Which Book is the true word of God, Quran, or Bible?

[Димитар]

You claimed Ya Allahi means Holy Son mate. You cannot just make a wall of irrelevant text and escape your false claim.

Where did i say that?
I said i gave you an answer.
I did not say it was correct.
You have to be carefull in interpretating and making conclusions.

You think you will deal with it fast , but i dictate the conversation this time.
I was not clear for a reason.

I just wanted to know if you would do it the same this tine.
If you don't like it like that , it's fine.
Not my problem

In fact, in my life I have never seen anything worse than this.

That you have been questioned?
Do you want me to apologize , or what?
I will question however i want it.
If it does not fit your criteria;
again - Not my problem.

Never in my life.

So you don't like it whwn it is not your way?
It's fine by me.
But don't try to make yourself more relevant then others.

And I have been in this forum for a long time. I have seen many things. But never this bad.

What is bad?
That your question has nothing to do with the term in that passage?

So where is the explenation?
Where is your counter-argument?

I even named a person who translated the Quran from Arabic to English.

I also said that i would explain why do i think - what i think.

But you just argue without any reason and you continue to poison the discussion again with this low ad-hominem.

Yeah , i copy - paste it.

I am writing from my phone , so i don't have Arabic.
I don't need it on my phone.
It is pretty logical that i copied it.

What's so bad about it?

You don't like it because you were not given an answer?
We don't need it brother ,what you asked is irrelevant.
You could have asked me what is that..

So do you want to argue a person that you will probably never meet personally and discuss with him in that manner , or you will continue attacking his personality?

Do you not like it , because i am not the soft Christian , that you are used to discuss?

Again , don't try to play smart with me.

 

[danieldemol]

So do you mean because you want to make a claim you could be logically fallacious or/and epistemically irresponsible?

No, I mean tentative claims of the null hypothesis are not epistemically irresponsible as the alternative is the path of superstition in my view and I note your use of the loaded question fallacy.

 

[Eliana]

What a ridiculous question. Christians will say theirs, Muslims will say theirs. I'm a Jew so I'll say neither it's the Torah. Hindus will says it's theirs... and on and on

 

[Madsaac]

When someone makes a positive claim he should provide evidence. That's epistemic responsibility.

Can lack of evidence be evidence? I think it can, therefore no evidence of god means he doesn't exist

 

[Madsaac]

What a ridiculous question. Christians will says theirs, Muslims will say theirs. I'm a Jew so I'll say neither it's the Torah. Hindus will says it's theirs... and on and on

Yes, so are they all wrong or all right? Or a bit of everything?

 

[Madsaac]

I like the way you think. So allow me to add to your point that besides God, Jesus or Mohammed is one that seeks to be like God and He hates God and his Human creatures like you and me. He is called many names but satan is common. Unfortunately, reality is not as simple as you would have it. Think of reality as a product, God is the manufacturer, He provides a manual for how to use it (Its a complicated one as you know) and how to overcome satan. So, because we have free will to choose what to do. If we follow the manual, the product works fine. If we try things our way, well...it gets messy. There is plenty of instruction about this life in the bible. the Quran has some information to. It is important to be informed because the Mines right, yours is wrong attitude starts when two contradicting "truths" are introduced. Both cannot be right. You will learn that a lie has potential for diverting people from the truth. It's a neat trick to cause the so many problems you mentioned. But you can only see if you gather the knowledge. for example, if there is a plant that can restore health and you knew nothing about it, you would not benefit from it. Those who know would. The problem here is we are discussing larger than life issues. The lack of knowledge of these things is no small matter. It has eternal significance. You are free to disregard knowledge is "eternal" is of little value to you. Free will. Here, is a topic about two books discussing these vital matters. the problem is they contradict each other. I hope this sheds some light on why it is important to determine these matters. Sitting on the fence does not work.

Thanks, I like your thinking too.

However, at the end of the day, if you right a manual, it is always going to be skewed in a way to how you think people should interpret it.

And to me, the bias is not required, it has only caused trouble.

Instead of focusing on the differences in the manual, lets focus on the similarities.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Instead of focusing on the differences in the manual, lets focus on the similarities.

I think that doing either leads to too many problems. Better to notice BOTH the similarities and differences.

 

[Димитар]

يا اللهي

@firedragon

How does 'يا اللَّهِيَّ' differ from 'يا اللهي'.?

يَا اللَّهِيَّ اُنْظُرْ الَى هَذَا
ya alahiya unzur ala hatha

Does not this mean 'Holy son of a, look at this' ?

'yā alllahiyya unẓur alā hathā'


Surah 19:19
Qala innama ana rasolu rabiki liahaba laki ghulaman zakiyan

Phonetic Transliteration:
Qala innama ana rasoolu rabbiki liahaba laki ghulaman zakiyyan

Al-Kafi - Volume 8: Hadith of Jesus 'Alayhim al-Salam | Thaqalayn

Hadiths from Al-Kafi - Volume 8 - Hadith of Jesus 'Alayhim al-Salam

thaqalayn.net

It goes down to the fact that Ruh al-qudus is not Jibraeel.

I don't know however if you trust this hadith.

I don't trust it , since i clearly know the difference between Ruh al-qudus and Jibril.
They are not the same thing.

In the link i provided it says :

"You (a.s) were Created by My (azwj) Word, and Maryam (a.s) gave birth to you (a.s) by My (azwj) Command, the Message sent to her (a.s) by My (azwj) Spirit Jibraeelthe Trustworthy one from My (azwj) Angels, until you (a.s) stood upon the earth alive and walking. All that had been encompassed by My (azwj) Knowledge."

Ruh al-qudus is not Jibril.
Jibril came to Mary with Ruh al-qudus , which is the gift from God.
It is wrong to say this?
Don't you agree with that?

That is why Yusuf ali translates it as 'holy',because Jesus is stenghten with 'Ruh al-qudus' which means 'Holy Spirit.'
That is the gift that is refered to in Surah 19:19.
I am asking you on your opinion and your alternative to that.

It says clearly in the Quran that Jesus is stenghten with the Holy Spirit.
In other verses also.

Al-Qudus and Ruh Al-Qudus have the same root.

That's why i think the word should be translated as holy.

You can ofc always answer this without trying to make a fool out of me.

You wanted Arabic , you got Arabic.

Please , i don't get to discuss these things with everyone since not everyone knows Arabic.

You first answer was 'It doesn't say "holy son". It says "son".'

Please make your case , i made mine.

@Link you have discusses with me many times , can you say something on what i wrote about this term.

Is my conclusion wrong?

@Trysdar - you are former Muslim(i assume that you understand also Arabic) , what is wrong in my conclusion that the term may be 'holy son'?

 

[Muffled]

I believe there are no shortage of apologists with delusions of granduer.

I believe I have no delusions. I go with hard fatcs.

 

[Muffled]

So you think you aren't a "natural man"?

I believe I am a natural man seeing through the eyes of God instead of seeing through my natural eyes.

 

[firedragon]

Where did i say that?
I said i gave you an answer.
I did not say it was correct.
You have to be carefull in interpretating and making conclusions.

You think you will deal with it fast , but i dictate the conversation this time.
I was not clear for a reason.

I just wanted to know if you would do it the same this tine.
If you don't like it like that , it's fine.
Not my problem



That you have been questioned?
Do you want me to apologize , or what?
I will question however i want it.
If it does not fit your criteria;
again - Not my problem.


So you don't like it whwn it is not your way?
It's fine by me.
But don't try to make yourself more relevant then others.


What is bad?
That your question has nothing to do with the term in that passage?

So where is the explenation?
Where is your counter-argument?

I even named a person who translated the Quran from Arabic to English.

I also said that i would explain why do i think - what i think.

But you just argue without any reason and you continue to poison the discussion again with this low ad-hominem.

Yeah , i copy - paste it.

I am writing from my phone , so i don't have Arabic.
I don't need it on my phone.
It is pretty logical that i copied it.

What's so bad about it?

You don't like it because you were not given an answer?
We don't need it brother ,what you asked is irrelevant.
You could have asked me what is that..

So do you want to argue a person that you will probably never meet personally and discuss with him in that manner , or you will continue attacking his personality?

Do you not like it , because i am not the soft Christian , that you are used to discuss?

Again , don't try to play smart with me.

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

No, I mean tentative claims of the null hypothesis are not epistemically irresponsible as the alternative is the path of superstition in my view and I note your use of the loaded question fallacy.

Nope. It's a positive claim. The claimant is responsible.

 

[firedragon]

Can lack of evidence be evidence? I think it can, therefore no evidence of god means he doesn't exist

That's a fallacious claim.

 

[Eliana]

Yes, so are they all wrong or all right? Or a bit of everything?

I'm a religious Jew. HaShem does not allow for pluralism. Obviously I think they are wrong.

 

[Link]

@Dimi95

I posted this, thought I posted it here, it was in the wrong thread:

Salam

Jesus (a) is holy. I don't see a problem with that. The verse about him being "a pure son" of course doesn't contain those words, but if you keep in mind what Gabriel (a) said paraphrased differently, the "pure" means not just pure inwardly, but pure in reputation (that he is known to be pure).

If you combine the paraphrasing of either Zakariya (a) prayer regarding Yahya (a) and God's response or Gabriel (a) message from God to Mariam (a), you can conclude to be pure in reputation - you have to be chosen by God and in case of Bani-Israel, it would imply you would be a Prophet if a male.

Something to keep in mind, it's God who gives this purity status while we aren't allowed to give purity status to ourselves. This means it's not for us to claim to be of a "higher righteousness" as often clergy or scholars or rabbis or mullahs or whatever, often do. The Quran contrasts this claim of purity of clergy with that of the chosen by God. Often, the chosen by God are opposed by the very people claiming this purity status to themselves.

The reason why there is emphasis on purity in one place of words of Gabriel (a) and in another place it's said to be a Prophet and Messenger, to mean the same thing, and same with prayer of Zakariya (a) and response, is to emphasize only God can attribute purity to who he wishes.

The verses of condemning attributing purity to ourselves or emphasis that God attributes purity to who he wishes takes 3 places.

In Surah Nisa, it makes a comparison and contrast to the family of Ibrahim (a). The comparison is with the humans they are envying compared to the family of Ibrahim (a) and by flow they are the Ulul-Amr (Possessors of the Authority/Command) since it flows to that emphasis to obey them, and contrast is done by the leaders of people of the book who were endorsing the Jibt and Taghut and saying a particular instance of these people were more guided then those who gave safety/security (or possibly translated as those who believed but hadiths show it to mean security here and particular refers to the Imams).

In Surah Noor, it's emphasized that were it not for God's mercy/compassion, no one would have been given this purity status, and God gives this status to who he wants. Some context was that a person was being accused of adultery without proof and God hate this talk. This verse in there with that context, means, we shouldn't see ourselves as more pure than others, and attribute ourselves immunity to sexual deviance, but rather, we should constantly take refuge in God and know the only ones we can be sure of that won't commit such acts is the chosen ones (rest are volatile) who by his mercy to guide us attributed them purity, and if he wishes none of among us would have this purity status, and rather, no one would be known to be immune.

In Surah Najm, it is said to not attribute purity to ourselves, God knows best us when from when we are in womb to now, and God knows who has Taqwa (piety/righteousness/guarding against evil/ fear against God's wrath nature) towards God. The context is of course people would often attribute themselves a special connection to the gods, and say they are more connected to these beings, and so Quran is saying all this is forbidden to attribute to yourselves with no proof from God.

So this is why "pure" is used instead of "holy", but "holy" is a more intense form of "pure", that the Prophets (a) do have.

Regarding the holy spirit, Adam (a) to the Mahdi (a) are all instance of this on earth and continued this station. Remember Jesus (a) said he was the light of the world so long as he was in this world. This means he was the holy spirit position till he left it and this is reason why Elijah/Elyas (a) was witnessed by disciples and said to come back, because if Jesus (a) ascended, someone on earth has to hold this position, and it was Elyas (a) till Mohammad (s).

Gabriel (a) and Michael (a) are also "holy spirit", so is Fatima (a), so it's not identical with the station of Imamate. Rather, it's partial application of Imamate. That is in the inward journey, Fatima (a) is also the holy spirit. Many proofs of this in terms of hadiths.

Holy spirit is God's light and breath extended to all beings through his chosen ones. Chosen Angels (a) like Gabriel (a) are also instance of this holy spirit reality, but the one on earth, is not an Angel, but rather, a being higher than all Angels, which is the chosen humans.

God helped Jesus (a) by the holy spirit three ways. One by giving him that station, and before his mission, Yahya (a) who an instance prepared the way, and after he was risen to heaven/sky realm/higher realms, it was Elyas (a).

 

[Eliana]

It's impressive that you have read every word of the Bible. I haven't. I could possibly learn a thing or two from you. Please share your thoughts on the communication of Peter in Acts Chapter 2, verses (For context) starting from 5 to 40. What is he talking about?

You believe the Bible is the word of G-D but can't be bothered to read it.

 

[Димитар]

@Dimi95

I posted this, thought I posted it here, it was in the wrong thread:

Salam

Jesus (a) is holy. I don't see a problem with that. The verse about him being "a pure son" of course doesn't contain those words, but if you keep in mind what Gabriel (a) said paraphrased differently, the "pure" means not just pure inwardly, but pure in reputation (that he is known to be pure).

If you combine the paraphrasing of either Zakariya (a) prayer regarding Yahya (a) and God's response or Gabriel (a) message from God to Mariam (a), you can conclude to be pure in reputation - you have to be chosen by God and in case of Bani-Israel, it would imply you would be a Prophet if a male.

Something to keep in mind, it's God who gives this purity status while we aren't allowed to give purity status to ourselves. This means it's not for us to claim to be of a "higher righteousness" as often clergy or scholars or rabbis or mullahs or whatever, often do. The Quran contrasts this claim of purity of clergy with that of the chosen by God. Often, the chosen by God are opposed by the very people claiming this purity status to themselves.

The reason why there is emphasis on purity in one place of words of Gabriel (a) and in another place it's said to be a Prophet and Messenger, to mean the same thing, and same with prayer of Zakariya (a) and response, is to emphasize only God can attribute purity to who he wishes.

The verses of condemning attributing purity to ourselves or emphasis that God attributes purity to who he wishes takes 3 places.

In Surah Nisa, it makes a comparison and contrast to the family of Ibrahim (a). The comparison is with the humans they are envying compared to the family of Ibrahim (a) and by flow they are the Ulul-Amr (Possessors of the Authority/Command) since it flows to that emphasis to obey them, and contrast is done by the leaders of people of the book who were endorsing the Jibt and Taghut and saying a particular instance of these people were more guided then those who gave safety/security (or possibly translated as those who believed but hadiths show it to mean security here and particular refers to the Imams).

In Surah Noor, it's emphasized that were it not for God's mercy/compassion, no one would have been given this purity status, and God gives this status to who he wants. Some context was that a person was being accused of adultery without proof and God hate this talk. This verse in there with that context, means, we shouldn't see ourselves as more pure than others, and attribute ourselves immunity to sexual deviance, but rather, we should constantly take refuge in God and know the only ones we can be sure of that won't commit such acts is the chosen ones (rest are volatile) who by his mercy to guide us attributed them purity, and if he wishes none of among us would have this purity status, and rather, no one would be known to be immune.

In Surah Najm, it is said to not attribute purity to ourselves, God knows best us when from when we are in womb to now, and God knows who has Taqwa (piety/righteousness/guarding against evil/ fear against God's wrath nature) towards God. The context is of course people would often attribute themselves a special connection to the gods, and say they are more connected to these beings, and so Quran is saying all this is forbidden to attribute to yourselves with no proof from God.

So this is why "pure" is used instead of "holy", but "holy" is a more intense form of "pure", that the Prophets (a) do have.

Regarding the holy spirit, Adam (a) to the Mahdi (a) are all instance of this on earth and continued this station. Remember Jesus (a) said he was the light of the world so long as he was in this world. This means he was the holy spirit position till he left it and this is reason why Elijah/Elyas (a) was witnessed by disciples and said to come back, because if Jesus (a) ascended, someone on earth has to hold this position, and it was Elyas (a) till Mohammad (s).

Gabriel (a) and Michael (a) are also "holy spirit", so is Fatima (a), so it's not identical with the station of Imamate. Rather, it's partial application of Imamate. That is in the inward journey, Fatima (a) is also the holy spirit. Many proofs of this in terms of hadiths.

Holy spirit is God's light and breath extended to all beings through his chosen ones. Chosen Angels (a) like Gabriel (a) are also instance of this holy spirit reality, but the one on earth, is not an Angel, but rather, a being higher than all Angels, which is the chosen humans.

God helped Jesus (a) by the holy spirit three ways. One by giving him that station, and before his mission, Yahya (a) who an instance prepared the way, and after he was risen to heaven/sky realm/higher realms, it was Elyas (a).

I would maybe argue some things , but this is one reasonable answer to some degree

You know ofc that we have different understanding of what and who is God.
And we differ in theology.
We differ on what is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

It is normal that i will argue it in that sense , but i don't feel the need to do that , since i believe you already know it.

Your first sentence is enough , thank you for your answer and your honesty.

Much appriciated.

It is always cool to discuss the Quran with you.

 

[JameScott]

Acts 2:1-40 is foundational for understanding the birth, mission, and theology of the early Church, emphasizing the Spirit’s role in empowering believers to fulfill the Great Commission. I could say a great deal more about it, but you must understand that I'm not a Christian -- nor even a believer in gods of any sort -- and therefore I read all such texts as religious seekers looking for meaning of things that they don't understand.

As to Peter's meaning in his sermon, that's somewhat complex -- but it is still all Paul's theology, and certainly not that of Jesus, who Paul never quotes. (And by the way, since Acts was almost certainly written by Luke, Peter's sermon is certainly at second-hand.)

Peter’s Sermon (Acts 2:14-36)

Introduction (vv. 14-21): Peter claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and addresses the crowd, first by denying the accusation of drunkenness. He cites Joel 2:28-32 to explain that the events signify the fulfillment of prophecy about the outpouring of God’s Spirit in the last days.

Christ-Centered Message (vv. 22-36): Peter hightlights Jesus’ miraculous works as evidence of His divine mission (v. 22). Then he declares that Jesus’ death was both part of God’s foreordained plan and the result of human sin (v. 23). This is a theological novelty, and it is therefore likely that Luke is accurately reflecting what he (or someone) heard Peter say. This suggests that the meeting described in this chapter actually happened. No reason not to accept that. Peter emphasizes the resurrection as the ultimate proof of Jesus’ Messiahship, quoting Psalm 16 to demonstrate that David prophesied the resurrection (v. 24-32). Again, this is complete theological novelty. Finally, he asserts that Jesus has been exalted to God’s right hand and has poured out the Holy Spirit, confirming His status as both Lord and Messiah. This is complete invention (in my view, although believers will certainly think that it is God-inspired.)

Peter continues to exhort the crowd, calling them to save themselves from the “corrupt generation.” His preaching leads to the conversion of about 3,000 people, marking the dramatic growth of the early Church (v. 40).

The themes involved are: fulfillment of prophecy, empowerment by the spirit, universal scope of the gospel, the call to repentance and faith, salvation as a free gift (requiring repentance, faith, and public commitment through baptism), and the role of the church:

That last theme is an important focus of these verses, attempting to establish the church as the spirit-empowered community tasked with spreading the gospel.

Nice, thank you for detailed overview, you have really buttressed This portion of scripture. You started by saying in the introduction the Peter Clones to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and address the crowd by first denying the accusation of drunkenness. Allow me to add That that something else was happening. They're speaking in different tongues. And there are comments from different people Who are hearing Their language is being spoken. There is a variety of languages listed. And here to the people speaking, it shouldn't be speaking it. It is also worth noting. that the followers of Jesus had become really unpopular. And it. is possible that they were hiding what prompted Peter to come out and speak. and where did Peter get this information? We must think about the fact that Peter was a fisherman. He had denied Jesus, yet here he was speaking publicly about His Messiahship. Theological Novelty? Perhaps, but picture this objectively. You have to really think logically. These people were human as you and me. Put yourself in their shoes. then think what is possible and what is not. What reason did peter have to invent something false and yet believe it enough to die for it, at that willingly crucified upside down because he did not feel worthy to die as Jesus did.

You say the meaning is complex but it is straight forward actually. Stephen in Acts 7 explains the same thing, even at the point of death. Practically speaking, Would it be on your lips to forgive those who are stoning you without just cause in the moment of pain as you die? I probably would not.
Guess who was watching on approvingly in that moment Stephen was being stoned?

Paul, a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee who was Zealous for the mosaic law and hated followers of Jesus. What is that kind of man doing writing letters promoting Christianity and forming almost 50% of the Christian Scriptures. Interestingly, he provides a narration in Acts 26, explaining before the king Agrippa, why he is innocent of any crime. He explains again more clearly what you say is complex. I think the message of the bible is easy to understand for a rational person. It is not in Dispute Jesus existed. Was he just a good teacher, far from it. C.s Lewis here explains why:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”​

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

 

[JameScott]

I doubt I can give you The Truth, but I can share my opinion.

Humans have evolved as gregarious hence cooperative beings. All over the world we appear to have formed tribes wherever we've gone, and those tribes are marked by the members having in common a territory, a language, a fund of stories (of creation and origins, beings with extraordinary powers) and so on. We've evolved a morality to go with that too ─ as experiments have shown, even pre-verbal infants make moral judgments about what they see. (If you're interested, I gave a brief description of one such experiment here >Atheists acknowledging historical Jesus' goodness<.)

Gods have served as explanations for creation, the land, the sun and moon and sky, for the existence of animals, mountains, rivers, seas, and so on. They can account for thunder and lightning, meteorites, eclipses, and so on. They can also account for good and bad luck at hunting, love, war, trade and so on. (When in my student days I drove a cab, after a time I found myself thinking, when I had some lucky break, 'Thanks TG', where I also found TG stood for 'Taxi God'. This ties in neatly with a line that may or may not have been said by DG Rossetti, 'The worst time for an atheist is when he is thankful and has no one to thank.)

So I think / hypothesize, on the basis of my reading and experiences, that Gods are expressions of the way the human brain works. We constantly but subconsciously devise (in effect require) a scenario that explains the situation we're in and anticipates the next moment, giving us fraction-of-a-second advantages when required, whether for physical danger, or socially putting our foot in it, or reffing a soccer match. These explanations, I think, not only would be comfortable with gods in some situations, but require them, since nothing the subject already knows will explain them.

This, however validly or tentatively, explains why our anthropologists report that we've never found a culture that didn't have some or other kind of supernatural beliefs. (That tribe in South America you may have read about because it doesn't have gods, nonetheless has a lore that includes beings they can 'see' but you the visitor can't.)

I mean you no offence but This is what I am observing from your opinion.
(In the simplest form I can illustrate it; This is how you are looking at the big picture)
Question: What is the true answer between these two - A) 1+1 = 2 and B) 1+1 = 11.

Your Answer: A does not make logical sense, there is no 1 in the answer. Where does 2 come from? B makes more sense. You can see the 1 in the answer. there is 1 with another 1, which is obviously the same as 11. We can't yet explain how 11 comes from only 1 and another 1 but it makes more sense. I go with that.

I am not the only one who makes this observation: I make reference to some writings you will see a similar pattern.
Romans 1:20-21 , Psalms 14:1 and 53:1, Proverbs 1:7.

You may observe a similar pattern if you see the question you are responding to and the answer you gave.

They can account for the sun moon sky and animals? I don't recall anyone ever inventing the sun or the sky?
you might find a mere Christianity worth reading for a broader perspective as to why this accounting for things does not explain the real thing. Here's an excerpt:

“Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.

And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?”​

. ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

 

[JameScott]

You remind me of the Christian framework of the Harry Potter books. With only a slight squint required, Harry is born in sin, the murder of his parents and the element of Voldemort that gives him his scar. He grows up to be a leader and a student of magic (miracles, arcana). And at the close he has to die to rid himself of his sin element ─ and afterwards return in triumph to his friends, the world-threatening evil villain having been destroyed.

(I confess that my grandfatherly duties have taught me more about Harry than perhaps is normal.)

you have given me a laugh here. sounds like a satire. Anyway, There are reality indications that harry potter is far from the Christianity.