<p>Pianoman: I read the essay on your link and I found the essay had merit but I greatly disagree with Russell's portrayal of only the negative side of religious faith. He consistantly overemphasizes the role of Christians in "retarding progress" when many Christians have made great innovations in science, philosophy, political science and the list goes on. In addition, he fails to note the often philanthropic nature of the Christian faith. I understand that his essay is supposed to be persuasive so it should, by nature, only present one side of the issue. However, we should always take these types of one-sided essays with a grain of salt. Nothing is clear cut in this world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you believe that the way of Islam teaches truth to a larger extent than any other religion? The same question to justinian, though I know he as already attributed his belief to faith alone and no other rational justification. Why does the bible preach truth more than any other holy book?
[/quote]
I do believe it teaches truth to a larger extent. For the same reason that Christians see the Bible (old+new testaments) as more truthful than the Torah (primarily old testament), Muslims see the Quran as more truthful than both previous books: it is like an "update" to God's religion. Why the need for such "updates"? Because people and times change, and the changes lead up to the one book that will be the last and not have an 'update'. We believe that all the prophets taught the same essential things, although some of their teachings have been warped nowadays.
The Quran has many, many scientific verses in it. They include, but are not limited to, the Big Bang, stages of fetal development, the fact that all life came from water, the difference between the sun and the moon (that the sun provides light, whereas the moon does not create its own light), the fact that planets and the sun, earth, moon, have orbits, layers of the earth (that separate different eras), man's "conquest" of space (satellites, moon landing), and evolution.
I think it makes sense that the Quran has more of these accurate references than any other book. During the time periods of the other books (Bible, Torah) the people did not have as much knowledge of such things and they would not understand the scientific references, nor would it matter to them. The Quran however, being the last book, would need references that anybody afterward (such as us, 1400 years later) could understand, such that we may see the truth in the Quran and become believers even with modern science (which Islam fully supports, by the way).</p>
<p>Neverborn: Like what? I have always spoken my mind all the while trying extremely hard to respect the other people on this thread. You, on the other hand, blurt out remarks that mock and insult those that are religious. Your use of the phrase "religious crap" shows your lack of respect for the faithful. You don't hear me saying "atheist crap" do you?</p>
<p>Pianoman, </p>
<p>Great article....I found the First-cause Argument very profound.</p>
<p>Especially this part, which, if thought about too much, can really hurt the brain:</p>
<p>"There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause."</p>
<p>Eternity, as it is defined here:Time without beginning or end; infinite time. Suggests that there really was no true beginning of existence... what a concept, eh? Try to wrap your brain around that!</p>
<p>GoldShadow: I disagree with this statement: "I do believe it teaches truth to a larger extent. For the same reason that Christians see the Bible (old+new testaments) as more truthful than the Torah (primarily old testament), Muslims see the Quran as more truthful than both previous books: it is like an "update" to God's religion."</p>
<p>The New Testament is not an update in the sense that it is meant to "correct" flaws within the Old Testament. The New Testament is intended to fulfill the messages and promises of the Old Testament. For example, Jesus Christ is the messiah that was described in the Old Testament (Christians believe this). In addition, if your logic holds true that an "update" is needed every time that the meaning of holy scripture is corrupted then we should expect another prophet to visit the Earth to provide an "update" to Islam since, as you said it, some of its teachings have been "warped" or corrupted by extremists.</p>
<p>"Because people and times change, and the changes lead up to the one book that will be the last and not have an 'update'. We believe that all the prophets taught the same essential things, although some of their teachings have been warped nowadays."</p>
<p>I am not so sure there ever will be a "last" book; as long as humans exist human society will constantly change, and so still will our belief systems.</p>
<p>you have a good point though about the changing of the Quran because the people who collaborated on it understood more about the scientific world than those of older belief systems. </p>
<p>in a way, the books (the Bible, old/new testaments, Baghavadgita, the Koran, etc) demonstrate the progress of science, each one documenting what was best known at the time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The New Testament is not an update in the sense that it is meant to "correct" flaws within the Old Testament. The New Testament is intended to fulfill the messages and promises of the Old Testament. For example, Jesus Christ is the messiah that was described in the Old Testament (Christians believe this). In addition, if your logic holds true that an "update" is needed every time that the meaning of holy scripture is corrupted then we should expect another prophet to visit the Earth to provide an "update" to Islam since, as you said it, some of its teachings have been "warped" or corrupted by extremists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^ That prophet, for Christianity (not Islam) was Joseph Smith, according to the Latter-Day Saints. He brought the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Also referred to as a book "for our day."</p>
<p>Trancestorm, I strongly disagree with your accusation of Christianity as the extingusihing factor for the destruction the Mayas and Aztecs. Christianity, honestly, changed savage tribes to moral people. For years, the Aztecs practiced rituals of throwing young babies off of roof tops and murdering innocent people. Although some slavery was instituted, a sense of morality was finally established when Christianity came in.
The Bible is entirely accurate scientifically. The Bible mandates such laws as heliocentrism and gravity, ocean currents, and even medical details. Why, the Bible since its creation has told of the importance of blood. Up until the 1800s, patients underwent forced bleedings to remove "bad" blood. The Bible is not incorrect scientifically.
Yes, Trancestorm. I practice blind faith when it comes to my religion. You may call it what you wish, however Christianity is not science. Using science to prove theology is like using thermodynamics to explain literature. It can not be done.
I have a thought provoking question for y'all. Let us think to the beginning of time when some sort of natural phenomenon created the earth. Nothingness came to reality. But what was before the "Big Bang"? You all questioned the beginning of God. Do not all things have a beginning? Was the beginning just a huge expanse of darkness? Curious, indeed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition, if your logic holds true that an "update" is needed every time that the meaning of holy scripture is corrupted then we should expect another prophet to visit the Earth to provide an "update" to Islam since, as you said it, some of its teachings have been "warped" or corrupted by extremists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A select few have chosen to warp the teachings. Just because they get the most press coverage does not mean that all Muslims do what they do. Majority of Muslims, as I have explained time and time again, are not the extremists.
Muslims beleive that Mohammad was the last messenger, and the Quran was the last book. The Quran has never been changed or revised. This is why, as Gold_shadow said, it must contain references that anybody in any time period would be able to understand.</p>
<p>The Bible also stresses an Earth that's far younger than what dating from rock samples. How is this scientifically accurate? Unless you want to claim that God intended it to merely seem that way, yet then I must ask "why?" Why must an all-loving, all-benevolent God decide to make select things obvious, such as his Ten Commandments, and yet at the same time make something as the age of the Earth to seem otherwise? I am not sure if this kind of deceptive action is warranted from a benevolent God.</p>
<p>And as per your query on what predated the Big Bang, well, it is difficult to answer with certainty. Let me attempt to put it plainly: </p>
<p>-Let's say at t = 0, the universe was confined to singularity like say, in the inside of a black hole.
-Laws of physics don't apply in singularities.
-Therefore, just like how we will never know what's inside a black hole, we will never know what happened before t = 0 (Big Bang).</p>
<p>Yet how does this exempt God from the watchmen argument? It is accepted that there was something before the Big Bang, just that in all likelihood, we will know not. Yet before God, was there a beginning?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But what was before the "Big Bang"? You all questioned the beginning of God. Do not all things have a beginning? Was the beginning just a huge expanse of darkness? Curious, indeed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think all these have a beginning. People often attempt to corner science by saying "but what was before the big bang? before that? before that?" then automatically assert that so there must have been a god involved.</p>
<p>that doesn't have to happen. People are accustomed to most things in life having a beginning and end, but the same does not hold for science.
in my interpretation, the universe has been, is, and always will be.
there was never 'nothingness'</p>
<p>the concept of begining and end is a human creation</p>
<p>Justinian I: I could not agree more with your statement about the Aztec/Maya civilizations. Have you looked at my lengthy post that completely shreds trancestorm's comments to bits?</p>
<p>311Griff: Only Mormons regard John Smith as a prophet. Jesus Christ also warned that he was the last prophet and only false prophets would follow him. That is why most Christians believe that Muhammed and Joseph Smith are false prophets.</p>
<p>It is nice to be able to claim moral superiority when some of the world's greatest tragedies were incurred in the name of religion. The Crusades? The Inquisition?</p>
<p>This egocentric stance is one taken by almost every person in a group. Hell, the looting and plundering of Africa was claimed as the White Man's Burden. And since you (naturally) have the best interests of other people at heart, and (obviously) have the knowledge necessary to get that people or nation where it has to be, who better to do it than ____________ (insert your group)? Some call it paternalistic. Other people called it the White Man's Burden. And others beyond that called it reality.</p>
<p>sydney_bristow87: I think we've already gone through this. Let's just leave it at that. Even GoldShadow admits that some of Islam's teachings have been "warped".</p>
<p>everkingly, </p>
<p>whatever you say... (since you must have been there when Jesus said all that stuff) I was just pointing out a snippet of information in response to your endless/proofless argument.</p>
<p>By the way, it's not John Smith... oh, but i won't argue with you. I find it rather lame to argue about religion.</p>
<p>Amievil: Religion does not commit tragedies. People do.</p>
<p>Then it can also be said that Religion does not create morality. People do. (I agree.)</p>
<p>So if a person with good morals derived from a source other than religion had come in contact with the Aztecs and Mayas, it can be said that those said "uncivilized" civilizations would've gained all the benefits of morality without suffering the violence from those that came in the name of God, correct?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jesus Christ also warned that he was the last prophet and only false prophets would follow him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where are you getting this from? Jesus Christ spoke of a prophet that would come after him. Check out John 16, verses 12 and 13:</p>
<p>"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear."</p>
<p>"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we've already gone through this. Let's just leave it at that.
[/quote]
Agreed. I'm sick of repeating myself again and again.</p>
<p>311Griff: John Smith?</p>
<p>I am well aware of your intentions and I was just pointing out that most Christians do not regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. That's all. No harm done. No need to get angry.</p>
<p>No, I was not there when Jesus Christ presented his holy message but Jesus Christ did leave behind a historical account of his life in the form of the Bible and other historical accounts.</p>
<p>"Endless/proofless argument"
Are you kidding me? When have you offered any evidence? Don't be a hypocrite. This is a discourse about our personal beliefs pertaining to the spiritual realm. </p>
<p>"I find it rather lame to argue about religion."
That's why your statements make no sense.
If you find it lame to argue about religion then you are always free to leave. No one is forcing you to stay.</p>