The reliability of Christian and Muslim texts compared

Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,904
Oh Vytas, I have to really disagree with the term justice. As stated on other threads, Christians believe once they're saved, they can't lose their salvation. So in a sense, if one does sin whilst still being a Christian and believing in jesus, they can't be held accountable for their actions. They will still go to heaven. To me, that's not justice as the repercussions of those sins aren't addressed by God. So those harmed by your actions are left hanging...

If I decide to commit adultry on the sly, get pregnant and convince my husband the baby is his...and I take that lie to the grave, how is that fair on the child and my husband? God can see how unfair that is and I just get off Scot-free because I believed that jesus was my lord and saviour?? I don't see how a just God would allow a sinful person to sail through to paradise.

Yes we are all sinful and fall short of perfection but there are ways we can reduce sin and keep away for temptation. If you busy yourself and exhaust yourself in the way of God, you won't have as much as a temptation to sin. By praying 5 times a day, doing our pillars and keeping good company, we build our spirituality and you don't yearn for this world. Being constantly conscious of God is difficult and it takes time to build that level of spirituality but it is possible...

Sorry, what happened a long time ago for you to be Christian?

I'm not trying to sell Islam to you, my aim is just to understand what Christianity truly is since there are a bloody billion versions of it!

In Islam heaven and hell are both described in detail. We are told about what happens on judgement day, the minor and major signs which will occur prior to it and how every soul shall be judged by God on the day of resurrection. Think of a scale, the more you strived in this life the likelihood of you going to heaven.

Salvation isn't guaranteed and this is why muslims devote all aspects of their life to God (well, try to). For us, everything is a good deed or a form of worship. Giving charity, helping your neighbour even picking litter up from the street lol. So our path has been made easy because we understand that God is the ultimate judge and nobody can take our sins and be a sacrifice.

This of course differs a lot to your faith and I wish I had a little more time to break it down but that's the gist of it in islam.

You can't get bored in heaven lol it's a state of infinite joy and peace.
While I really like some of Muslim practices, it simply doesn't seem very...effective. You pray 5 times a day because that is what your religion requires, while spiritually it may still have some benefits it's not the same as praying because you want to. There is little sincerity in habits, as a kid I saw plenty of that in Catholics. Repeating thousand times same prayers day in day out... As bible tells it we arent heard because of many words...
I'm long enough here to know muslims dont understand how salvation work for us. We are told we will be acounted for every iddle word we ever spoken. Believing in Jesus doesn't remove our accountability but rather adds to it, to whomsoever much is given, of him much shall.be required, with understanding comes responsibility...Your example, that would not fly, repentance is as much necessary as faith. And if a person lives all his life in sin what faith is that, there was no faith to begin with. Thing is you can't repent and proceed to do exactly that what you just repented about. That's like mocking God. Our "free pass" is earned, but earned because we want to, out of free will, out of love. When we first believe we are saved from eternal death, we get an entry to the kingdom of God, because we believed, now we have to live a life like we believe, God knows our hearts, and when you believe you don't live in sin...
Your understanding of christianity is typical for a muslim. About many versions. While islam is one body, one unit, Christians are more like body parts of one body, borrowed example from Paul. (cor12-27). You don't know which version is true ? I don't even know denominations of most Christians in here, yet I know that they are Christians. That's good enough, we can research, discuss and argue about our little differences, getting more understanding in the process.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
While I really like some of Muslim practices, it simply doesn't seem very...effective. You pray 5 times a day because that is what your religion requires, while spiritually it may still have some benefits it's not the same as praying because you want to. There is little sincerity in habits, as a kid I saw plenty of that in Catholics. Repeating thousand times same prayers day in day out... As bible tells it we arent heard because of many words...
This is something that separates religions that are practice and discipline based versus ones that are more about only promoting an idea. Devotion is incredibly important to us, I find it strange but not unsurprising to find a very strict downplaying or rejection of devotion, discipline and holistic spirituality within Christianity in comparison to religions like Islam, Judaism and even one's like Hinduism.
The thing here is that the Islamic way is opposed to monasticism, as the importance of community (which does include 'secular' mixed community) is seen as much part of the spiritual path as the inner, quiet, home-based prayer practice.
It is unfortunate that related aspects are not as popular in more recent forms of Christiainity, but then more recent forms of Christianity tend to not see these things in the same light (hence perceived 'superstition' in the case of many Christian views on the topic, among other things).

I'm long enough here to know muslims dont understand how salvation work for us. We are told we will be acounted for every iddle word we ever spoken. Believing in Jesus doesn't remove our accountability but rather adds to it, to whomsoever much is given, of him much shall.be required, with understanding comes responsibility...Your example, that would not fly, repentance is as much necessary as faith. And if a person lives all his life in sin what faith is that, there was no faith to begin with. Thing is you can't repent and proceed to do exactly that what you just repented about. That's like mocking God. Our "free pass" is earned, but earned because we want to, out of free will, out of love. When we first believe we are saved from eternal death, we get an entry to the kingdom of God, because we believed, now we have to live a life like we believe, God knows our hearts, and when you believe you don't live in sin...
Salvation through the Unity of God is the very foundational centerpiece of our religion, nothing is more important to us.

As for 'life in sin', we do have quite a better-explained doctrine relating to how our deeds and actions affect our Soul. The understanding we have is pragmatic and rational (albeit sometimes often complex). We do not believe in any kind of 'bad karma', in the case of the Christian doctrine of the "original sin". We believe in the autonomy of one's free will, that the things we ourselves do have direct consequences.

I think Christianity in general is the only religion that has these specific views in it's perception of 'salvation' and 'sin'. Judaism certainly doesn't and other religion's parallel concepts don't share the same sentiment.

Your understanding of christianity is typical for a muslim. About many versions. While islam is one body, one unit, Christians are more like body parts of one body, borrowed example from Paul. (cor12-27). You don't know which version is true ? I don't even know denominations of most Christians in here, yet I know that they are Christians. That's good enough, we can research, discuss and argue about our little differences, getting more understanding in the process.
Well yes, Islam is fundamentally about Unity, it is the core value that starts from God's Unity and proliferates down to mankind's Unity (aka, racism is bad). For a true Muslim, the transcendental truth of the faith is more important than any in-house disagreements, this is a principle that is quite serious for us. The concept of Ummah indeed does not allow for the over-valuing of division, as the path to God is not found through division (and I mean this statement on many levels, not just the social).

The other topic you bring up (about Christianity) is something I have actually being trying to discuss with Christians here actually but to no avail. Christianity itself even from the very offset in the mid 1st century, was very much a set of competing ideologies that eventually became immunized, then canonized by the early Church. I really don't believe it all originated from Prophet Jesus himself though. I mean no disrespect saying this. The thing is when you have competing ideologies, then you have organizations propagating authority and cutting down on counter-ideologies, it just cannot help but leave one wondering.
I know you'll try to pin my words on just being an 'Islamic thing' but we're not the only one's who see the eyebrow-raising nature of early Christian history. Anyway, my point is not to criticize inasmuch as to ask why Christians are not more mindful of their own history. There is obvious need to differentiate oneself from perceived horrors of yesteryear but the apologetic that derives from this lack of mindfulness is quite disingenuous. This is leaving aside all the later evolutions of Christianity.

I just think in places like this or elsewhere, where there is indeed more than one religion (some outnumbering others..), there does need to be more intellectual honesty and openness to discussion, even if some of it may be emotionally challenging for many of you to speak about seriously.
And especially for people that practice more recent forms of Christianity, looking back on the past and traditions within Christianity that are often absent or even unknown in recent Christian forms, may even give inspiration of new ways to breath more life into one's spirituality. The problem however always arises when there both a deliberate antagonism and unquestionable cynicism preventing such discussions to be had. :)
 

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Thanks for the response.

It seems heaven is a personal experience for each Christian as both you and Vytas said 'I can't speak for all Christians'

I know you love jesus but being with him, what does that entail? Do you just sit there? I mean eternity is a longg time so I'm just thinking would life just be spent existing in a stress free place? Doing what...

Also there is an emphasis on death...why is death so important to Christians?

For me, everything dies. Plants, people and animals all die. So why does death solve everything for you guys? Why is the death of the body important when it's just a cover/casing for the spirit which is who we are...
No problem. It has to be a personal thing because there are no direct lengthy descriptions beyond what I shared. Pretending as though we definitely have the answers would be falsifying scripture.

I personally think spending eternity will be spent similarly to the way it would've been in the garden of Eden, before sin entered the world. I assume things would run the way God had originally intended them to. I don't think it would be boring, because ultimately the deepest longing of our souls -to be with the Father -would be completely satisfied. I just imagine a peace and contentment like could never be experienced here. We wont have the carnal impulses of our bodies as distraction or temptation to cause restlessnes.

I think because death is the wages of sin. We've all seen the effects of sin and death on the world, and for many people I think the stain of those two is a lot stronger in how they've been impacted. There's a reprieve from that for those people and a comfort in knowing it's been conquered. It's not that death is important per se but rather that it's recognised as the ultimate manifestation of our state of seperation from God. I'm not sure if I'm articulating myself correctly but that's how I understand it.
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
We do not pretend to know it all, like some new posters with obvious God complex, we are satisfied with what we are promised.
I do not believe that the God Complex poster is new, you have seen them before, eventually it will become very obvious to all whom it is by their debate style, arrogance, demeaning remarks and insistence of winning arguments based on their own tactic of destroying their own strawmen.

They have tried to cover themselves somewhat so far but it is simply a matter of time before it will be apparent whom you are dealing with...

 

Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,904
I do not believe that the God Complex poster is new, you have seen them before, eventually it will become very obvious to all whom it is by their debate style, arrogance, demeaning remarks and insistence of winning arguments based on their own tactic of destroying their own strawmen.

They have tried to cover themselves somewhat so far but it is simply a matter of time before it will be apparent whom you are dealing with...

Yeah that's one of a kind attitude...I thought about it few times, but dismissed it...nah can't be, now when you say it like that, seems much more realistic...
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
I do not believe that the God Complex poster is new, you have seen them before, eventually it will become very obvious to all whom it is by their debate style, arrogance, demeaning remarks and insistence of winning arguments based on their own tactic of destroying their own strawmen.

They have tried to cover themselves somewhat so far but it is simply a matter of time before it will be apparent whom you are dealing with...

I did wonder...Sometimes contributors Islamic methods identify....
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
And that's all good and well. I just answered the question you had about the bible not recognising how plants work.
When I mentioned Bible not understanding how plants work, i meant the scientific aspect specifically. The earth couldn't have come before the sun and even if it somehow did, "life" as we know it especially plants are not older than the sun either unless proven otherwise.


.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
When I mentioned Bible not understanding how plants work, i meant the scientific aspect specifically. The earth couldn't have come before the sun and even if it somehow did, "life" as we know it especially plants are not older than the sun either unless proven otherwise.


.
Interestingly, the only way it would work is with a literal interpretation...
 

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
When I mentioned Bible not understanding how plants work, i meant the scientific aspect specifically. The earth couldn't have come before the sun and even if it somehow did, "life" as we know it especially plants are not older than the sun either unless proven otherwise.


.
I mean there's no way to really "prove" something like that or measure the age of the sun or Earth with 100% accuracy right?
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
I mean there's no way to really "prove" something like that or measure the age of the sun or Earth with 100% accuracy right?
A 100% accuracy is not necessary, an estimate is. We can tell the moon is younger than the earth. A natural satellite is almost always younger than its planet. Similarly the planets are younger than their suns, with the rare rare exceptions of a planet entering into a different planetary system.

The sun couldn't have been made prior to earth, it makes no sense. Even if you were to tell me they were made at the same time, i'd say "okay" but the earth before the sun? Eh..
Not to mention that the atmosphere on earth wouldn't have existed that earlier and one of the ways the earth's atmosphere is maintained is through its rotation. If earth wasn't rotating, it wouldn't have an atmosphere and thus no life.

Like I said, a holy book shouldn't be wrong about something like that.

Interestingly, the only way it would work is with a literal interpretation...
What do you mean?
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
Quantum physics meets biblical imagery, explains the “Pioneer Anomaly” and indicates that gravity does interesting things to time.

Puzzled or intrigued?

For anyone interested in how distant starlight harmonises with a young earth, Dr Russell Humphries has some very interesting observations...

 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
The transmission of light to earth or our eyes is delayed, not earlier. Gravity doesn't affect that, a planet's gravitational pull is not strong enough to affect time-space.
The Biblical thing would make sense if the transmission of light that we received was quick? or earlier, whatever is the word, instead of delayed. Unfortunately, its delayed by a massive amount.

Also to believe in the existence of time-space as an actual thing like that, that can get affected, you would first need to atleast believe in or understand Big bang theory since quantum physics is heavily based around it. But genesis entirely goes against the big bang.
 

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
A 100% accuracy is not necessary, an estimate is. We can tell the moon is younger than the earth. A natural satellite is almost always younger than its planet. Similarly the planets are younger than their suns, with the rare rare exceptions of a planet entering into a different planetary system.
Science is predicated upon observation and experimentation in the present. In terms of age, we can neither observe the past nor experiment on the past because it is gone. About the best we can do scientifically, is make some assumptions about the initial state of the system whose age we want to know, and some assumptions about the rate of change of that system, and make an estimate based on our observations of the current state. Since the different assumptions involve past events (supernatural creation vs natural origin, uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism) they cannot be directly tested by scientific means since the past cannot be experimented upon or observed. I'm not saying I discard the secular science, just saying that I leave room for alternatives.

The sun couldn't have been made prior to earth, it makes no sense. Even if you were to tell me they were made at the same time, i'd say "okay" but the earth before the sun? Eh..
Not to mention that the atmosphere on earth wouldn't have existed that earlier and one of the ways the earth's atmosphere is maintained is through its rotation. If earth wasn't rotating, it wouldn't have an atmosphere and thus no life.
Why not? Scientifically, the gravitational forces of the sun and moon have nothing to do with the rotation rate of earth. The rotation rate is due to the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be changed without applying an enormous external torque. And there is absolutely no biblical or scientific support for such a torque. This is the rotational equivalent of Newton’s first law. So the sun and moon are not necessary to cause the earth to rotate. It would have rotated perfectly well before the creation of the sun and moon. And I did put in my initial reply that the Earth may have already been set on its rotation by Day 2.

Like I said, a holy book shouldn't be wrong about something like that.
I don't think it is.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
The transmission of light to earth or our eyes is delayed, not earlier. Gravity doesn't affect that, a planet's gravitational pull is not strong enough to affect time-space.
The Biblical thing would make sense if the transmission of light that we received was quick? or earlier, whatever is the word, instead of delayed. Unfortunately, its delayed by a massive amount.

Also to believe in the existence of time-space as an actual thing like that, that can get affected, you would first need to atleast believe in or understand Big bang theory since quantum physics is heavily based around it. But genesis entirely goes against the big bang.
It took me a few attempts to absorb The implications of Dr Russell Humphries alternative cosmology, but it is freely available to assess on YouTube and shows development and refinements from his early “big picture” ideas to more developed and refined concept.

For a long time there have been well known earth bound anomalies to the uniformitarian long-ages narrative such as human artifacts buried in coal, polystratic trees, dinosaur bones with proteins remaining in them etc etc, but the “Big Bang” / distant starlight issue has been used to sweep away such annoyances. It seems that it is not the only scientifically justifiable account of origins after all...

In addition, Dr Humphries concepts do account for the “missing mass” anomaly within the Big Bang model.
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
Science is predicated upon observation and experimentation in the present. In terms of age, we can neither observe the past nor experiment on the past because it is gone. About the best we can do scientifically, is make some assumptions about the initial state of the system whose age we want to know, and some assumptions about the rate of change of that system, and make an estimate based on our observations of the current state. Since the different assumptions involve past events (supernatural creation vs natural origin, uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism) they cannot be directly tested by scientific means since the past cannot be experimented upon or observed. I'm not saying I discard the secular science, just saying that I leave room for alternatives.
Except, the sun being older than the earth is almost factual because the two have to have been one at a certain stage. There can be alternatives but some things don't change. Earth can not be flat, the moon can not be a hologram and earth can not be older than the sun.
The very existence of plants today show that they exist because of oxygen and couldn't have existed without it, and we know for a fact that earth's atmosphere is maintained through its spin. No gravitational pull = no rotation = no atmosphere.

This is a massive room to leave for alternatives. And putting a "holy scripture" over evidence and basic knowledge, in my opinion, is very stupid. If i am going to leave such a massive room for change to fit things into Bible, why not other scriptures? Why not Mahabharat, vedas etc?
How would I be different from the people who worship such things?

Shouldn't the entire story of Abraham be a lesson? If we are going to believe blindly in a faith and put evidence aside, we are no different than the people who refused to believe Abraham who spoke with logic just because they had "faith" in their sun gods.

Why not? Scientifically, the gravitational forces of the sun and moon have nothing to do with the rotation rate of earth. The rotation rate is due to the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be changed without applying an enormous external torque. And there is absolutely no biblical or scientific support for such a torque. This is the rotational equivalent of Newton’s first law. So the sun and moon are not necessary to cause the earth to rotate. It would have rotated perfectly well before the creation of the sun and moon. And I did put in my initial reply that the Earth may have already been set on its rotation by Day 2.
This would be accurate if we were talking about stopping the rotation but we aren't talking about stopping it, we are talking about its beginning.

Earth didn't just form and start spinning and then the sun formed. The nebula collapsed, the sun was formed and started spinning and then the debris formed earth that also started spinning (along with the other planets). It WAS the sun's gravitational pull that brought all the debris; dust and particles together to form planets including the earth.

You can't skip 10 steps and start solving the equation from 11th one. You can't ignore what brought about the earth's spin in the first place and then talk about whats keeping it going.

I don't think it is.
Are you sure? Especially when you know Plants came first and then came the sun when the sun is clearly older than the lifeless earth. An earth that finally had the conditions to support life came even later.

The implications of Dr Russell Humphries alternative cosmology
Hypothesis are not theories, a scientific theory is not a hypothesis. The man keeps giving hypothesis but can't back them up, that is, if anything, just sad.
"The time on earth was 6 days while 15 billion years everywhere else" Why 6 days? Because Bible says so? lol why not 7 or 8 or 5 or 10?
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
Also the man's explanation for water on earth is that "Somehow, God carried waters over it".
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
'A scientific theory is an idea that can explain things that scientists have observed. Scientists use a theory to make predictions. Scientists accept the theory if the predictions are correct. If the predictions are not correct, the theory will be changed to fit the new evidence'.

A question on my daughter's school exercise described three groups of opinion on origins of the Earth.

1: Creationists explain the Earth according to their religious ideas. Most of these ideas say that the Earth was created in only a few days. This would mean that the rocks on the earth should be about the same age.

2: Catastrophists think mountains and other features were all caused by sudden catastrophes such as earthquakes or volcanos.

3: Uniformitarians think that the same processes we see today, such as weathering or erosion have always happened. They say that these very slow processes are responsible for the features on the earth.

In considering which is the correct view we have to consider if there is any difference between 'scientific' and 'true' and what 'religious' actually means. A simple thought experiment may help to explain this...

Picture a three men visiting an empty house and finding a bath full of water. Being a scientists, and with some time to spare, they start to wonder how long the bath has been there. The plug is in and the water is cold. No help there then! Next one notices that the tap is dripping. Taking out a test tube and a timer he works out the rate at which the tap is dripping. After a couple of minutes with his calculator he pronounces confidently that the bath took six weeks to fill up. While the first scientist has been working this out the second one notices a large bucket in the corner of the bathroom. He suggests that maybe someone might have used the bucket to pour some water into the bath. If that were true all of the first scientists calculations would be wrong. This causes an almighty argument!!!

The guys just can't see eye to eye but in the end they reluctantly agree that perhaps they both might be right. The third scientist has been keeping quiet during the argument. Once things had quieted down a bit he asks the other two if they had considered the idea that the owner had filled the bath then left the house. Gales of laughter erupt from the other two! They quickly point out that his view is untestable, unrepeatable and therefore, quite frankly, unscientific. The third man throws up his hands in exasperation but can't argue with their logic.

On the way out of the house they notice a CCTV camera and computer set up in the lounge and they decide to settle the argument once and for all. Rewinding the recording, a figure pops in and out with the bucket three times. The second scientist smiles to himself. There is a very long pause then in reverse another figure is seen filling the bath.

In our story the first and second men can claim a "scientific approach". The third hasn't a leg to stand on scientifically and has to rely on deductive reasoning instead. It is possible that the bath could have been filled by buckets or drips but in the end it was the combination of the three events that led to the full bath. Perhaps the example above helps to illustrate the scope and limitation of the scientific method in finding out what is true.

In old seafaring days, when the map makers reached the limits of their exploration they would write 'here be dragons' on the map. At least they had enough humility to admit the limits of their knowledge. With our study of the earth, we can observe uniform processes and see evidence of catastrophes. There is nothing wrong with the study of either but if both were established to be true, that in no way means that the Earth and indeed the universe could not have been created in the past as a one time event. It just means that we are unable to directly investigate that type of event in the same way as we can the other two.

If that means it is a 'religious' view, so be it, but no more so than our third scientist in the story.
 
Top