• 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!

Is the Bible Trustworthy?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The geneitc bottleneck can only appear if God did not change genetics after the flood.

...and went out of its way to make it look as if neither the flood nore his magical fiddling with genes ever happened so that it all looks like he did nothing and humans evolved.

:rolleyes:

Genesis 11:7 indicates he did, since linguistics and genetics are interlinked.
If he changed genetis one time, he did so many times perhaps... rendering it impossible to track a potential bottleneck.

And instead went out of its way to make it look as if all life can be tracked back to a common ancestor.

See, your "defense" here is ridiculous. You are literally asking to ignore ALL the evidence and go by the bronze age ramblings of ignorant sheep herders instead.

And in a rather silly attempt to "explain away" the actual evidence... your defense consists of "magic".


He created a ne but old looking house, maybe.

Uhu, uhu.

Or maybe, he created everything last thursday and infused us all with our memories of having lived our entire lives. :rolleyes:

So did your god also amuse himself with putting all those fossils in the ground of creatures that never lived to give it the "appearance of age"? :rolleyes:

when God created Adam, he made him look like adult.
He wanted an adult

The equivalent would be to then create adam as an adult with a scar on his arm to make it look like an injury he never sustained when he was a toddler, which he never was. This is the level of desception you are required to posit for your "defense" to make any sense.

This is why people like @Subduction Zone say that people like you believe in a lying, deceptive god.

So he created one. In other words; he created a human with the appearance of age


Not just with the appearance of age. With the appearance of history. This is deception pure sang.
And it is ridiculous to posit as a "defense". It is a silly excuse to ignore all evidence and go with bronze age myths that fly in the face of evidence.

This is the equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

Once you allow for magic, you open up a can of worms.

When God created Adam, he gave him and his muscles a history. He could walk. Newborns can't walk.
Muscles need a history to work.
So that's why God gave Adam a good history of working muscles. Right at the day of his creation, according to the Bible.
Same with earth, I think.

Earth would be the equivalent of an adam that has scars from injuries he never sustained.
It's deceptive and beyond absurd.

It's Last Thursdayism.
It's a silly attempt to ignore any and all evidence in favor of a bronze age religious creation myth.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
...and went out of its way to make it look as if neither the flood nore his magical fiddling with genes ever happened so that it all looks like he did nothing and humans evolved.

:rolleyes:
No?

But why should he bother to leave evidence behind that he changed genes in Genesis 11:7?

He had it written in his scriptures. That’s enough, I think.

Even if science does not acknowledge the Bible as a guide to understand nature.

And instead went out of its way to make it look as if all life can be tracked back to a common ancestor.

See, your "defense" here is ridiculous. You are literally asking to ignore ALL the evidence and go by the bronze age ramblings of ignorant sheep herders instead.

And in a rather silly attempt to "explain away" the actual evidence... your defense consists of "magic".
I don’t think my defense is ridiculous. It’s not silly, either.

God wanted to give man a biological history, that’s all. This is at least how I see it.


Ignoring the evidence?

You want me to believe that God could not go ahead and make an adult Adam in one day?

Is he too weak, in your opinion?

Or let me rephrase the question: Consider there is a God for a minute. Why should he be restricted to be creating humans over time instead of doing so in the course of one day? For me, it seems that atheists are right in replying to evolutionists who also believe in God…. why should God bother to wait 13.4 billions of years to get a scene in the Garden? This doesn't make sense to atheists either. Neither does it to me.
In contrast, I still hold that the Bible is inerrant as it is written.

But once you have an adult human being… the evidence leads scientists to say that the human MUST be older than one day. You would have to ignore ALL the scientific evidence if you wanted to point out that God just made it in a second.

It’s not deception by God. If God wanted to leave a scar on Adam’s arm, he would have needed to work extra hours. So why should God bother to work more? Your analogy does not work, I think.

Same with earth. Same with any wonders I guess.

The appearance of age is a mere side effect of wonders, I guess.



So did your god also amuse himself with putting all those fossils in the ground of creatures that never lived to give it the "appearance of age"? :rolleyes:
So why did he put fossils into the ground? To give human a history, I think.

How should God bring the message across that the human body is not apt for digesting large quantities of refined sugars? Have a look at the fossil record… and you will know.

How should God bring the message across that an increase in average global temperatures by, say, 5 degrees Fahrenheit will result in a death of x % of all living species? Have a look at the fossil record.

That’s what it's for, in my opinion.

But, but, but...... god "magiced" the bottleneck away!

:rolleyes:
... as if there cannot be a reason for God to change genetics for third reasons... this is atheist logic. Not mine.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member

Yes.

All the evidence points to an old earth with old life that evolved into all the species we know today, without interruption or any kind of "renewal". So if you are going to claim that there was an "interruption" or "renewal" by an agent, then the only possible conclusion for the evidence at our disposal, is that this agent went out of his way to cover his tracks.

But why should he bother to leave evidence behind that he changed genes in Genesis 11:7?

Why should he bother to cover it up and make it look as if it never happened?

He had it written in his scriptures. That’s enough, I think.

It really really isn't. Especially not if you also expect people to believe it and consider that important.

Even if science does not acknowledge the Bible as a guide to understand nature.

The reason this is so, is precisely because nature tells a very different story through the evidence available. The point exactly. This god of yours, seems to have made a point of it to make his scriptures sound as unbelievable as possible.

I don’t think my defense is ridiculous. It’s not silly, either.
God wanted to give man a biological history, that’s all. This is at least how I see it.

And I think that's ridiculous.

Ignoring the evidence?

Yes. You are literally asking to ignore all the evidence and believe a bronze age story instead, which doesn't fit the evidence.

You want me to believe that God could not go ahead and make an adult Adam in one day?
Is he too weak, in your opinion?

The evidence doesn't support it. The evidence shows that humans evolved just like all other species.
I can also posit a deity that created everything just Last Thursday, including our memories of having lived our entire lives. And by claiming this deity is "all powerful" and "not bound by the laws of nature", I can also "define" that deity as being able to do such a thing.

But there is zero evidence to support it. Might as well claim that we all live in the Matrix.

Or let me rephrase the question: Consider there is a God for a minute. Why should he be restricted to be creating humans over time instead of doing so in the course of one day?

Let's rephrase it again.
Why should we believe stories of god creating humans in a single day from scratch, while all the evidence points to humans evolving over the course of several million years instead?

Why should we restrict any explanation of how humans came about to a process that took a long time? Easy: because that's what the evidence shows.

When stories are in direct opposition of the evidence of reality, there's no reason to think that the evidence of reality is incorrect.

When beliefs don't match reality - it's not reality that is wrong.

For me, it seems that atheists are right in replying to evolutionists who also believe in God…. why should God bother to wait 13.4 billions of years to get a scene in the Garden? This doesn't make sense to atheists either. Neither does it to me.

Sure. And regardless of what you think about that, the evidence still shows that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth 4.5 billion years old and homo sapiens being an evolved species of around 200.000 years old with an ancestral lineage that has a last common ancestor with chimps and bonobo's around 7 million years ago and no geological or biological evidence whatsoever of this process ever being interrupted by some physically impossible flood.

You are asking us to ignore all that evidence and believe a bronze age story instead, that flies in the face of said evidence.


In contrast, I still hold that the Bible is inerrant as it is written.

And you do this religiously with zero supporting evidence and are required to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.


But once you have an adult human being… the evidence leads scientists to say that the human MUST be older than one day. You would have to ignore ALL the scientific evidence if you wanted to point out that God just made it in a second.

Yes. And that evidence is pretty much ALL data from ALL scientific fields. Not just biology.
So it seems that your god went out of his way to deceive people into believing a falsehood.
To the point of putting fossils, remains, in the ground of creatures that were never even alive.

It’s not deception by God

Ow, but it is.

It's the equivalent of me killing a person by strangling him, and then covering it up with an elaborate setup of a car crash that never really happened to make it look as if the person was actually crushed by a truck.


If God wanted to leave a scar on Adam’s arm, he would have needed to work extra hours. So why should God bother to work more? Your analogy does not work, I think.

The earth has 'scars'. Scars are the difference between age and history.
Fossils, oil fields, canyons, the KT boundary, impact craters,.... these are scars. Evidence of events of the past taking place.

So when you say your god created things with "age", you are incorrect. Not just "age", but with history. History that supposedly never occurred.

The equivalent of this, would be adam having scars of injuries he never sustained.

The appearance of age is a mere side effect of wonders, I guess.

See above. Not mere age. But history.
Why would god create a planet today that looks like it sustained a meteor impact 70 million years ago?
Why would god create a human today while making it look as if humans were on the planet for more then 200.000 years already (fossils)?
Why would god create a human today while making it genetics look as if it shares ancestors with chimps?

Why, if not to be deceptive?

So why did he put fossils into the ground? To give human a history, I think.

So you really believe that god put fossils, remains, in the ground of creatures that were never alive?
:rolleyes:

And you then wonder why I say that you are asking us to ignore all evidence in favor of a story from the bronze age?

How should God bring the message across that the human body is not apt for digesting large quantities of refined sugars? Have a look at the fossil record… and you will know.

How should God bring the message across that an increase in average global temperatures by, say, 5 degrees Fahrenheit will result in a death of x % of all living species? Have a look at the fossil record.

/facepalm

From the bs you said, I think these take the cake.


That’s what it's for, in my opinion.

... as if there cannot be a reason for God to change genetics for third reasons... this is atheist logic. Not mine.

No. "atheist logic" is that you don't believe stories over actual evidence.
Your "logic" seems to be that you favor stories over evidence.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Yes.

All the evidence points to an old earth with old life that evolved into all the species we know today, without interruption or any kind of "renewal". So if you are going to claim that there was an "interruption" or "renewal" by an agent, then the only possible conclusion for the evidence at our disposal, is that this agent went out of his way to cover his tracks.



Why should he bother to cover it up and make it look as if it never happened?



It really really isn't. Especially not if you also expect people to believe it and consider that important.



The reason this is so, is precisely because nature tells a very different story through the evidence available. The point exactly. This god of yours, seems to have made a point of it to make his scriptures sound as unbelievable as possible.



And I think that's ridiculous.



Yes. You are literally asking to ignore all the evidence and believe a bronze age story instead, which doesn't fit the evidence.



The evidence doesn't support it. The evidence shows that humans evolved just like all other species.
I can also posit a deity that created everything just Last Thursday, including our memories of having lived our entire lives. And by claiming this deity is "all powerful" and "not bound by the laws of nature", I can also "define" that deity as being able to do such a thing.

But there is zero evidence to support it. Might as well claim that we all live in the Matrix.



Let's rephrase it again.
Why should we believe stories of god creating humans in a single day from scratch, while all the evidence points to humans evolving over the course of several million years instead?

Why should we restrict any explanation of how humans came about to a process that took a long time? Easy: because that's what the evidence shows.

When stories are in direct opposition of the evidence of reality, there's no reason to think that the evidence of reality is incorrect.

When beliefs don't match reality - it's not reality that is wrong.



Sure. And regardless of what you think about that, the evidence still shows that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth 4.5 billion years old and homo sapiens being an evolved species of around 200.000 years old with an ancestral lineage that has a last common ancestor with chimps and bonobo's around 7 million years ago and no geological or biological evidence whatsoever of this process ever being interrupted by some physically impossible flood.

You are asking us to ignore all that evidence and believe a bronze age story instead, that flies in the face of said evidence.




And you do this religiously with zero supporting evidence and are required to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.




Yes. And that evidence is pretty much ALL data from ALL scientific fields. Not just biology.
So it seems that your god went out of his way to deceive people into believing a falsehood.
To the point of putting fossils, remains, in the ground of creatures that were never even alive.



Ow, but it is.

It's the equivalent of me killing a person by strangling him, and then covering it up with an elaborate setup of a car crash that never really happened to make it look as if the person was actually crushed by a truck.




The earth has 'scars'. Scars are the difference between age and history.
Fossils, oil fields, canyons, the KT boundary, impact craters,.... these are scars. Evidence of events of the past taking place.

So when you say your god created things with "age", you are incorrect. Not just "age", but with history. History that supposedly never occurred.

The equivalent of this, would be adam having scars of injuries he never sustained.



See above. Not mere age. But history.
Why would god create a planet today that looks like it sustained a meteor impact 70 million years ago?
Why would god create a human today while making it look as if humans were on the planet for more then 200.000 years already (fossils)?
Why would god create a human today while making it genetics look as if it shares ancestors with chimps?

Why, if not to be deceptive?



So you really believe that god put fossils, remains, in the ground of creatures that were never alive?
:rolleyes:

And you then wonder why I say that you are asking us to ignore all evidence in favor of a story from the bronze age?



/facepalm

From the bs you said, I think these take the cake.




No. "atheist logic" is that you don't believe stories over actual evidence.
Your "logic" seems to be that you favor stories over evidence.
Take the wine (from the Wedding of Cana story). According to the Bible, Jesus turned water into wine.

Evidence for the wine to be half an hour old? I mean evidence stemming from the wine? about the true age of it?

Zero.

Wine that has half an hour of age… isn’t usually considered to be wine to begin with.

So if you want to believe that a God is able to transform water into wine… you have to believe against the evidence. Yes.

So yes, believers often believe against the evidence. So believing in a young earth would be only one step further, as I see it.

You say a God that produced an old beverage in a minute must be deceiving?

“He went out of his way to deceive people into believing the beverage was old” ??

No, please. No deception there. No deception in creation, either. Even if evidence from all field would point to an old age.

Like the wine as alcohol for third reasons, the earth has the characteristics of an old earth for third reasons, too.

Why should we restrict any explanation of how humans came about to a process that took a long time? Easy: because that's what the evidence shows.
you asked.

This is the question you could always ask when there was a miracle. This is the kind of question rejecting the existence of miracles, I think. But if God exists…. Why should he do without miracles?

When you say he must not do miracles without producing extra evidence for it being a miracle… he cannot perform miracles at all without having to work extra time for hinting at the miracle.

Your comparison to the murder was wrong, as in this case the murderer would first need to falsifiy something to pretend he did not resort to murder. If he left everything untouched, the evidence would be there.
In the case of the wine, God would need to falsify the wine in an attempt to produce the evidence that you want. It’s the other way round. God would need to work extra hours just for the sake of producing the evidence for the miracle, I think.



If God wanted a real celestial body… craters come with the territory. All "real" celestial bodies have craters. Yet not all humans have scars. So, your comparison was bunk, I think.
I believe that God puts fossils in the ground to give man a history. A history that conveys a lesson.

God also puts oil in the ground, btw, for he loves mankind.


I did not write any bs at all, and particularly my notion of the number of species on earth being linked to the average global temperature was no bs.


According to atheists, God MUST not change ANYTHING on earth – without producing extra evidence for him having changed something. Otherwise you would accuse him of being a deceiver. This is limiting the scope of action you ascribe to a potential God.
BTW, if God would have produced evidence for the wine to be young wine, you would not ascribe that evidence to God, I suppose. Since God would mean magic according to you.... and you don't want to open "a can of worms" as you said in your previous post.

So basically you're creating a deadlock for God, I think.
If he left evidence behind - spending extra working hours just to demonstrate the miracle - you would refuse to open "the can of worms" and take it as evidence...
If he leaves the miracle as it is without giving a sign to sientists that it's
a miracle... you call God a deceiver.
What horrible apologetics you try here.
God would do wrong either way.

I don’t subscribe to your atheist logic.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Take the wine (from the Wedding of Cana story). According to the Bible, Jesus turned water into wine.

Evidence for the wine to be half an hour old? I mean evidence stemming from the wine? about the true age of it?

Zero.

Wine that has half an hour of age… isn’t usually considered to be wine to begin with.

So if you want to believe that a God is able to transform water into wine… you have to believe against the evidence. Yes.

So yes, believers often believe against the evidence. So believing in a young earth would be only one step further, as I see it.

You say a God that produced an old beverage in a minute must be deceiving?

“He went out of his way to deceive people into believing the beverage was old” ??

No, please. No deception there. No deception in creation, either. Even if evidence from all field would point to an old age.

Like the wine as alcohol for third reasons, the earth has the characteristics of an old earth for third reasons, too.

Why should we restrict any explanation of how humans came about to a process that took a long time? Easy: because that's what the evidence shows.
you asked.

This is the question you could always ask when there was a miracle. This is the kind of question rejecting the existence of miracles, I think. But if God exists…. Why should he do without miracles?

When you say he must not do miracles without producing extra evidence for it being a miracle… he cannot perform miracles at all without having to work extra time for hinting at the miracle.

Your comparison to the murder was wrong, as in this case the murderer would first need to falsifiy something to pretend he did not resort to murder. If he left everything untouched, the evidence would be there.
In the case of the wine, God would need to falsify the wine in an attempt to produce the evidence that you want. It’s the other way round. God would need to work extra hours just for the sake of producing the evidence for the miracle, I think.



If God wanted a real celestial body… craters come with the territory. All "real" celestial bodies have craters. Yet not all humans have scars. So, your comparison was bunk, I think.
I believe that God puts fossils in the ground to give man a history. A history that conveys a lesson.

God also puts oil in the ground, btw, for he loves mankind.


I did not write any bs at all, and particularly my notion of the number of species on earth being linked to the average global temperature was no bs.


According to atheists, God MUST not change ANYTHING on earth – without producing extra evidence for him having changed something. Otherwise you would accuse him of being a deceiver. This is limiting the scope of action you ascribe to a potential God.
BTW, if God would have produced evidence for the wine to be young wine, you would not ascribe that evidence to God, I suppose. Since God would mean magic according to you.... and you don't want to open "a can of worms" as you said in your previous post.

So basically you're creating a deadlock for God, I think.
If he left evidence behind - spending extra working hours just to demonstrate the miracle - you would refuse to open "the can of worms" and take it as evidence...
If he leaves the miracle as it is without giving a sign to sientists that it's
a miracle... you call God a deceiver.
What horrible apologetics you try here.
God would do wrong either way.

I don’t subscribe to your atheist logic.

This is going around in circles now.


My position: all the evidence contradicts your just-so-stories. I'll go by the evidence over bronze age stories.

Your position: screw the evidence, I'll go by the stories.

There's really no point in me trying to use reason to make you understand how absurd your position is, because reason is not what made you buy into this nonsense in the first place.


Your "reasoning" here, can be used virtually unchanged to argue that the entire universe was created just Last Thursday, complete with all our memories of having lived our entire lives. It's absurd to the highest degree.


Once more: when mere beliefs contradict the evidence of reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.


And off course, when you handwave away any and all evidence with "magic occurred", then sure, then "it can't be disproven". :rolleyes:

But then again, the very concepts of "proving" and "disproving" are rendered entirely meaningless in such an absurd worldview, off course.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So why did he put fossils into the ground? To give human a history, I think.

How should God bring the message across that the human body is not apt for digesting large quantities of refined sugars? Have a look at the fossil record… and you will know.
That information is not in the fossil record. And ironically it would rely on evolution being a fact if it was. You once again call God a liar by saying that he had to plant false information, saying that since we are evolved organisms that refined sugar is bad for us. But yet we are not evolved beings according to you. You just shot yourself in the foot again.

How should God bring the message across that an increase in average global temperatures by, say, 5 degrees Fahrenheit will result in a death of x % of all living species? Have a look at the fossil record.

Again, a conclusion that relies upon evolution. So once again you claim that God lied.

That’s what it's for, in my opinion.

Your opinion is not only wrong, it has been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong.



... as if there cannot be a reason for God to change genetics for third reasons... this is atheist logic. Not mine.

Now now now, it is just logic. Don't call it "atheist logic". Don't get mad because you are wrong. But in regards to changing genetics I have a very serious question:

When did the God magic end after the flood?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
I forgot to mention "last Thursdayism", as you call it.
Since God creates an earth with the appearance of age in Genesis 1 and 2 according to the Bible... he could also have done it just last Thursday you say?.
You say it's absurd.
However, Jesus did not die yesterday... and the question of sin would be unsolved.



Once more: when mere beliefs contradict the evidence of reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.
yeah, that's going round in circles.
You're the one that counts out the possibility of a miracle, in which the evidence is not delivered on top and in conjunction.
If there is a God, why should he be obliged to perform as you want... meaning that he must be providing the evidence every single time a miracle occurs ?

I stay with my belief: God is not a liar just for performing miracles without producing extra evidence for modern day atheists (that would not take it as evidence for God anyway, because they don't want to believe in "magic" as they call it).
Ok I was repeating myself here...

But since we're going round in circles... let me at least back up what I say:
The rise of rotten teeth was first recognised in the 1970s, says Marc Oxenham at the Australian National University, and relatively quickly archaeologists decided that it must be explained by the shift to carbohydrate-rich diets that came with farming.
How our ancestors drilled rotten teeth
this is the kind of lesson that God wanted to have for modern man, I think, and this is why he laid these fossils in the ground, I suppose.
And off course, when you handwave away any and all evidence with "magic occurred", then sure, then "it can't be disproven". :rolleyes:
What you call magic, I call miracles that happen for third reasons (mostly love).:)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I forgot to mention "last Thursdayism", as you call it.
Since God creates an earth with the appearance of age in Genesis 1 and 2 according to the Bible... he could also have done it just last Thursday you say?.
You say it's absurd.
However, Jesus did not die yesterday... and the question of sin would be unsolved.

I see that you did not understand Last Thursdayism. There is no logical need for Jesus to have died for us. So Last Thursday the creation of the world of course included the Jesus myth.

yeah, that's going round in circles.
You're the one that counts out the possibility of a miracle, in which the evidence is not delivered on top and in conjunction.
If there is a God, why should he be obliged to perform as you want... meaning that he must be providing the evidence every single time a miracle occurs ?

If there is a God and if that God is a moral God then he should be an honest and reliable God. Otherwise why believe him?

I stay with my belief: God is not a liar just for performing miracles without producing extra evidence for modern day atheists (that would not take it as evidence for God anyway, because they don't want to believe in "magic" as they call it).
Ok I was repeating myself here...

But since we're going round in circles... let me at least back up what I say:
The rise of rotten teeth was first recognised in the 1970s, says Marc Oxenham at the Australian National University, and relatively quickly archaeologists decided that it must be explained by the shift to carbohydrate-rich diets that came with farming.
How our ancestors drilled rotten teeth
this is the kind of lesson that God wanted to have for modern man, I think, and this is why he laid these fossils in the ground, I suppose.
What you call magic, I call miracles that happen for third reasons (mostly love).:)


You misunderstand. You are claiming that God is a liar since he covers up his evil works. And look, you had to change your story from the fossil record to anthropology. Such a fail.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No, because.....


1. WHY are the Bible authors unknown and written by anonymous writers who weren’t eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life?
The Quran was not written by an eyewitness to Jesus life either.

2. WHY were they complied and canonized 100s of years after the death of Jesus?
The Quran was also compiled hundreds of years after not only the death of Jesus, but also hundreds of years after the Gospels where canonised.

3. WHY have lots of texts (doctrinal) been omitted and changed in the NIV in comparison to the KJV? (Scribes have been omitting, deleted, and added texts throughout history – and we have proof.
The Quran is different to the original Bibles as well.

9. WHY are doctrines of Christianity later additions to Pauline’s religion by people like Augustine/Constantine etc.
Why are doctrines of Islam later additions to Judaism/Christianity by people like Muhammad and His followers?

10. WHY were the councils set up 300 + years after the death of Jesus to create a new doctrine (religion) which added lots of pagan beliefs and rituals?
Why was Islam set up 600+ years after the death of Jesus to create a new religion? Why did it incorporate pagan rituals such as praying 5 times a day toward mecca?

11. WHY do Jesus’s teachings in the Bible contradict the modern-day Christian beliefs such as the trinity/keeping the laws etc?
Why do Muhammad's teachings in the Quran contradict the Biblical teaching of keeping the law of Moses such as praying towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem? If modern Islam hasn't strayed off the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran why do we have Quran alone and Salafi sects in Islam seeking to return to the original teachings of Islam?

12. WHY did Jesus practice the old Laws, and forced others to do so?
Why did Muhammad force people to practice new laws such as praying towards Mecca?
 

Moses_UK

Member
The Quran was not written by an eyewitness to Jesus life either.
Daniel, Daniel my son, you have totally shown how little you understand Islam and pagan Christianity. my whole argument was to prove that the eyewitnesses got lots of information wrong.
The Quran is a book that makes a claim. if you find a contradiction in it then tell me however the authors of the Bible contradicted each other e.g.


Ø Did Jairus come to Jesus before or after his daughter died? (Mark 5:21/24 & Matthew 9:18/20)
Ø Genealogy of Jesus is different in (Matthew is 1: 2/16) (Luke 3: 23/38) both texts states that its Josephs's Genealogy.
Ø Did Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt or return to Nazareth? (Matthew 2:1/23) (Luke 2:1/40)

etc. If you find a contradiction in the Quran regarding Jesus life or death, then you have a point however you haven't brought 1 single evidence

The Quran was also compiled hundreds of years after not only the death of Jesus, but also hundreds of years after the Gospels where canonised.

In Islam, we don't make the claims that Jesus is God. FOR ARGUMENT's SAKE, let's say Muslims believe in Jesus's words and statements about the 1 creator he worshipped written in MARK/MATTHEW/JOHN/LUKE, (which is exactly the same in the Quran) however my argument was going against the Trinity which came hundreds of years after the so-called death of Jesus and was not understood by his relatives and companions.

The Quran is different to the original Bibles as well.

Where is the Original Bible? No Christian can tell me where it is. what was Jesus preaching? was he using Paul?Matthew?Luke?Mark? Muslims believe the gospel of Jesus is lost and has fallen into the hands of the pagans (Roman catholic church)

Why are doctrines of Islam later additions to Judaism/Christianity by people like Muhammad and His followers?
Because Islam means submission to God - and we believe that all the messengers before Muhammed practiced Islam (because they submitted to God). Men (priest/rabbis/scribes) changed the teachings of those messengers (check modern scholarship) so God had to bring a final message which was the Quran, that will never be corrupted or changed. And remember Jesus and Moses' didn't come for the anglo Saxon western European man. They ONLY came to the Israelites (lost sheep of Isreal)

Why was Islam set up 600+ years after the death of Jesus to create a new religion? Because men changed the true teachings of God by changing the texts and hiding the true gospels. Why did it incorporate pagan rituals (show evidence that Islam has any pagansim in it,) such as praying 5 times a day toward mecca?


Why do Muhammad's teachings in the Quran contradict the Biblical teaching of keeping the law of Moses such as praying towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem? If modern Islam hasn't strayed off the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran why do we have Quran alone and Salafi sects in Islam seeking to return to the original teachings of Islam?

Muslims keep 99% of the Moses laws (Christians are different to both because of the changes done by the pagans
1. don't eat Pork
2. circumcise their boys
3. worship 1 God
4. don't Gamble
5. don't allow Interest
6. Fasting
7. praying


Why did Muhammad force people to practice new laws such as praying towards Mecca?

give me another different practice, please
 

Earthtank

Active Member
My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Thomas

Not sure if you heard but, the Bible has been proven to have errors and contradictions by people that are from the Church. So is the bible trustworthy? Absolutely not. And this is not based off my opinion rather based off facts. A simple shallow dive into the bible and you will notice them contradictions for yourself.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Why did Muhammad force people to practice new laws such as praying towards Mecca?

False, Muhammed never forced anyone to pray, become Muslim or pray towards Mecca. He was showing and teaching the proper way to pray. They willfully accepted his guidance and teachings, he did NOT force anyone to do anything. You make it seem like he was walking around with a stick hitting those who did not. A little unbiased research goes a long way
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Daniel, Daniel my son, you have totally shown how little you understand Islam and pagan Christianity

To the contrary, my understanding is that the Bible and the Quran have both incorporated fabricated stories about the life of Jesus for the same reason - neither of them where written by eyewitnesses to Jesus life.

Because Islam means submission to God - and we believe that all the messengers before Muhammed practiced Islam (because they submitted to God).

You are taking the meaning of the word Islam here, but they only practiced submission to God, they did not practice the Muhammadan law. For example the Messengers before Muhammad did not pray to Mecca 5 times a day as the pre-Islamic polytheists of Arabia did.

(show evidence that Islam has any pagansim in it,)
My claim to be specific is that Islam incorporated some practices of the polytheist Arabs into the Muhammedan religion, such as their practice of praying towards Mecca 5 times daily. The source given for that is the The Encyclopedia of Islam (edited by Eliade) P. 303FF see Pagan Origins of Islam - WikiIslam

Muslims keep 99% of the Moses laws
List all of the Muhammadan laws against all the laws of Moses in a new thread please, so I can see how you arrived at the figure of 99%.

Nontheless even 1% difference from the laws of Moses would make Muhammad's Islam different to the Islam you claim Jesus practiced which you say is 100% of Moses law.

give me another different practice, please
You haven't provided a satisfactory answer for the first 2 I gave you yet, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
False, Muhammed never forced anyone to pray, become Muslim or pray towards Mecca. He was showing and teaching the proper way to pray. They willfully accepted his guidance and teachings, he did NOT force anyone to do anything. You make it seem like he was walking around with a stick hitting those who did not. A little unbiased research goes a long way
Would you say that Jesus walked around with a stick forcing people to follow the 613 commandments of the Torah? That is what @Moses_UK seemed to be implying when he said, "Jesus practice the old Laws, and forced others to do so".

As for "unbiased research" about Muhammad, it seems to reveal that we do not have even "a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed".[4]

So as such, to say Muhammad did or did not force people to follow law is beyond the scope of "unbiased research" to determine. What is within the scope of unbiased research to determine is what modern Muslims believe about whether Muhammad and other Prophets forced some people to follow laws or not, and on this modern Muslims differ amongst themselves.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Would you say that Jesus walked around with a stick forcing people to follow the 613 commandments of the Torah? That is what @Moses_UK seemed to be implying when he said, "Jesus practice the old Laws, and forced others to do so".

As for "unbiased research" about Muhammad, it seems to reveal that we do not have even "a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed".[4]

So as such, to say Muhammad did or did not force people to follow law is beyond the scope of "unbiased research" to determine. What is within the scope of unbiased research to determine is what modern Muslims believe about whether Muhammad and other Prophets forced some people to follow laws or not, and on this modern Muslims differ amongst themselves.
And let's not forget that the early spread of Islam was largely through the sword. Just as Christianity was before it. Of course both religions quite often deny this part of their history. One can tell if one is dealing with an honest Christian or Muslim if they acknowledge this part of their history. If they don't there really is no talking with them.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
the Bible has been proven to have errors and contradictions by people that are from the Church.
I hold that there are no contradictions whatsoever.
God does not lie. In my opinion, God is reliable and the Bible 100% trustworthy. God is a good God, as I see it.

Even if people from the church claim otherwise. Those who do are wrong I think.

In Germany, for instance, you can study theology at state-run universities. The moment the mainline churches state "the Bible is infallible" they would be thrown out of public universities and would need to set up their own academies.
As they want to stay where they are, they do have a genuine interest to point out "contradictions" every once in a while.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I forgot to mention "last Thursdayism", as you call it.
Since God creates an earth with the appearance of age in Genesis 1 and 2 according to the Bible... he could also have done it just last Thursday you say?.
You say it's absurd.
However, Jesus did not die yesterday... and the question of sin would be unsolved.

You completely missed the point it seems.

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe and everything it contains (including our memories) was created just last thursday. This notion can't be argued against, given the premise of the idea that this creation included the creation of "age" and "history" and "memories".

The reason I brought it up, is because this is the exact "reasoning" you are using to "claim" inerrancy of the bible, while all the evidence contradicts it. You even literally stated that your god put fossils in the ground of creatures that never were even alive, just to make the world look like it has history.

This is the exact "logic" of Last Thursdayism.
The "reasoning" you use to "defend" your claims, can be equally used virtually unchanged to "defend" the claim of Last Thursdayism.

The point of bringing it up, was to show you how utterly bad your "arguments" were.
Because if the exact same reasoning can be used to defend Last Thursdaysim, clearly you don't have much of a case. Right? ........right?

:rolleyes:

yeah, that's going round in circles.
You're the one that counts out the possibility of a miracle, in which the evidence is not delivered on top and in conjunction.

Yes, I'm the one who doesn't use reasoning that can also be used to defend Last Thursdayism.
Yes, I'm the one who doesn't simply assume magic occurred.
Yes, I'm the one who thinks evidence trumps mere stories.



ps: you have not even begun to try and show that miracles are even a possibility to begin with, let alone that they actually have occurred.

pps: miracles are impossible by definition! "impossible" means "that which cannot happen within the confines of natural law". ie, it is "impossible" for a hammer to shoot into space instead of falling to earth when you drop it. A "miracle" is when the impossible happens anyway. So miracles are impossible by definition.


If there is a God, why should he be obliged to perform as you want... meaning that he must be providing the evidence every single time a miracle occurs ?

Not at all. Nowhere did I state the he should "provide" evidence. You however are claiming that he actively went out of his way to cover his tracks. Purposefully making it look as if those supposed miracles never occurred AND planted evidence in such a way that it looks like something completely different occurred instead.

We've talked about scars before. Let's zoom in on genetic scars.
So you claim god created humans, then a flood and then fiddled with the genes to make the inevitable genetic bottlenecks disappear.

Ever heared about ERV's? These are like literally genetic scars. They are the result of infections that happened in ancestors where viral DNA was inserted into the host DNA. If this happens in specific cells, they form an ERV which is inherited by off spring. We share plenty of them with chimps. A little less with gorilla's. Less still with oerang oetangs. If we map out these matches with all other animals, we get the exact same tree of life (a family tree) which we also obtain when mapping out matches through other independent means (other genetic markers, full genomes, comparative anatomy, even geographic distribution of fossils and extant species).

If you say that our (= all living things) collective genomes are the result of your god fiddling with the genes, then he went out of his way to make it look as if we all descent from the very same ancestors through the process of evolution.

Do you have evidence of any of this? No. What you have is a story.

So you're wrong. I don't "believe" this god should "provide" evidence.
You're the one who believes he actively went out of his way to cover his tracks and make it look as if something completely different occurred - which is the equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

To purposely create a universe where everything looks as if it evolved and developed naturally over eons while it wasn't. You're the one who believes in a deceptive god.

I see no merit in this. It flies in the face of literally all evidence.

You are asking me to believe a story over literally ALL the evidence.

You shouldn't be surprised that I consider that absurd.



I stay with my belief: God is not a liar just for performing miracles without producing extra evidence for modern day atheists

True.
Instead, he is a liar for performing miracles and then actively going out of his way to cover his tracks and plant false evidence of something entirely different occurring.

Again, the equivalent of me strangling somebody and then set up an elaborate scene to make it look as if the person was actually crushed by a truck in a car accident, and doing such a good job that nobody in his right mind would doubt the death was caused by anything other then that car crash.

(that would not take it as evidence for God anyway, because they don't want to believe in "magic" as they call it).

False.

If the predictions of the noah story would check out (= a global flood layer in the geological column and a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things dating to the same period), I would absolutely accept that this flood occurred.

Likewise, if our human genome wouldn't fit the nested hierarchy of the tree of life, then likewise I would accept that we do not share ancestors with all other living things.



Ok I was repeating myself here...

But since we're going round in circles... let me at least back up what I say:
The rise of rotten teeth was first recognised in the 1970s, says Marc Oxenham at the Australian National University, and relatively quickly archaeologists decided that it must be explained by the shift to carbohydrate-rich diets that came with farming.
How our ancestors drilled rotten teeth
this is the kind of lesson that God wanted to have for modern man, I think, and this is why he laid these fossils in the ground, I suppose.
What you call magic, I call miracles that happen for third reasons (mostly love).:)

And all that happened Last Thursday.

:rolleyes:

Nowhere does the bible state anything like that, that god put fossils in the ground of non-existing creatures to teach us "lessons". That is just your own invention and an obvious, rather pathetic, attempt to rationalize your Last Thursdayism-ish argument.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
no, it's not a mental illness.

Prophecy shouldn't be taken literally though.
All Christians pick and choose their Bible beliefs. As you just showed. The problem with vague prophesies is that they are failed prophesies. They are on the order of the prophecies of Nostradamus. Capable of bring " fulfilled" several times over. One of the main causes of different sects are the endless interpretations of biblical prophecy. And of course the few very precise prophecies in the Bible all have one thing in common. They all failed.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
You however are claiming that he actively went out of his way to cover his tracks.
no. If he does nothing after the miracle, there is no reason to think there is evidence that the miracle took place. See the wine in Cana, with no evidence whatsoever that the miracle took place.
If you demand evidence, God would have worked extra hours to get the evidence in.
It's a repetition of what I wrote before.
Instead, he is a liar for performing miracles and then actively going out of his way to cover his tracks and plant false evidence of something entirely different occurring.
no, he is not a liar.
and here I need to reiterate myself AGAIN:
producing the evidence that you demand would force God into working extra hours.
Why should he bother to do so?

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe and everything it contains (including our memories) was created just last thursday. This notion can't be argued against, given the premise of the idea that this creation included the creation of "age" and "history" and "memories".
Last Thursdayism does not wort as a comparison.
Jesus had to die, I think. Otherwise humans could not be justified before God, this is my interpretation of the Bible.
since Jesus didn't die last week, your Last Thursdayism does not work.
God's plans are simply too complex to fit into one week.

You even literally stated that your god put fossils in the ground of creatures that never were even alive, just to make the world look like it has history.
... for us to draw a lesson from it.
Scientists keep preaching that we will lose many many species if the global temperatures continue to rise. The evidence for this claim?
The number of species in the fossil record varied according to temperature on earth.
The point of bringing it up, was to show you how utterly bad your "arguments" were.
Because if the exact same reasoning can be used to defend Last Thursdaysim, clearly you don't have much of a case. Right? ........right?
no, see above.
ps: you have not even begun to try and show that miracles are even a possibility to begin with, let alone that they actually have occurred.
You did not show that God cannot exist.
even you can't even disprove this, you cannot disprove the existence of miracles, either.
Biut if you demand extra evidence for every single miracle... you forse God into working more, just for you.
God performing miracles (with no evidence) is not the same as a crime committed by humans (wiuth the evidence). You can't compare these two.
So you claim god created humans, then a flood and then fiddled with the genes to make the inevitable genetic bottlenecks disappear.
You're putting words in my mouth.
I said: it was in order to pursue other purposes: such as installing different languages... that he needed to change genetics.

If the predictions of the noah story would check out (= a global flood layer in the geological column and a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things dating to the same period), I would absolutely accept that this flood occurred.
as I said: the flood layer is nothing you can expect from God swapping the earthes. The old one perished according to 2 Peter 3:5-6.

Likewise, if our human genome wouldn't fit the nested hierarchy of the tree of life, then likewise I would accept that we do not share ancestors with all other living things.
but that's extra work you demand from a God. He uses the same features for chimps and humans and other animals.
That's a good explanation of why genetics between the species are similar. This is my explanation of the similarities.

PLEASE, I don't have much time, don't put words in my mouth.
 
Top