• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muslims, I Find This Really Offensive

Tumah

Veteran Member
Exactly. You just updated the model. Still a car in the same line. Or video game system. Or style of music. Even still, especially with styles of music, people can and often times do gain a better, uhhh...more appreciative, understanding and even liking of the older stuff because of the newer stuff. It's not that the subsequent genre or religion replaced the former one, not at all, Tumah.

To further illustrate my point, let's talk music, you and I. As a Black American, my people are notable in this respect.

In the beginning, there was The Blues (well, actually, there were slave songs, but for all intents and purposes, we'll start with The Blues).

Then around what, the 1940's?, various individuals, began tinkering with The Blues, adding jazz, elements from a style called ‘boogie woogie’, African-American spirituals, and gospel. From this interplay of very related elements developed ‘Rhythm and Blues’ or Classic R & B. The Blues still was there. Nothing was replaced, something new was just created.

Now, we approach the 50's. Among various a cappella Black groups since the 40's, a style of music called ‘Doo-Wop’ was gaining popularity. The early 50's roll around, and a brand new, wild sound was built from R & B, Gospel, Doo-Wop, and even incorporating elements from Country music. This style was called ‘Rock and Roll’. Another style, pioneered by one Ray Charles, rooted in Gospel, R & B, Jazz, and Boogie Woogie, was called ‘Soul’. Again, dear Tumah, we see something new being created, but still the previous styles remain in all their splendor, although they started to get a bit old-school.

Theeeeen...in came the 60's! Old-school Rock and Roll was pretty much was declining at this point. Then, a group of four dudes from Liverpool, England completely revolutionized it....forever. The Beatles kicked off The British Invasion, which looked back to the past to forever alter Rock music history! Initially, though, they stuck with the Old-school Rock and Roll formula. This decade marks the point where Rock and Roll became ‘Rock’. As the 60's went on, The Blues, R & B, Gospel, Jazz, all these styles are still developing, still alive, but people then just loved Rock...a lot. As for Soul, with the tireless efforts of The Godfather, James Brown, Soul music became groovier. His efforts, along with the influences of Psychedelic Rock, birthed a style known as ‘Funk’. Again, all the previous styles still remained seperately present.

From the 60's into the 70's and 80's, Rock music diversified and Soul, now Funk, was brewing something danceable that later became gritty, a fluid, storytelling style of music called ‘Hip Hop’. Hip Hop DJ's, early on (and even today) became known for a technique called sampling, which took records from older styles and re-played them, often using the beats to create breaks in which people would dance. And the records Hip Hop DJ's used came from everywhere, but mostly Funk and Disco. Funk was still there, but Disco died out, later being revived seperately. Later on into the 90's, the sampling base widened encompassing Jazz, Rock, Soul, and a bunch of others, even Country. This even sparked the creation of different subgenres of (90's, now) Alternative Hip Hop. All the previous styles had remained, but they were old-school.

Hip Hop, in the 90's and early 2000's, now influenced EVERYTHING. Many fans of Hip Hop and other modern styles of music, because of this sampling, have developed an appreciation and respect for those old-school styles of music. Some even love them, sometimes prefering those older styles to Modern Hip Hop and other sample-inspired genres!

‘What was the point of this?’, you ask, Tumah. Well, the essential point was that even though newer religions come along, they don't necesarily replace the previous religions, not at all. Just like Hip Hop didn't replace Funk necessarily, just built off of it. Hip Hop (and Vaporwave) sampling actually became an important way that Funk, and Soul, and Jazz, and Gospel, and The Blues became more appreciated and more glorious, even though they're old-school. ;) Just like the Bahá’í Faith doesn't replace Judaism, and Christianity, and Islam, it actually serves to further make them more palatable to people today, more able to be honored and appreciated today. Of course, as well, the older religions are still keeping on. They still exist, and that's very groovy! You have to understand Judaism, Christianity, and (especially) Islam if one wishes to understand the Bahá’í Faith, but, of course, many times that's how it goes with Abrahamic religions, right?

A quick note, but something Bahá’u’lláh did in His day was He encouraged the reading of The Holy Bible among Muslims. Not only that, but He counted The Tanach, The New Testament, and The Qur’an among the Holy Books, even quoting very frequently from them! Another thing is that Bahá’u’lláh then (and Bahá’ís today) count as P/prophets individuals like Abraham, Noah, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Not too shabby for a religion you claim tries to make Judaism outdated, enh?
No, its not too shabby and its exactly what Christianity and Islam does as well to lend authenticity to their claims. The Christian NT is replete with quotes from Tanach. The Qur'an is basically a confused version of Tanach. And like both of those, they claim to replace the previous way of becoming close to G-d.

In fact, all you've done in this entire post is give an example of how changing times result in one thing replacing another thing. You're just giving a different reason for the replacement:
Judaism --(not following G-d) --> Christianity --(corrupted texts)--> Islam --(outdated)--> Baha'i

Its all just different excuses for supercessionism.
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
~;> actually
those people who were talked to the angels before
which sent by god to tell them his commandments were the first who disobeyed god
that is the truth and nothing but the truth

and even with the commandments of god
they were still spiritually discernerd
look unto this writtings of the scripture
as it is written
:read:
Isaiah is very bold, and says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me.
I was revealed to those who did not ask for me."
But as to Israel he says, "All day long I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 
Last edited:

Sundance

pursuing the Divine Beloved
Premium Member
No, its not too shabby and its exactly what Christianity and Islam does as well to lend authenticity to their claims. The Christian NT is replete with quotes from Tanach. The Qur'an is basically a confused version of Tanach. And like both of those, they claim to replace the previous way of becoming close to G-d.

In fact, all you've done in this entire post is give an example of how changing times result in one thing replacing another thing. You're just giving a different reason for the replacement:
Judaism --(not following G-d) --> Christianity --(corrupted texts)--> Islam --(outdated)--> Baha'i

Its all just different excuses for supercessionism.

Again, Tumah, it's not the religions unto themselves which become outdated, rather it is some of the laws and ordinances. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you.
 

Sundance

pursuing the Divine Beloved
Premium Member
While standing on the backs of the former folks, alleging to be (at least) their equals...but supplanting all who came before them. Then there is the nasty habit of Bahia's licking the boots of Islam.... unseemly at the best of times...

Uggggggggggh....again with this? OK. Let me break this down for you, Ymir: going off of what I've told Tumah time and time again, some of the laws and ordinances from each previous religion due to the changing times are abrogated, others are altered, still new ones are created. Even so, this applies only to the new community of believers in the new religion, not the previous one. For us, Bahá’ís, the previous religious laws and ordinances do not apply. Not to our religion anyway. For theirs, yeah of course. Bahá'u'lláh established His own set of Laws, as recorded in the Kitáb-i-Aqdás. Those are the ones we follow.

And to address various other comments you've made, number one, while we are unafraid and unashamed to acknowledge the the contributions of previous religions to ours, we are our own religious community. An independent religion. We have our own Scriptures, history, beliefs, and all that jazz. So, we're just as capable, in fact, very capable, of establishing our own seperate credibility, you got me, dude? And bootlickers? Please. Bahá’u’lláh did have disagreements with and criticisms of certain aspects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not the religions entirely, but certain aspects. Though, I suspect, He probably wasn't too harsh about them.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Again, Tumah, it's not the religions unto themselves which become outdated, rather it is some of the laws and ordinances. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you.
You are very clear. I completely understand what you're saying. Its not a different G-d that being served, its the nature of the way to approach Him. The religion is just that, the nature of the way to approach G-d. And that's what you're changing. Not the G-d that's being served, but how to serve Him.

Although technically, with regards to Judaism, its the overwhelmingly vast majority of laws and ordinances that would be being replaced. Had Baha'i come to replace Judaism. Since it came after Islam, its only replacing a few things.

But I'm also trying to explain to you, that what you're doing is giving an explanation as to why the replacement is warranted. You're not saying that there was no replacement. You're just explaining why there was one. Every religion that descends from Judaism has to have one of these in order to explain why their religion needs to exist. Its a reason to explain why the old way has been replaced by the new way. And as I pointed out before, your reason is because some of the laws and ordinances of Islam have become outdated. Islam's reasons is because Christianity [and Judaism] had corrupted their texts. Christianity's reason is because Jews weren't following G-d's path (according to them). These are all reasons why a new religion had to come to replace a previous one.
 

Sundance

pursuing the Divine Beloved
Premium Member
No, its not too shabby and its exactly what Christianity and Islam does as well to lend authenticity to their claims. The Christian NT is replete with quotes from Tanach. The Qur'an is basically a confused version of Tanach. And like both of those, they claim to replace the previous way of becoming close to G-d.

In fact, all you've done in this entire post is give an example of how changing times result in one thing replacing another thing. You're just giving a different reason for the replacement:
Judaism --(not following G-d) --> Christianity --(corrupted texts)--> Islam --(outdated)--> Baha'i

Its all just different excuses for supercessionism.


Y’know, Tumah, we as Bahá’ís have our own Laws which for us do supercede those of the previous Religions (as we are not Jews, or Christians, or Muslims). With that said, again, this does not make irrelevant the Religions themselves, only some of their Laws, and again, dealing with the subsequent Religion. Then again, do you even follow all 613 commandments in your Scriptures? Can you? Probably not.
 
Last edited:

Tumah

Veteran Member
Y’know, Tumah, we as Bahá’ís have our own Laws which for us do supercede those of the previous Religions (as we are not Jews, or Christians, or Muslims). With that said, again, this does not make irrelevant the Religions themselves, only some of their Laws.
In so much as a religion is its beliefs, laws and ordinances, I don't really see any practical difference between your view of supersession and the Muslim view of corruption. Essentially the result is the same: What everyone was doing isn't valid. Follow this new way.
Then again, do you even follow all 613 commandments in your Scriptures? Can you? Probably not.
I uphold all 613 commandments. However not all 613 commandments apply to me Most of them are situational: Some of them are for the High Priest, or the Priest, or the Levite of which I am not. Some of them are for farmers, of which I am not. Some of them require a Temple, which we do not have. As well as a number of other situations that simply don't apply to me, such as redeeming a first-born son (I had a daughter first).

But all the ones that apply to me, I do. When the Temple will be rebuilt G-d willing, I'll do those too. If somehow the messiah reveals to me that I'm actually a descendant of Aaron from a line of males, I will happily perform all the Priestly duties. If I ever engage in farming, I'll be sure to follow those Laws. There is not a single one, that I would say is void or old or needs to be replaced for any reason.
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
~;> probably
not everyone knew this things
as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
13 For he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priestsa .
15 This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest,
16 who has been made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless life:

now which law are talkin here
the law of moses
ofcourse not
its not about the law of moses for it will remain unto those people according unto their ancestors

but what is this law that must be change
well the answer is behind the written words of god and not from any man made malicious writtings
that is
if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 

Sundance

pursuing the Divine Beloved
Premium Member
You are very clear. I completely understand what you're saying. Its not a different G-d that being served, its the nature of the way to approach Him. The religion is just that, the nature of the way to approach G-d. And that's what you're changing. Not the G-d that's being served, but how to serve Him.

Although technically, with regards to Judaism, its the overwhelmingly vast majority of laws and ordinances that would be being replaced. Had Baha'i come to replace Judaism. Since it came after Islam, its only replacing a few things.

But I'm also trying to explain to you, that what you're doing is giving an explanation as to why the replacement is warranted. You're not saying that there was no replacement. You're just explaining why there was one. Every religion that descends from Judaism has to have one of these in order to explain why their religion needs to exist. Its a reason to explain why the old way has been replaced by the new way. And as I pointed out before, your reason is because some of the laws and ordinances of Islam have become outdated. Islam's reasons is because Christianity [and Judaism] had corrupted their texts. Christianity's reason is because Jews weren't following G-d's path (according to them). These are all reasons why a new religion had to come to replace a previous one.

I understand your concern, dear Tumah. But again, for me, it's not a replacement of the religion, at least, in a way that undermines the fundamental, inestimable value of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The laws and ordinances for that community of believers from the previous one are altered, abrogated, or replaced with a new set of laws. That’s all that's being done in terms of replacement. That's it. And of course, my religion is independent of the others. Shoot, the very word ‘replacement’ is repulsive to me, as it implies that we as Bahá’ís are trying to get rid of the previous Religions. We're not out to do that at all! Rest assured!
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
~;> probably
not everyone knew this things
as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
13 For he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priestsa .
15 This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest,
16 who has been made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless life:

now which law are talkin here
the law of moses
ofcourse not
its not about the law of moses for it will remain unto those people according unto their ancestors

but what is this law that must be change
well the answer is behind the written words of god and not from any man made malicious writtings
that is
if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

:praying: as they say
as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 8:1
Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a servant of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, and not man.
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain."
6 But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better promises has been given as Law.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 For finding fault with them, he said,
"Behold, the days come," says the Lord,
"that I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,
in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
for they did not continue in my covenant,
and I disregarded them," says the Lord.
10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days," says the Lord;
"I will put my laws into their mind,
I will also write them on their heart.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

11 They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,
and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
for all will know me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 

Sundance

pursuing the Divine Beloved
Premium Member
In so much as a religion is its beliefs, laws and ordinances, I don't really see any practical difference between your view of supersession and the Muslim view of corruption. Essentially the result is the same: What everyone was doing isn't valid. Follow this new way.

That’s not how I look at it at all. Tumah, there's nothing inherently invalid or wrong about the Laws and Ordinances given to Jews in Torah. I apologize if anything I've said even sounded triumphalistic. This, I humbly acknowledge, is wrong. G-d, be merciful. It's merely that they don't apply to me as a Bahá’í. (Obviously, I'm not Jewish.) Be that as it may, I nevertheless do not believe that previous religions are in any wrong or not valid, especially in terms of soteriology. Which is, I bet, where you got the idea of replacement from (‘replacement theology’ ?)

I uphold all 613 commandments. However not all 613 commandments apply to me Most of them are situational: Some of them are for the High Priest, or the Priest, or the Levite of which I am not. Some of them are for farmers, of which I am not. Some of them require a Temple, which we do not have. As well as a number of other situations that simply don't apply to me, such as redeeming a first-born son (I had a daughter first).

But all the ones that apply to me, I do. When the Temple will be rebuilt G-d willing, I'll do those too. If somehow the messiah reveals to me that I'm actually a descendant of Aaron from a line of males, I will happily perform all the Priestly duties. If I ever engage in farming, I'll be sure to follow those Laws. There is not a single one, that I would say is void or old or needs to be replaced for any reason.

This is very wonderful to hear, Tumah! From my end, dude, you are on true guidance from the Most High G-d. This is what's it all about! Being devout in your Religion. Holding steadfast to that chord which will bind you to the Tree of Life, y’know? ;)
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I understand your concern, dear Tumah. But again, for me, it's not a replacement of the religion, at least, in a way that undermines the fundamental, inestimable value of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The laws and ordinances for that community of believers from the previous one are altered, abrogated, or replaced with a new set of laws. That’s all that's being done in terms of replacement. That's it. And of course, my religion is independent of the others
Had you asked me what the fundamental inestimably valuable part of Judaism were, I would have said, "all of it". From the beliefs to the commandments, to the Torah. There's no part of it that I wouldn't give my life for. I assume something similar for Christianity and Islam. So by interpreting the "fundamental, inestimable value of Judaism, Christianity and Islam" as those things which Baha'i doesn't replace, your're just being self-supporting there.

And again, by divorcing the religion from its laws and ordinances, you're also kind of being self-supporting. Here are four different religions all claiming to serve the same G-d. Clearly, the religion is not the choice of god that is served, but the laws and ordinances that makes it up. So in that respect, inasmuch as Christianity replaces Judaism while not replacing the law to love G-d and one's neighbor, you are replacing Islam while retaining some of its characteristics.

Your religion is certainly not independent of the other three. Without the other three, there'd be nothing to replace and you wouldn't believe in Muhammad or Jesus or Moses in whatever fashion you see them.
Shoot, the very word ‘replacement’ is repulsive to me, as it implies that we as Bahá’ís are trying to get rid of the previous Religions. We're not out to do that at all! Rest assured!
Whatever makes you feel better about it. I mean look, although you're not actively trying to get rid of the previous religions, the nature of the "new" is that at some point it takes over the old. Even if you're not trying to push it onto people, that is essentially what its about.

I'm not worried about you converting Jews. I'm just saying you should come to terms with the similarity of the nature of your religion to Christianity and Islam in this regard.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
That’s not how I look at it at all. Tumah, there's nothing inherently invalid or wrong about the Laws and Ordinances given to Jews in Torah. I apologize if anything I've said even sounded triumphalistic. This, I humbly acknowledge, is wrong. G-d, be merciful.
I didn't say that you said there was something wrong with it. I said that essentially, the practical ramifications are the same. Absorbing a few of the previous religion's characteristics, while expelling the rest.

You should explain how the Laws of Judaism were replaced with Laws and Ordinances that are more relevant to this age, but at the same time are not outdated for Jews today to follow.

You should also explain how Baha'i is replacing the 7 Jewish Noahide Laws for non-Jews, without saying that Judaism is not invalid.
It's merely that they don't apply to me as a Bahá’í. (Obviously, I'm not Jewish.)
Of course they don't. But why don't the 7 Jewish Noahide Laws apply to you today? What happened to them?
Had you been Christian today, do you believe as a Baha'i that you should ideally remain a Christian or become a Baha'i?

Be that as it may, I nevertheless do not believe that previous religions are in any wrong or not valid, especially in terms of soteriology. Which is, I bet, where you got the idea of replacement from (‘replacement theology’ ?)
No, I got it from the basis of a later religion's [after Judaism] existence in light of the existence of an earlier religion. By replacement theology, I mean whatever theological explanations you have for the need for your religion to replace the older way.

This is very wonderful to hear, Tumah! From my end, dude, you are on true guidance from the Most High G-d. This is what's it all about! Being devout in your Religion. Holding steadfast to that chord which will bind you to the Tree of Life, y’know? ;)
I understand that you're saying this in order to highlight that as a Baha'i you support the existence of other religions. But it doesn't absolve you of the problems explained above.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
The bible is corrupted is a fact that we can't deny, but as i said corrupted doesn't
mean the bible is false and our choices has nothing to do with confirmation bias,
for example we don't agree that Jesus is the son of God and the Jews don't agree
as well, we understand that the bible was corrupted in that specific point whereas
Jews regard the NT as false, at this I hope you can understand that the Jews
won't quote anything from the NT the same way that Muslims won't quote
anything from Baha'ullah, so false is completely different than corrupted.
Are you sure you understand what confirmation bias means?
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
  • ~;> by the way
  • so as it is written
  • :read:
  • Romans 10:20
  • Isaiah is very bold, and says, "I was found by those who did not seek me. I was revealed to those who did not ask for me."
  • 21 But as to Israel he says, "All day long I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."
as we compair it to this verses
somehow someone would notice the difference between the verses above or if there is a difference
if we may say so
:read: (as it is written)
Isaiah 7:10
The Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign of the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord."
13 He said, "Listen now, house of David: Is it not enough for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 He shall eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

thats why
as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 9:10
being only (with meats and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.
11 But Messiah having come as a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,
12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify to the cleanness of the flesh:
14 how much more will the blood of Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 For this reason he is the mediator of a New Covenant, since a death has occurred for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, that those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where a last will and testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him who made it.
17 For a will is in force where there has been death, for it is never in force while he who made it lives.
18 Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.
19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."
21 Moreover he sprinkled the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry in like manner with the blood.
22 According to the Law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
23 It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Messiah hasn't entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 
Last edited:

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Are you sure you understand what confirmation bias means?

Yes of course I know, you have to know that it isn't us that choose what to agree or to
disagree with the bible, but it's the quran which clarifies to us where the corruption
had occurred, so it isn't according to our choices that we choose what to pick and what
to agree with but what is already clarified by the quran.

God says that he has no son, so it isn't confirmation bias as to reject some verses in the bible
but we reject it because God pointed out that they were wrong and mislead.

Can you say that Jews refused Jesus because of confirmation bias, that what expected
of the promised messiah in their book doesn't agree with what Jesus is.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Yes of course I know, you have to know that it isn't us that choose what to agree or to
disagree with the bible, but it's the quran which clarifies to us where the corruption
had occurred, so it isn't according to our choices that we choose what to pick and what
to agree with but what is already clarified by the quran.

God says that he has no son, so it isn't confirmation bias as to reject some verses in the bible
but we reject it because God pointed out that they were wrong and mislead.

Can you say that Jews refused Jesus because of confirmation bias, that what expected
of the promised messiah in their book doesn't agree with what Jesus is.
I understand, but pointing to particular verses in the Tanach and NT that you believe prove or establish the truth of the Qur'an while rejecting the rest is confirming only the things that you are already biased to believe in. That's what it is.
You can say, "I have no choice, the Qur'an forces me to confirm itseslf in those books.
That's ok, I can understand that the Qur'an needs to point to something as the basis on which its built. The NT does a similar thing with the Tanach and Baha'i does it to everyone. But at the end of the day, its your religion finding confirmation for itself in a book (corrupted or not) that was not written about your religion by selecting on the verse which confirm what it says.

And what I think is not ok, is to then go and make threads to non-Muslims expecting them to see anything more than a confirmation bias. That's just senseless.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
And what I think is not ok, is to then go and make threads to non-Muslims expecting them to see anything more than a confirmation bias. That's just senseless.

You may agree with such threads or disagree, where's the problem and how that is offensive.
It's kind of free speech and expressing one's opinion, why it become offensive and senseless?
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
~;> thats the reason why humans must use common sense

for example if god would sent an angel and that angel told unto someone like you
DO NOT KILL ANYONE

BUT AFTER A WHILE SOME ANGEL CAME AGAIN AND SAY YOU CAN KILL NOW
AND YOU KILL BECAUSED THAT ANGEL SAYS SO WITHOUT ASKIN IT FIRST WHY

SO AGAIN THATS WHY
SOMETIMES A COMMON SENSE IS BETTER THAN TO BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF MAN AND EVEN THOSE SO CALLED ANGELS

as they says
as it is written
:read:
Galatians 1:8
But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 
Top