wrong. It is nearly universally acknowledged that he was, even by the Catholic Church.
Well of course, I don't believe he is God, so yes, for me, it makes complete sense
so he submitted his will to himself, since he was a facet of God. religion just makes no sense.
In the most fundamental sense, Jesus was neither Jewish or Christian as these are terms which did not exist at his time. He was essentially a strict monotheist, believer of only one God, and like he himself mentioned many times in the Bible, he completely submitted his will to the will of God (which is in fact the broad definition of a Muslim)
He was brought up in the Jewish tradition.
a gentile is someone whos not jewish. which would be everyone since the concept of jewish doesnt really exist.
He certainly wasn't a gentile.
jesus never said he was Jewish. theres no such thing as being jewish or christian- not at that time anyway. these are terms recently created. the whole idea of abraham, moses, jesus, muhammad etc is that they were all from the same religion but were sent to different people at different time periods with new rules to add on to the laws of god.
Jesus was Jewish. I have trouble equating God condemning Jews who lived before Jesus to Hell. I also have trouble with the idea of a compassionate, loving God condemning people to an eternity of fire and poking for having been born somewhere they would never hear about Jesus.
Don't believe in Jesus to be what exactly? To exist? to be human? to be a prophet/messenger? to be a son of God? to be God?
because some kid on the internet said so.
i would say that is extremely unlikely. I don't know if there is a power greater than man in the universe. but the odds that it what is described in the Bible are virtually nil.