The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[Sleeppy]

Quran is not perfect..., please prove it to me.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

Quran 25:53. Quran 16:15. Quran 6:125. Quran 16:79. Quran 18:96-97. Quran 19:27-28.. Etc.

 

[Nakosis]

What are your opinions on Jesus'es dying for mankind's sins?

People go about telling others to "Believe as I believe because it will please God."

All you're really doing is pleasing the people claiming to know what God wants.

You know as a father, what my kids can do to please me?... Just find real happiness. That's it, that is all I need. A benevolent God shouldn't require anything else from us.

I provide rules not because it pleases me to have my kids follow them but because I'd like to limit the difficulties they will face while growing up.

My job is to help them understand the consequences of the choices they make. Not create some artificial form of pain and suffering to make them pay for breaking the rules.

 

[Britedream]

Do bees eat all fruit?

Is this the best you can come up with to prove your point.
You are totally wrong, the translation is false, the arabic word that is mentioned in this regards is thimar means produce, not fruit, the Second thing is you used all , while the Quran verse uses min, which means part.

you have to know arabic to understand, you know that, the bees were at the prophet time, and there are many of his enemy that were trying to discredit the quran, they know the arabic very well, no one brought such claim.

you have to know the language, you can say in arabic , I juice the wine; means I juice the grape to produce the wine, this on also in the Quran, so equaly the verse actually says eat from some of the produce's juice.

 

[Nakosis]

These types of 'coincidences' are a lot more common than you realize. I took the time to look at the video; you take the time to research Bible code probabilities, and to read that link I provided. Even greater coincidences occur outside of the Quran. Quran is not perfect in regards to science or prophecy. You're being misled. The importance of Quran is not in coincidence or science; you should test the actual teachings for effectiveness in bringing peaceful relations between God's creation.

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that is true of imperfection too.

Perfection is a personal judgement. I suspect it being difficult to convince someone their judgement is wrong.

 

[sojourner]

1-I am not correcting your theology, nor I care to do so, I am just showing you, that it doesn't make sense to me.

I told you that a long time ago, and it upset you.

2- you are wrong on this one

Fine. Prove God exists.

3- do whatever pleases you, but please, don't contribute it to God unless you have a proof.

Again: theology isn't based upon proof, but upon imaginative understanding.

 

[Britedream]

Scientific Errors in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

Quran 25:53. Quran 16:15. Quran 6:125. Quran 16:79. Quran 18:96-97. Quran 19:27-28.. Etc.

I scan through the wikiislam, this is not a reliable source, I will show you an example, in the wikiislam, claim the God uses "Noor" to denote light emited, and verse in the Quran, says, He put the moon in the the heaven as Noor, which means it is reflecting light, yet they say the contrary, the verse is in the Quran for any one to see. for the one emiting light Quran uses thia, means body that emits light. so God says the sun is thia.


please do not rely on non muslms in the meaning of the arabic or the verses.

 

[sojourner]

I scan through the wikiislam, this is not a reliable source, I will show you an example, in the wikiislam, claim the God uses light instead of "Noor", and verse in the Quran, says, He put the moon in the the heaven as Noor, which means it is reflecting light, yet they say the contrary, the verse is in the Quran for any one to see.

please do not rely on non muslms in the meaning of the arabic or the verses.

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me...

 

[Britedream]

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me...

Sorry,
Thank you for bring that to my attention

 

[Britedream]

Scientific Errors in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

Quran 25:53. Quran 16:15. Quran 6:125. Quran 16:79. Quran 18:96-97. Quran 19:27-28.. Etc.

Look how the authors of your link strive to find errors in the Quran,how desperate they are. please visit the link and read through it.
Talk:Scientific Errors in the Quran - WikiIslam

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok well the blog doesn't answer which mutations would define the first humans. Again, it is an unanswerable question. The blog simply says that it can be imagined that because of ancestors, there would be an initial pair. You can imagine all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

The idea is that all you need is for, somewhere down the line, two common ancestors that we are all related to who have human souls and a human nature. Doesn't mean that they were the only two hominids on Earth.

And that still doesn't show how my statement was illogical.

I'm sorry, I'm still trying to understand what you were saying. Are you saying that we were forced into free will so we don't really have free will?

 

[Sleeppy]

Is this the best you can come up with to prove your point.
You are totally wrong, the translation is false, the arabic word that is mentioned in this regards is thimar means produce, not fruit, the Second thing is you used all , while the Quran verse uses min, which means part.

you have to know arabic to understand, you know that, the bees were at the prophet time, and there are many of his enemy that were trying to discredit the quran, they know the arabic very well, no one brought such claim.

you have to know the language, you can say in arabic , I juice the wine; means I juice the grape to produce the wine, this on also in the Quran, so equaly the verse actually says eat from some of the produce's juice.

No it's not the best I can find; I actually retracted that one, because bees eat fruit juice. I found several other errors, which you can correct if you're able.

 

[Sleeppy]

I scan through the wikiislam, this is not a reliable source, I will show you an example, in the wikiislam, claim the God uses "Noor" to denote light emited, and verse in the Quran, says, He put the moon in the the heaven as Noor, which means it is reflecting light, yet they say the contrary, the verse is in the Quran for any one to see. for the one emiting light Quran uses thia, means body that emits light. so God says the sun is thia.


please do not rely on non muslms in the meaning of the arabic or the verses.

Translate each of the verses I've listed and I will show you why they are errors.

 

[Sleeppy]

Look how the authors of your link strive to find errors in the Quran,how desperate they are. please visit the link and read through it.
Talk:Scientific Errors in the Quran - WikiIslam

It doesn't matter if they were desperate or not. What matters is whether or not they are right.

 

[serp777]

The idea is that all you need is for, somewhere down the line, two common ancestors that we are all related to who have human souls and a human nature. Doesn't mean that they were the only two hominids on Earth.

I'm sorry, I'm still trying to understand what you were saying. Are you saying that we were forced into free will so we don't really have free will?

Again there was no first two humans because it makes no sense to draw a line. You can't say --" AHA, those two mutations now mean the entity is human." Differences species don't come about in one generation. It happens gradually--it would be like asking at what instant someone became an adult from a teenager. So the ancestor tree argument is false.

Also would you say neanderthals don't have souls? They are a different species, and yet they have art, science, technology, culture, and communication; all the things which we use to define intelligence and consciousness. Neanderthals even bred with many humans, and we have some of their genetic code as a result (Europeans more likely to have some neanderthal DNA).

"I'm sorry, I'm still trying to understand what you were saying. Are you saying that we were forced into free will so we don't really have free will?"

I'm saying we have no choice but to have free will if a deity gave it to us. Being given free will by a deity defeats the purpose of free will because we had no choice other than to have it and leads to a contradiction. It's just a paradox. I still disagree with you fundamental assertions about free will. You're making it a false dilemma--you're portraying it as either you have free will or you don't. I make the argument that partial free will exists.

 

[Britedream]

Translate each of the verses I've listed and I will show you why they are errors.

you are the one who is claiming there are errors, so show me where are the errors, the burden of the prove is on the one who claims.

Please, do not copy and paste, and go by someone else claim.

 

[Britedream]

No it's not the best I can find; I actually retracted that one, because bees eat fruit juice. I found several other errors, which you can correct if you're able.

Sorry, we are not in a guessing game, I am not going to waste my time and yours, on you listing verses that you are not sure if there are errors in them.

Please make sure you know the error.

 

[Britedream]

It doesn't matter if they were desperate or not. What matters is whether or not they are right.

Please go ahead, make my day, show me where they are right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Again there was no first two humans because it makes no sense to draw a line. You can't say --" AHA, those two mutations now mean the entity is human." Differences species don't come about in one generation. It happens gradually--it would be like asking at what instant someone became an adult from a teenager. So the ancestor tree argument is false.

It's not about a genetic mutation. It would only depend on if they had a human soul like we do.

Also would you say neanderthals don't have souls? They are a different species, and yet they have art, science, technology, culture, and communication; all the things which we use to define intelligence and consciousness. Neanderthals even bred with many humans, and we have some of their genetic code as a result (Europeans more likely to have some neanderthal DNA).

I believe that all living things have a soul but each species has a different type of soul suitable for that species.

I'm saying we have no choice but to have free will if a deity gave it to us. Being given free will by a deity defeats the purpose of free will because we had no choice other than to have it and leads to a contradiction. It's just a paradox. I still disagree with you fundamental assertions about free will. You're making it a false dilemma--you're portraying it as either you have free will or you don't. I make the argument that partial free will exists.

The only paradox that exists is the one that you made up yourself by over-thinking things. I'm not seeing it.

I didn't create a dilemma.

 

[Sleeppy]

you are the one who is claiming there are errors, so show me where are the errors, the burden of the prove is on the one who claims.

Please, do not copy and paste, and go by someone else claim.

I accept the burden. I'm giving you the opportunity to present your translations of the text. I don't know Arabic, but apparently you do. Quran 43:3

 

[serp777]

It's not about a genetic mutation. It would only depend on if they had a human soul like we do.



I believe that all living things have a soul but each species has a different type of soul suitable for that species.



The only paradox that exists is the one that you made up yourself by over-thinking things. I'm not seeing it.

I didn't create a dilemma.

"It's not about a genetic mutation. It would only depend on if they had a human soul like we do. "

So which genetic mutation allow someone a human soul? Surely you would agree that a rodent doesn't have a human soul, so what genetic difference grants someone a human soul? How do you know this soul even exists, do you have some proof?

"I believe that all living things have a soul but each species has a different type of soul suitable for that species. "

Well besides belief, do you have evidence?

"The only paradox that exists is the one that you made up yourself by over-thinking things."

This isn't an argument against my proposition. This is just an opinion that you think i'm over thinking things. Just because something is over thought or under thought doesn't have any implication on whether it is correct or not. Sometimes complicated things require complicated answers.

"I'm not seeing it. "
That's called an argument from personal incredulity.

"I didn't create a dilemma."

So then you agree partial free will exists?