Originally posted by finnegan
Hold the phone there, pilgrim. The subject of re-writes was introduced by you, not anyone else. I'm merely the guy who challenged you on it.
Not untrue but it was in a different thread and that is a different debate. You have hijacked this topic here.
[]...because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so and the mistaken assumption that in that case I might be upset.[/b]
Not untrue but it was in a different thread and that is a different debate. You have hijacked this topic here.
...because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
I 'feel' that way only because you've failed to support your assertions otherwise.
Well in fact on 14 March I ended my discussion as follows:
You wrote: As far as the 66 books being compiled over the course of 1500+ years, that's hardly a newsflash.
I replied: Precisely and similarly my comment that the Qu'ran is accepted by all Muslims is simply a matter of fact. I fail to see what you are debating here or why it matters.
Let's keep the order straight. In the other thread, you made the unsupported (and ultimately baseless) assertion that the Bible has been subject to re-writes... in contrast to the Qu'ran, which, according to you, is the unaltered text serving as the basis of faith for Muslims worldwide. When challenged for proof of these re-writes, you waved it off with a reference to Karen Armstrong
Reveal Hidden Contentthat bastion of intellectual pursuit, whose contributions to the discussion can be summed up in two words: speculative pulp
, and a vague-at-best generalization of the seeming contradictions of Genesis' two opening narratives. By any standard, your assertions did not stand.
With that background, in this discussion you attempted to trot/drag out the same dead horse, albeit with a new saddle on him. It's essentially the same crap, nonetheless, and you have yet to back up your claim of biblical re-writes. You have but one objective in the game: cast doubt on the veracity and reliability of the Bible. It's a cute ploy, but really rather tiring coming from a person of your obvious intellectual curiosity. Were you less robust in your thinking, the obsession would make more sense; however, you have otherwise shown yourself as far too adroit to sell this non-issue as a view you honestly hold.
Maybe you meant something different? I would not wish to put words into your mouth as you might suffocate.
Yep. I ought to have used a word such as 'vacillation' or some such. Thanks for looking out.
For example on this Forum they attack the Qu'ran as violent and say Christianity is not violent by referring exclusively to what Jesus said, neglecting to acknowledge that Christianity embraces the entire Bible, in which case their comparisons are not quite so convincing. For example I gave a quote from Jeremiah in another thread.
As you yourself have already admitted, the Qu'ran was put together during a predominately violent time. The Muslim world is all about submission and aggression--- struggle, in a word. Christianity makes some specific, unequivocal claims regarding the kingdom of God which place it at odds with any view (including those found within the Holy Roman Empire) which encompasses an earthly iteration of that kingdom. The Qu'ran speaks from such a view when it denies freedom of choice.
The dispensation at the time of Jeremiah's laments was unique to that time and was a precursor to the Church Age. To be sure, there is coming an exceedingly violent time in the history of man, as has never been seen before. It will be visited upon this planet by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself!
Which of course is what happens when you declare that 2000 years of Christian history is all not relevant because they had it wrong and of course the Pope is not a Christian anyway and never was.
Wheat, tares.
Here it may indeed be that sources contradict each other but the judgement is not made by a majority vote, it is made on the quality of the evidence and reasoning.
Well of course it is. And it goes without saying that anyone who concludes differently than you on the subject is doing so on the basis of bad input and poor reasoning. Ha!
So we are not in dispute here at all. That's good don't you think?
I feel no rosy glow, but it does offer some respite, oddly.
I was not aware that your pal jaywill had any status as one of the founders of Christianity and his opinion about the underlying motivation and sincerity of these people is entirely imaginative on his part, however much you may agree with it.
All it takes is a dedication to study and an open mind.
So the author of Romans was out for their blood? That is a ludicrous distortion. Obviously the author of Romans was a changed man from the younger Paul and you know that so you are playing about with words.
Aack! I was pointing out that this "Jew of Jews," a former high-ranking member of the ruling Jewish priesthood who was so fervent for the purity of his faith that he was a willing participant in seeking the destruction of those who blasphemed the Word of God, after transformation became the leading proponent of Christianity. To say that he had a different message, a new message other than what was put forth by the Lord Jesus Christ fails to align with the facts. Such a view demands that Paul be an opportunist rather than a man of faith--- which makes literally no sense whatsoever, when one considers the histrocity of Paul's suffering and ultimate death in the name of Christianity.
I wonder if we use that word "myth" in the same way. It does not mean lie, for example, and is not inherently derogatory. Certainly it is so widely accepted that your foaming at the keyboard must have other explanations.
Ask 100 people if the term 'myth' is equated with truth or fiction, then get back to me with the results.
On 9 March I wrote: "Well I reckon the Qu'ran was indeed completed by 700 give or take. So 1,400 years is about there. Unlike the Bible it has not been subject to extensive re-writing, nor to selective memory according to the groups using it. All Muslims rely on the identical, unchanging text."
I do not see any statement about reliability. None whatever. As an atheist I am not inclined to favour either source in those terms. They are also so different to each other on nearly every level that making comparisons is close to the proverbial apples and oranges.
Seriously? When you look up the word 'reliability,' does the definition give any indication of the term 'rely' within it?
Reveal Hidden Contenthttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reliability
If the Muslims are relying on an unchanging text and the Christians are supposedly relying on a changing,
vacillating text, which of the two groups could be considered to have a more reliable base?
You could only justify your agressive position on the basis that you and jaywill are absolutely right and everyone who disagrees with you is worse than wrong.
I prefer to believe that I am right simply because I am so damn good looking. Heck, you base your assumptions on something equally specious, so I can't be that far off, right?