If a god wrote a book ...

[Neo Deist]

If any verse was not true in the Quraan, than there is no need to believe in it in the first place.

Qu'ran 7:189 "He it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same (kind) did He make his mate..."

Sahih Bukhari 4:55:548 "Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah 's Apostle said, "Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely."

Not only were these "borrowed" from the Hebrew Tanakh, but they are flat out wrong. Genetics has already shown that we did not come from an original pair of humans. It would take at least 10,000 "originals" to account for the diversity in the human population of today. And it certainly did not happen a mere 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.

I guess there is no need to believe in the Qu'ran!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't seem to understand....or maybe you don't want to. These people just didn't like the Israelites, they were wanting to kill them! They fought, they lost. If your children were targets to be killed, what would you do to protect them? (2 Thessalonians 1:6) And yet, we have examples of individuals who were members of these avowed enemy nations, who became proselytes and were accepted. And they weren't made slaves, LOL.

And if Jehovah, the Creator of life, decides to take that life away at the time, since He can read hearts, (and death is only sleep -- no torment) and He can give life back to (resurrect) those whom He wants.... I'll leave it with Him, even my life.

You are "owned" by god?

 

[Sabour]

Qu'ran 7:189 "He it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same (kind) did He make his mate..."

Sahih Bukhari 4:55:548 "Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah 's Apostle said, "Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely."

Not only were these "borrowed" from the Hebrew Tanakh, but they are flat out wrong. Genetics has already shown that we did not come from an original pair of humans. It would take at least 10,000 "originals" to account for the diversity in the human population of today. And it certainly did not happen a mere 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.

are
I don't take what you've stated as a fact.

For what it is worth, I would like you to know that Moses and Jesus peace be upon them were among the many prophets in Islam. And some of the prophets received revelations just like the Quraan. For instance Injeel and Torah. And thus there are similar fact in all of these books and common stories. This is to answer the part were you said "borrowed" from the Hebrew Tanakh.

 

[arthra]

.... what would we expect to see in that book? What would we expect to not see?
As "a God", I'm speaking of a being most commonly associated with god: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omni-benevolent.
IF such a being truly wrote a book .... what would it look like?

You know the origin of "books"? Where what we call "books" today came from?

But book binding and pages and so on have an Islamic origin.

http://artesdellibro.com/pdf/islamic_art_bookbinding.pdf

Anyway the Qur'an would be such a "book" with the revelation of God there in...

The Prophet revealed what He was told .. It was repeated and later set down in a manuscript and then later printed in a book.

Siyyid Ali Muhammad the Bab wrote a "Book" in His own hand what was revealed to Him by the Almighty and so on.

 

[Neo Deist]

are
I don't take what you've stated as a fact.

For what it is worth, I would like you to know that Moses and Jesus peace be upon them were among the many prophets in Islam. And some of the prophets received revelations just like the Quraan. For instance Injeel and Torah. And thus there are similar fact in all of these books and common stories. This is to answer the part were you said "borrowed" from the Hebrew Tanakh.

Uhm...

Islam came about hundreds of years AFTER Christianity, which is an offspring of Judaism. The stories that were already traveling around the greater Mediterranean area, are just repeated/re-branded in the Qu'ran.

That does not change the fact that genetics has already shown that the Tanakh/OT/Qu'ran are false with regard to our origin. Like it or not, science prevails. You can continue to claim that "I don't take that as fact" if you like, but you'll be ignorant in doing so. I guess ignorance is bliss.

 

[Sabour]

Islam came about hundreds of years AFTER Christianity, which is an offspring of Judaism. The stories that were already traveling around the greater Mediterranean area, are just repeated/re-branded in the Qu'ran.

I told you why it seems that way. Quraan can be regarded as a last revelation from God. That is why there are similar stories. The message in the revelations is consistent. That is they all call for worshiping the One God. They also have references to prophets and their stories.

That does not change the fact that genetics has already shown that the Tanakh/OT/Qu'ran are false with regard to our origin. Like it or not, science prevails. You can continue to claim that "I don't take that as fact" if you like, but you'll be ignorant in doing so. I guess ignorance is bliss.

I don't see that as a fact. You made a claim that I am ignorant because I don't agree with you, I can do the same. That doesn't mean I am right or you are right.

Science agrees like 80 % with the Quraan when it comes for scientific facts, as for the rest its ambiguous. Your statement "science prevails" serves no purpose what so ever. Science and Quraan are not against each other.

 

[Neo Deist]

I told you why it seems that way. Quraan can be regarded as a last revelation from God. That is why there are similar stories. The message in the revelations is consistent. That is they all call for worshiping the One God. They also have references to prophets and their stories.




I don't see that as a fact. You made a claim that I am ignorant because I don't agree with you, I can do the same. That doesn't mean I am right or you are right.

Science agrees like 80 % with the Quraan when it comes for scientific facts, as for the rest its ambiguous. Your statement "science prevails" serves no purpose what so ever. Science and Quraan are not against each other.

Ostrich syndrome...head, meet sand.

 

[psychoslice]

I wonder what language he would write it in, whatever he picks will be taken as the best and only language of god, that's how silly humans act like.

 

[Sabour]

Ostrich syndrome...head, meet sand.

And scientists that have the same view as I do have that syndrome too .... but of course, not for the contributors of the "Piltdown Man" hoax .....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are "owned" by god?

Hello, Carlita, hope you are well.

That's an interesting question...... I guess, since I got baptized -- which is an outward symbol of my dedication to both Jehovah God and His Son Jesus, and I willingly did so: yes, God 'owns' me. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Just curious though, what made you ask that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello, Carlita, hope you are well.

That's an interesting question...... I guess, since I got baptized -- which is an outward symbol of my dedication to both Jehovah God and His Son Jesus, and I willingly did so: yes, God 'owns' me. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Just curious though, what made you ask that?

Thank you for asking.

This caught my attention (highlights):

And if Jehovah, the Creator of life, decides to take that life away at the time, since He can read hearts, (and death is only sleep -- no torment) and He can give life back to (resurrect) those whom He wants.... I'll leave it with Him, even my life.

Logically, I can see why you'd say that. If one created you he can, well, make you sleep-to put in nice words.

In my view, that is like my parents deciding to have a child and feeling, since they are my parents, they have the right to abort me or take my life at a later age. I feel it's an abuse of authority and how we should (in my view) see who is the "parent" and who is the child.​

If a christian (and any god-believer) can validate humanely that god can take a life that he created, that's basically saying, god owns your life. So whatever you do is for him.

For example, in any spiritualist tradition, we honor the deceased and many our ancestors. What we do is our choice and not being obligated or owned by our ancestors etc is saying I love you because I choose to do this for you (give an offering, light a candle, etc).

I could go on because I love this subject..... but, my point is, from your comment, it made me think you are owned/slave to god. Not as a child of a parent but a slave of a master. It's not a bad thing from a christian perspective. It just doesn't sit right with me morally.
​

That's why it caught my attention.

 

[Neo Deist]

And scientists that have the same view as I do have that syndrome too .... but of course, not for the contributors of the "Piltdown Man" hoax .....

Name one non-Muslim, credible scientist that agrees that the Qu'ran is without error, and that we are all descended from a single pair of original humans...

"tic toc tic toc"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thank you for asking.

This caught my attention (highlights):



Logically, I can see why you'd say that. If one created you he can, well, make you sleep-to put in nice words.

In my view, that is like my parents deciding to have a child and feeling, since they are my parents, they have the right to abort me or take my life at a later age. I feel it's an abuse of authority and how we should (in my view) see who is the "parent" and who is the child.​

If a christian (and any god-believer) can validate humanely that god can take a life that he created, that's basically saying, god owns your life. So whatever you do is for him.

For example, in any spiritualist tradition, we honor the deceased and many our ancestors. What we do is our choice and not being obligated or owned by our ancestors etc is saying I love you because I choose to do this for you (give an offering, light a candle, etc).

I could go on because I love this subject..... but, my point is, from your comment, it made me think you are owned/slave to god. Not as a child of a parent but a slave of a master. It's not a bad thing from a christian perspective. It just doesn't sit right with me morally.
​

That's why it caught my attention.

Ok, I understand your unease. I know, though, that Jehovah God will always have my best interests at heart. (Just like loving parents.) And He's proven it, to me, by providing a ransom sacrifice (which I understand; this explains it, somewhat: http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005135?q=the+ransom&p=par ) at great cost to Himself, seeing His Son die painfully. That's why I'm willing to die, if need be......He will, and is the only One who can, give my life back. The Resurrection is a promise, I'm not worried.

 

[Riverwolf]

They also have references to prophets and their stories.

And these stories only have cognates in that region of the world. Direct cognates and equivalents, such as the very notion of "prophet", are not found elsewhere in the world.

Certainly our region never got one.

And scientists that have the same view as I do have that syndrome too .... but of course, not for the contributors of the "Piltdown Man" hoax .....

How come only the ones who contributed to that hoax are brought up in these debates, but never the fact that it was scientists who exposed it for the nationalism-inspired hoax that it was?

One reason being that its existence was based on several assumptions we now know to be incorrect. Including, but not limited to, "humans are inherently separate from, and superior to, animals", or "there is a 'missing link' between humans and apes".

 

[Sabour]

Name one non-Muslim, credible scientist that agrees that the Qu'ran is without error, and that we are all descended from a single pair of original humans...

"tic toc tic toc"

These are typical questions put forward for anyone who wants to talk about Islam.

There would be no point mentioning any, since you said the scientist should be credible. So basically, you would classify any of the ones I mention as not credible. I saw it happen with some members here again again and again.

Besides, anyone who establishes that Quraan is without error is required to be a muslim and most of them do actually. So asking me for a non-muslim, credible scientist who believes that Quraan is without error is like asking for a creationist who believes that we came from monkeys. See the two conditions don't match. The person who believes that Quraan is without error will most probably become a muslim.


"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)


"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)




Scientists who accepted Islam

Keith L. Moore,
E. Marshall Johnson

Joe Leigh Simpson
Gerald C. Goeringer
Alfred Kroner
Yushidi Kusan
Professor Armstrong
William Hay
Durja Rao
Tejatat Tejasen
Dr. Maurice Bucaille

 

[Sabour]

And these stories only have cognates in that region of the world. Direct cognates and equivalents, such as the very notion of "prophet", are not found elsewhere in the world.

Certainly our region never got one.

Let me quote. " Many Western researchers acknowledge the famous map of Piri Reis as proof of Muslim presence in America long before the endeavors of Columbus,"

How come only the ones who contributed to that hoax are brought up in these debates, but never the fact that it was scientists who exposed it for the nationalism-inspired hoax that it was?
.

It took a period of 40 years to expose the hoax after writing so many researches and publications. This shows negligence on the matter to say the least.

 

[Riverwolf]

Let me quote. " Many Western researchers acknowledge the famous map of Piri Reis as proof of Muslim presence in America long before the endeavors of Columbus,"

First of all, not what I meant by "our region." I was referring to our Urheimat. I'm not Karkin.

Second of all, hail to Vinland!

It took a period of 40 years to expose the hoax after writing so many researches and publications. This shows negligence on the matter to say the least.

And it was exposed well over 60 years ago, and taught the scientific community to be far more diligent and skeptical of new discoveries.

Lesson learned, move on.

 

[Neo Deist]

These are typical questions put forward for anyone who wants to talk about Islam.

There would be no point mentioning any, since you said the scientist should be credible. So basically, you would classify any of the ones I mention as not credible. I saw it happen with some members here again again and again.

Translation: they don't exist.

There is not a single, non-biased, non-Muslim influenced scientist that would support your claims from verifiable, independent research. There is a good reason for that...your claims are nonsense (as are any other YEC's or Adam and Eve'rs).

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Regarding God's ancient people the Israelites, too bad many of those other nations had to attack the Israelites! (They should have meditated on the outcome of the Egyptians, in defying Jehovah and His people. Even many Egyptians left with the Israelites.) If only these other nations had acted like the Gibeonites, they would have experienced Jehovah's mercy and survived, as Acts says!

... But since they didn't behave like the Gibeonites, that gave reason to kill every living being? That gave them the "right" to divide the Midianite virgins as sexual slaves (Numbers 31:17-18?) Or rejoicing at the thought of dashing infants against stones (Psalm 139)? Or the "mercy" he bestowed upon the Egyptians, when several times over the Egyptian Pharoh agreed to the demand "let my people go" but "God hardened pharoh's heart"?

I could go on; but I remember that I am in a ... "less confrontational" ... site than other forums I occasionally frequent; but, from reading the scriptures, I see the only mercy god bestows is mercy against his own punishment for violating rules (or having Adam's bloodline) all of which he allegedly created.

You don't seem to understand....or maybe you don't want to. These people just didn't like the Israelites, they were wanting to kill them!

Have you ever held a baby and saw the consciousness, life, wisdom, intelligence in those precious eyes? Cowboy; an infant it completely incapable of being evil; completely incapable of "wanting to kill" anyone; completely incapable of being an enemy to anyone or anything ... including an enemy of the Israelites, or of any god. The idea that this entire culture, even among the more grown within their ranks, were unified in the opinion of "hating and wanting to kill the Israelites". Believing that infants and every single human being in Canaan were enemies of of the Israelites is just nonsensical.

"Immorality, pagan worship, and child sacrifice were widespread in Canaan. Bible historian Henry H. Halley notes that archaeologists excavating the area “found great numbers of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal [a prominent god of the Canaanites].” He adds: “The whole area proved to be a cemetery for new-born babes. . . . Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.” "

If your deity condemned human sacrifice, why then, would your deity accept a human sacrifice? Is it because they were sacrificed to the wrong deity? (Judges 11:30-40); If the slaughter of the firstborn is wrong, why was that very same act committed on the command of your deity (Exodus 11:1-8). How can you expect me to possibly believe that every single Canaanite was of like mind? (Or Sodomite? Or any other -ite listed in that book of war?) Provided, of course, any of this is even true; and is not, of course, exaggerated. Moreover, that there are many cultures who performed human sacrifices that continue, in one form or another, today: and continue to occur; as in Uganda and South Africa, for 2; Why are these societies not destroyed as the Canaanites?

Sorry; I can't buy your line of reasoning. Regardless of whether a child dies on an alter, or at the spear of an Israelite, the child is still dead; and I see no moral difference between the two acts; only different forms of insanity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

... But since they didn't behave like the Gibeonites, that gave reason to kill every living being? That gave them the "right" to divide the Midianite virgins as sexual slaves (Numbers 31:17-18?) Or rejoicing at the thought of dashing infants against stones (Psalm 139)? Or the "mercy" he bestowed upon the Egyptians, when several times over the Egyptian Pharoh agreed to the demand "let my people go" but "God hardened pharoh's heart"?

I could go on; but I remember that I am in a ... "less confrontational" ... site than other forums I occasionally frequent; but, from reading the scriptures, I see the only mercy god bestows is mercy against his own punishment for violating rules (or having Adam's bloodline) all of which he allegedly created.



Have you ever held a baby and saw the consciousness, life, wisdom, intelligence in those precious eyes? Cowboy; an infant it completely incapable of being evil; completely incapable of "wanting to kill" anyone; completely incapable of being an enemy to anyone or anything ... including an enemy of the Israelites, or of any god. The idea that this entire culture, even among the more grown within their ranks, were unified in the opinion of "hating and wanting to kill the Israelites". Believing that infants and every single human being in Canaan were enemies of of the Israelites is just nonsensical.



If your deity condemned human sacrifice, why then, would your deity accept a human sacrifice? Is it because they were sacrificed to the wrong deity? (Judges 11:30-40); If the slaughter of the firstborn is wrong, why was that very same act committed on the command of your deity (Exodus 11:1-8). How can you expect me to possibly believe that every single Canaanite was of like mind? (Or Sodomite? Or any other -ite listed in that book of war?) Provided, of course, any of this is even true; and is not, of course, exaggerated. Moreover, that there are many cultures who performed human sacrifices that continue, in one form or another, today: and continue to occur; as in Uganda and South Africa, for 2; Why are these societies not destroyed as the Canaanites?

Sorry; I can't buy your line of reasoning. Regardless of whether a child dies on an alter, or at the spear of an Israelite, the child is still dead; and I see no moral difference between the two acts; only different forms of insanity.

Both you and Riverwolf present some very good questions, and they require lengthy, detailed answers. But it is late for me.... I will attempt to answer these later. Riverwolf didn't even want to discuss the issues, saying he didn't care for the source. Well, that's on him.

Are you willing to reason on these events, and the information the Bible gives us about them, by looking deeper into the Scriptures? Because there are facets of these situations that can help one understand, if a person is willing and open.

EDIT: I did not find Psalm 139 to say what you indicated.

Also, you mention this site as 'less confrontational' than others..... You wouldn't ever be on IMDb's forum, would you?