First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply The Holy Quran Experiment
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


lorreen wrote:


Freddy96NO wrote:


lorreen wrote: Please add a brief summary of what the video is,
an test about bible as quran (< cover) then say something "then how do you think the bible is in comperson"
then show its the bible and not the quran so they are going to be suprised or hope so.
else nothing with bad intent in the video



Right, someone else did say that in another post. I want Sagenaruto to add a brief statement like that to the opening post.


Hey Lorreen just for clarification are my posts over the top or preachy sounding, I mean they seem a little off topic but I was just answering a question. Just don't want to get into trouble and all.


Spam is generally meant to annoy people. Jesuswasanigger annoyed people by spouting unpleasantness. I don;t think you'll get in trouble if you use spoilers to trim.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.
5573 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Mexico
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:
Basically this is how it works, OT is full of stories, such as origin, how the Jewish people came to be, how the old covenant was established between god and the Jews, how the Jews screwed over god and god punished them and prophets going on about how the Jews will once against be saved by this half man, half god and also a lot of ritual stuff to do with sacrifices (Not human lol). This is where the NT comes in (People would also consider Islam to break off from here as well), Jesus is basically a human sacrifice for the sins of humanity, he does that and establishes a new covenant. That a good summary? The later parts of the NT are basically the establishment of the early church and the last book is the prophecy for end times.


If the underlined part refers to the concept of Melekh Mashiach or commonly known as Messiah, it could be of interest to mention that point as a current hot topic of debate in Kabbalist circles, as there are some hints as to that refering to the planet itself or humanity as a whole, rather than a single individual.
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?


mfw when I forget about what we were originally arguing about.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
Now everyone goes back in time seeing it was a crazy guy writing on a wall, then another "oh!" writes more then someone else wrote it and it developed XP
and seeing the most weird rules ever! XD and then changed agian and agian until everyone becomes sick of the whole thing.. lol
13496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
I've heard this works the other way too. I doubt anybody has actually memorised the holy books before. At the very least, no normal street person.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

shinblade wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:
Basically this is how it works, OT is full of stories, such as origin, how the Jewish people came to be, how the old covenant was established between god and the Jews, how the Jews screwed over god and god punished them and prophets going on about how the Jews will once against be saved by this half man, half god and also a lot of ritual stuff to do with sacrifices (Not human lol). This is where the NT comes in (People would also consider Islam to break off from here as well), Jesus is basically a human sacrifice for the sins of humanity, he does that and establishes a new covenant. That a good summary? The later parts of the NT are basically the establishment of the early church and the last book is the prophecy for end times.


If the underlined part refers to the concept of Melekh Mashiach or commonly known as Messiah, it could be of interest to mention that point as a current hot topic of debate in Kabbalist circles, as there are some hints as to that refering to the planet itself or humanity as a whole, rather than a single individual.


Never heard about it, not very knowledgeable of Jewish circles of doctrine. Sounds very unorthodox though.
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?


mfw when I forget about what we were originally arguing about.

My claim was that most Christians do not read the bible, of course this takes from my experience of skimming when I was a Christian, whereas Ejanss states something or another about only religious bashers and atheist only quoting the old testament due to its nature.
5573 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Mexico
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:



Never heard about it, not very knowledgeable of Jewish circles of doctrine. Sounds very unorthodox though.


You are correct, it is very unorthodox, from a Christian point of view, because it contradicts the base of Christianity.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?


mfw when I forget about what we were originally arguing about.

My claim was that most Christians do not read the bible, of course this takes from my experience of skimming when I was a Christian, whereas Ejanss states something or another about only religious bashers and atheist only quoting the old testament due to its nature.


I believe the majority of "Christians" would of read parts of the bible but not all of it. It's quite a large read. I can almost guarantee you that not even 1% of the Christian population has read Leviticus fully, one of my most boring reads to date.
Posted 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?


mfw when I forget about what we were originally arguing about.

My claim was that most Christians do not read the bible, of course this takes from my experience of skimming when I was a Christian, whereas Ejanss states something or another about only religious bashers and atheist only quoting the old testament due to its nature.


I believe the majority of "Christians" would of read parts of the bible but not all of it. It's quite a large read. I can almost guarantee you that not even 1% of the Christian population has read Leviticus fully, one of my most boring reads to date.

Valid point. I guess I should rescind my statement. "I don't think a lot of Christians have read the old testament and would agree with it." Is that better?
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

GrandMasterTime wrote: I believe the majority of "Christians" would of read parts of the bible but not all of it. It's quite a large read. I can almost guarantee you that not even 1% of the Christian population has read Leviticus fully, one of my most boring reads to date.


"Leviticus" means "That which was written by the Levites". Meaning, the laws that Hebrews followed in the B.C. (And what does BC stand for?...)
They were written down because the OT was an archive of everything the Hebrews wanted to preserve--from laws, obviously, to origin legends to proverbs to poems to songs to tribal census statistics to the popular pronouncements of the various Prophets--before some Babylonian or Philistine came along and tried to wipe their people out again...Hence the emphasis on stories about being conquered, and about people who had horrible bad things happen to them when they associated with icky evil foreigners and married filthy sinful shiksas. But that doesn't make it literary, nor does it make it connected as one solid entity.

To quote a Bible verse telling you that your wife deserves a public stoning if she has an affair is, how shall we put this?.....somewhat DATED a reference, rather predating most of the 1st-century events in the NT that get most of the press.
And to say or believe that's what the entire book is about is laughably gullible at one end or the other.

Bashers use it because it says what they want it to say, or hope it will say, they just never quite get around to quoting the bits of it that don't.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
Or, that only atheists and religion-bashers read the Old Testament:

"Like it says in the Bible, 'An eye for an eye'!"
"Oh, it does not, where does it say that?"
"Leviticus!"
"Oh, that, the Jewish part.... "


So what, God just changed his mind and said "Well, I made a mistake, time to begin anew" ? Basically invalidating his first book as BS or inaccurate? Is God that fickle?


No, somebody else wrote the politically-skewed unauthorized version of history and gave God the credit...Unfortunately, lawyers didn't exist back then, so He had to send His own representative down to deal with the Pharisees directly, and send them a personally delivered cease-and-desist message to cut back on the character-assassinating "Floods and earthquakes and personally destroying the cities of bad people" scare-tactic/xenophobia crap.
They weren't happy about called on the carpet about it, as I recall, and the negotiations went none too smoothly, but by that point there was some SERIOUS need for damage control, as the old regime had pretty much thrown the basic message down the toilet just for some rightwing over-nationalized propaganda during the Occupation.


So basically, if you cite the Old Testament, your claim is BS if it conflicts with the New?


No, it just means you haven't been reading that danged closely, or that it's being mindlessly parroted 100% out of context, like people who misquote Shakespeare.
(And geez, do Shakespeare misquoters who've never seen a play drive me up the wall... )
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


I'm not going to get into a debate over what the authors of the original books were thinking when they wrote the stories as I'm not personally strong in OT biblical authentication and historical writing styles. The OT is not invalid but a Christian isn't bound to something like OT cultural laws such as circumcision. There's a lot of difference in beliefs between Christians regarding the books to be literal stories or not but the majority would agree that they happened.


Sorry, should've phrased my question to "am I wrong"?


mfw when I forget about what we were originally arguing about.

My claim was that most Christians do not read the bible, of course this takes from my experience of skimming when I was a Christian, whereas Ejanss states something or another about only religious bashers and atheist only quoting the old testament due to its nature.




Valid point. I guess I should rescind my statement. "I don't think a lot of Christians have read the old testament and would agree with it." Is that better?



Listen I have no actual idea if you're right or wrong regarding how many Christians read their holy text as I'm only going off my personal experiences with them in chat rooms and such. I'm not saying you're wrong about that so no need to retract your statement. I believe your claims before about how the OT was not applicable or how the OT god was hypocritical were wrong. That is all.
5573 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Mexico
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
Wow, Peripheral and GrandMasterTime, you are very polite in your discussions, are you perhaps undercover Oxford students?

Hm, I am in need of a monocle smiley face
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.