Islam is of the Devil?

[KB5252]

Quoting scripture is the problem. The Bible wasn't meant to be taken out of context. It was written specifically to people in history. The Bible was not written by God. It was divinely inspired, yes. But it was written by men. It was subject to their own views. It was also subject to them changing facts or quotes, which was done. There were not 2 separate sermons on the (mount/plain). It was one sermon that was altered because the author of Luke wrote for people who were poor, while the man behind Matthew was writing for the rich. The writer of Luke couldn't get his point across to the poor by telling them that they need to be "poor in spirit." Those people, in order to convert, had to hear "blessed are the poor."

The writers of the Bible wrote to convince people that their way was the best. If it meant saying that others are doomed, then that's what was written. At that time, though, nobody in the area knew of the tribes of Africa at all. But if Jesus was asked that if someone in Africa was going to hell, I doubt he'd say that they were doomed.

Thinking about the Gospels literally makes it even more difficult to think quoting the Bible is the best idea. The Gospels were written 40-100 years after Jesus' death. The writers never even knew Jesus. All they had to go off was stories they knew. The writer of Mark (the first Gospel written, thus the most concise version) had no previous text to use. Luckily for Matthew and Luke, they had a text available, so they edited Mark to fit their stories and their arguments.

They may not have had first hand knowledge, but trade through varying cultures surely made the existence of the people in Africa known to the various cultures of the middle east.

 

[crusse10]

I'd have to disagree. There wasn't trade going on in the middle of Africa. Maybe along the coast, but not around the Congo.

 

[KB5252]

I'd have to disagree. There wasn't trade going on in the middle of Africa. Maybe along the coast, but not around the Congo.

Not in the middle of Africa, but there was certainly trade going on along the coastal regions and along land routes south into Northeastern Africa beyond the Egyptians borders. Egypt also had trade routes to the west.

There were also routes that ran along the Congo and it's tributaries, it is not known when trade developed along these routes but it is not too much of a stretch to believe it was possible at this time.

 

[crusse10]

Not in the middle of Africa, but there was certainly trade going on along the coastal regions and along land routes south into Northeastern Africa beyond the Egyptians borders. Egypt also had trade routes to the west.

There were also routes that ran along the Congo and it's tributaries, it is not known when trade developed along these routes but it is not too much of a stretch to believe it was possible at this time.

Well I can say for sure that I was referring to the tribes in Central Africa, I simply didn't say that word. Of course people knew of tribes in Africa, as Egypt is in Africa. I was simply referring to the people in the middle of nowhere.

 

[MWR]

Quoting scripture is the problem. The Bible wasn't meant to be taken out of context. It was written specifically to people in history. The Bible was not written by God. It was divinely inspired, yes. But it was written by men. It was subject to their own views. It was also subject to them changing facts or quotes, which was done. There were not 2 separate sermons on the (mount/plain). It was one sermon that was altered because the author of Luke wrote for people who were poor, while the man behind Matthew was writing for the rich. The writer of Luke couldn't get his point across to the poor by telling them that they need to be "poor in spirit." Those people, in order to convert, had to hear "blessed are the poor."

The writers of the Bible wrote to convince people that their way was the best. If it meant saying that others are doomed, then that's what was written. At that time, though, nobody in the area knew of the tribes of Africa at all. But if Jesus was asked that if someone in Africa was going to hell, I doubt he'd say that they were doomed.

Thinking about the Gospels literally makes it even more difficult to think quoting the Bible is the best idea. The Gospels were written 40-100 years after Jesus' death. The writers never even knew Jesus. All they had to go off was stories they knew. The writer of Mark (the first Gospel written, thus the most concise version) had no previous text to use. Luckily for Matthew and Luke, they had a text available, so they edited Mark to fit their stories and their arguments.

I have to disagree. I've read what you had to say and here's what the Book says:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20-21

I'll go with the Book.

And when you stand before God, which we all must do, I seriously doubt that the tribes of Africa will be the subject of the matter. Salvation is a personal matter. Here's a verse for those who are looking for an excuse to escape God's judgement.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20

 

[gsvol]

Religion is a recruiting tool that the educated use to propogate violence. They keep the masses illiterate in order to keep their land, money, and power.

This sounds like terrorist rhetoric, I'm notifying homeland security immediately!!!

Come to think of it, maybe we should take a closer look at the NEA....

Don't interfere with the NEA while they are teaching our children a guilt ridden, self-defeating concept of history so that we as a country can contribute to world peace by submitting to Islam!!

"Resist not evil?"

 

[Gramps]

QUOTE=rjd970;2490429] Who said a theory is there to prove anything? It doesn't surprise me that you would ask such a question or even understand why it doesn't make sense
And as a side note, there has been more in the Bible that has been categorically discredited....at least the religiously significant parts.[/QUOTE]

You asked the following question:

Originally Posted by rjd970
What has religion proven with respect to anything?

It doesn't surprise me that you would ask such a question or even understand why it doesn't make sense


So you trust the theories of the Big Bang and the evolution of man even though science has not been able to prove either one after many years of study.

You categorically discredit the Bible and count it as fairy tale even though much of it has been proven to be accurate.

Very brilliant... I suppose if a group of scientist came up with a theory that all the waters in the Atlantic Ocean is in the process of evolving into crude oil.... you would also believe that

 

[rjd970]

QUOTE=rjd970;2490429] Who said a theory is there to prove anything? It doesn't surprise me that you would ask such a question or even understand why it doesn't make sense
And as a side note, there has been more in the Bible that has been categorically discredited....at least the religiously significant parts.

You asked the following question:

Originally Posted by rjd970
What has religion proven with respect to anything?

It doesn't surprise me that you would ask such a question or even understand why it doesn't make sense


So you trust the theories of the Big Bang and the evolution of man even though science has not been able to prove either one after many years of study.

You categorically discredit the Bible and count it as fairy tale even though much of it has been proven to be accurate.

Very brilliant... I suppose if a group of scientist came up with a theory that all the waters in the Atlantic Ocean is in the process of evolving into crude oil.... you would also believe that[/QUOTE]


I have no idea what any of this means.

 

[Gramps]

Oh, I'm sorry. I just saw where you are from Alabama.... I understand.....read slowly... that might help...

 

[T-TownVol]

I have to disagree. I've read what you had to say and here's what the Book says:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20-21

I'll go with the Book.

And when you stand before God, which we all must do, I seriously doubt that the tribes of Africa will be the subject of the matter. Salvation is a personal matter. Here's a verse for those who are looking for an excuse to escape God's judgement.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20

The verse that gives NO ONE a reason to not beleive there is a God and he WILL judge us all.
I was under the false thinking that if someone had not been "told" the gospel, they were not accountable. The study of the book of Romans proved me wrong.

 

[crusse10]

Muslims pray to the very same God, the God of Abraham

 

[T-TownVol]

That would be Jehovah, not allah
It has been "twisted" over the years, but yes, back then they did

 

[gsvol]

I’ve read many discussions on the internet about religion. These discussion seem to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is settled, so why waste time discussing these matters?

Because I am a Christian and my faith requires that I tell others about Jesus and what He has done for me. He saved my soul. I realize I cannot force anyone to believe on Jesus. Telling you about this is my part, what you do with it is yours. Salvation is on an individual basis - between God and you.

The question was asked, “Is Islam of the devil?”

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 4:12

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
John 10:1

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep
John 10:7

These verses - among others - cut out Islam, and any other belief that doesn’t have Jesus Christ as the centerpoint.

I have to agree, Muhammed was a false prophet, the first clue is his denial of Christ.

John 8;44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he spoeaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Thanks for your profession of faith.

I'm with you there. :salute:

"In all you ways ackowledge Him and He will direct thy paths."

A couple of other verses without giving the exact book, chapter and verse that answer some of the questions raised in this thread;

"It is not God's will that any man be destroyed."

"Nowhere is it written that a man must be saved."

I recommend the book; 'Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene' for believer or nonbeliever alike. all that is required is a bit of interest in the topic.

Tao means "way", Lao Tzu himself said that he had gained such knowledge from immortals.

Damascene conjectured that when Jesus said; "I am the way" he meant He was the physical embodiment of the Tao.

Excerpt from the introduction:

The only way to get past religious words and concepts is to seek, without compromise and self-pity, the Reality behind them. If our rapidly diminishing Western Christendom has become too jaded by intellectualized or emotionalized religion to see the essence of Christianity, then we must, as it were, start over.

In this book we will look at Christ and his message as would Lao Tzu, who, although he lived five hundred years before Christ, intuitively sensed the presence of Christ in creation. We will seek to become like Lao Tzu's image of "the infant that has not yet smiled," who has not yet learned to react to words and ideas, who knows without knowing how it knows. And then, from the point of Lao Tzu's simplicity, innocence and direct intuition, we will receive the message of Christ from a new source: not from the modern West -- which has distorted it into thousands of conflicting sects and philosophies -- but from the ancient Christian East, which has transmitted to modern times the essence of Christ's teaching in a way that resonates with the teaching of Lao Tzu, not denying Lao Tzu's intuitive realizations but bringing them to a new dimension.

Interesting discussion along those lines.

I'd have to disagree. There wasn't trade going on in the middle of Africa. Maybe along the coast, but not around the Congo.

Have you ever read "He walked the Americas?"

Take the time to read the link, perhaps it will open your mind at least to the possibility for you to realize that you might not know as much as you think you know.

"Trust God and lean not to thine own understanding."

The thing is that if jesus was who He said He was, then He wouldn't be depending on local knowledge to tell him about the rest of Earth and it's people, He would know them all already because He was (is) the divine Son of God.

Oh, I'm sorry. I just saw where you are from Alabama.... I understand.....read slowly... that might help...

lol:

He doesn't respond to me anymore. :angel:

Let me encapsulate his belief system succinctly.

"Ugh, religion bad, no good ever come of it." :swoon3:

 

[gsvol]

Muslims pray to the very same God, the God of Abraham

They say, but the teachings are not the same.

Interesting tidbit about muslim prayer, since you brought it up.

Muhammed claimed to have had visits from the archangel Gabriel (if he did have visits I would suspect satan in disguise) and Gabriel told him the he and his followers should pray toard Jerusalem. (city of peace)

Muhammed's first converts were his own slaves who had no choice but when it bacame known that Muhammed endorsed raiding and murder and keeping the captured bounty by his followers, he started to build a viable fighting force.

Early on Muhammed ran into some fiscal problems, some of his fighters wanted payment in advance. (As did Wellington's troops at Waterloo, paid for by the Rothschild family because Napoleon wouldn't have a central bank in France.)

So Muhammed went to Medina and asked for the charity or tried to extort money from, some weathy jews who were in exile because of others were ruling in the jewish Holy Land. (Chaldeans?? I forget.)

The jews at Medina told him to get lost, they didn't buy his holy war one bit.

Guess what???? Gabriel suddenly came to him and had muslims pray toward Mecca as they still do today but that is mentioned in the Bible, long before Muhammed came along and what the Bible says is coming about daily. ie; 'if you don't pray toward Jerusalem, your land will turn to desert.' (how's that for climate change?)

I always thought that was a funny bit of religious history, the praying toward Mecca thingie.

 

[turambar85]

I'm sorry, but why exactly do you take it as divine proof that the Bible got some things right? It said millions of things, and was written within a relatively short period of it's alleged events. It was bound to get a few things right. Nostradamus did too.

With a religious text, not getting things wrong is much more telling than getting things right. The Bible fails there.

And, as for the messages before, some science only means to give a theory - that is as far as it is possible to go as regards the subject matter. A theory, however, does not mean a hunch or a solid guess. A scientific theory contains as much plausibility or chance at truth as just about anything we have.

 

[volinbham]

And, as for the messages before, some science only means to give a theory - that is as far as it is possible to go as regards the subject matter. A theory, however, does not mean a hunch or a solid guess. A scientific theory contains as much plausibility or chance at truth as just about anything we have.

I don't disagree with this. However as has been discussed in many threads about this topic. There is a major underlying assumption that all can be explained by science (eventually) or the corollary, that if the phenomena or event cannot be subjected to falsification via scientific discovery it isn't "real".

I would suggest that it is entirely possible that phenomena/events can exist outside the rigors of "scientific" inquiry (particularly Western scientific inquiry).

This is why I (and many others who are not atheists or strong agnostics) see religion and science as wholly compatible. It is not a question of denying "scientific inquiry" in the Western sense as much as it is acknowledging that such inquiry may be insufficient to explain all.

 

[Gramps]

Quoting scripture is the problem. The Bible wasn't meant to be taken out of context. It was written specifically to people in history. The Bible was not written by God. It was divinely inspired, yes. But it was written by men. It was subject to their own views. It was also subject to them changing facts or quotes, which was done. There were not 2 separate sermons on the (mount/plain). It was one sermon that was altered because the author of Luke wrote for people who were poor, while the man behind Matthew was writing for the rich. The writer of Luke couldn't get his point across to the poor by telling them that they need to be "poor in spirit." Those people, in order to convert, had to hear "blessed are the poor."

The writers of the Bible wrote to convince people that their way was the best. If it meant saying that others are doomed, then that's what was written. At that time, though, nobody in the area knew of the tribes of Africa at all. But if Jesus was asked that if someone in Africa was going to hell, I doubt he'd say that they were doomed.

Thinking about the Gospels literally makes it even more difficult to think quoting the Bible is the best idea. The Gospels were written 40-100 years after Jesus' death. The writers never even knew Jesus. All they had to go off was stories they knew. The writer of Mark (the first Gospel written, thus the most concise version) had no previous text to use. Luckily for Matthew and Luke, they had a text available, so they edited Mark to fit their stories and their arguments.

The apostle Matthew has been identified as the author of St Matthew.

Five books have been attributed to John the apostle as the author: St John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation.

The apostle Peter is identified as the author of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. There has been some debate as to the author of 2 Peter

James the brother of Jesus is identified as the author of James.

All of these did know Jesus.

James is thought to be the very first New Testament book written.

Mark is the second book in the order of the New Testament but is thought to be written before Matthew, the first book of the New Testament.
John Mark is considered the author of Mark . His writing is based on the "memories" of the apostle Peter.
John Mark is believed to be the son of Peter.

 

[Gramps]

I don't disagree with this. However as has been discussed in many threads about this topic. There is a major underlying assumption that all can be explained by science (eventually) or the corollary, that if the phenomena or event cannot be subjected to falsification via scientific discovery it isn't "real".

I would suggest that it is entirely possible that phenomena/events can exist outside the rigors of "scientific" inquiry (particularly Western scientific inquiry).

This is why I (and many others who are not atheists or strong agnostics) see religion and science as wholly compatible. It is not a question of denying "scientific inquiry" in the Western sense as much as it is acknowledging that such inquiry may be insufficient to explain all.

good post

 

[hndog609]

I find myself wondering at what point a belief in science doesn't start taking on a lot of the trappings of religion? Say somebody comes up with a "theory" about whatever. He and some colleagues get all behind it, get published and others start liking the ideas as well.

But there are others that just don't buy it at all. (for whatever reasons) Still others think there is some merit to this theory but have some major disagreements in certain areas or how far it can actually be applied.

So now what have you got? You've got one group of people absolutely convinced they've got it right even if they can't, you know, "prove" it. You've got another group that thinks the first is on crack and a whole mishmash of people that can (and will) argue endlessly about this or that nuance. Nobody in any group can empirically prove or disprove much of anything.

Sounds an awful lot like a religious discussion to me. (Or one about anthropogenic global warming)

 

[turambar85]

I don't disagree with this. However as has been discussed in many threads about this topic. There is a major underlying assumption that all can be explained by science (eventually) or the corollary, that if the phenomena or event cannot be subjected to falsification via scientific discovery it isn't "real".

I would suggest that it is entirely possible that phenomena/events can exist outside the rigors of "scientific" inquiry (particularly Western scientific inquiry).

This is why I (and many others who are not atheists or strong agnostics) see religion and science as wholly compatible. It is not a question of denying "scientific inquiry" in the Western sense as much as it is acknowledging that such inquiry may be insufficient to explain all.

Sure, there may be things outside of science, but they are then outside of knowledge. You can do whatever you want with things of this nature, but just accept the fact that you are guessing, or trying to make yourself feel good.

 

[volinbham]

Sure, there may be things outside of science, but they are then outside of knowledge. You can do whatever you want with things of this nature, but just accept the fact that you are guessing, or trying to make yourself feel good.

I take exception with them being outside of "knowledge". You begin to create a bit of tautological argument to say that it's not knowledge if it wasn't arrived at with this particular approach.

I understand the problem with expanding knowledge to be anything anybody feels or thinks but limiting it to a specific set of rules of discovery seems overly strict and self-fulfilling.

In particular, your statement of "trying to make yourself feel good" is particularly concerning. One of the beefs that I have with those who argue against a belief in a God is the tone of superiority of thought. As Hound Dog suggested, the unwavering belief in scientific inquiry as THE method through which we "know" is quite dogmatic.

 

[turambar85]

I take exception with them being outside of "knowledge". You begin to create a bit of tautological argument to say that it's not knowledge if it wasn't arrived at with this particular approach.

I understand the problem with expanding knowledge to be anything anybody feels or thinks but limiting it to a specific set of rules of discovery seems overly strict and self-fulfilling.

In particular, your statement of "trying to make yourself feel good" is particularly concerning. One of the beefs that I have with those who argue against a belief in a God is the tone of superiority of thought. As Hound Dog suggested, the unwavering belief in scientific inquiry as THE method through which we "know" is quite dogmatic.

Well, first, there is nothing tautological in a definition of knowledge. For example, let us use the dated "justified, true belief". That isn't problematic, it is explicative. Similarly, you can say that any form of belief that does not use empirical evidence, and is not subject to questioning/the possibility of refutation, is not knowledge. Or, if that doesn't work, something else. I'm not promoting a theory of knowledge, but simply saying that such things aren't problematically tautological.

And as for dogmatism of science - that is just anti-scientism at it's best/worst. This is a stretch, but you can't dogmatically seek truths. The two terms don't fit.
Now, I know that science is not truth incarnate, but I was just making a point. There are very few people who say "wow, holy ****, a work of science said this, let us unreflectively accept it!". What you are seeing, and, I think, disingenuously referring to is people who say that "the scientific method is the only plausible method that we currently have for knowledge." That is not dogmatism. As my first paragraph discusses, finding and tentatively accepting a theory of knowledge is not dogmatism.

 

[volinbham]

Well, first, there is nothing tautological in a definition of knowledge. For example, let us use the dated "justified, true belief". That isn't problematic, it is explicative. Similarly, you can say that any form of belief that does not use empirical evidence, and is not subject to questioning/the possibility of refutation, is not knowledge. Or, if that doesn't work, something else. I'm not promoting a theory of knowledge, but simply saying that such things aren't problematically tautological.

And as for dogmatism of science - that is just anti-scientism at it's best/worst. This is a stretch, but you can't dogmatically seek truths. The two terms don't fit.
Now, I know that science is not truth incarnate, but I was just making a point. There are very few people who say "wow, holy ****, a work of science said this, let us unreflectively accept it!". What you are seeing, and, I think, disingenuously referring to is people who say that "the scientific method is the only plausible method that we currently have for knowledge."

Why would you say I'm being disengenuous here?

That is not dogmatism. As my first paragraph discusses, finding and tentatively accepting a theory of knowledge is not dogmatism.

My larger point is that those that do accept a theory of knowledge as requiring scientific method have a definitionally limited view of knowledge. They have made a major underlying assumption.

To then use that definitionly limited view to claim a differing view (e.g. one that accepts some "knowledge" may not be "knowable" using only scientific method) is wrong, simply something to make people feel good, superstition, etc. is problematic since the critiquer is in effect saying that because you don't buy into my view of knowledge, you are inferior in some way.

 

[turambar85]

My larger point is that those that do accept a theory of knowledge as requiring scientific method have a definitionally limited view of knowledge. They have made a major underlying assumption.

To then use that definitionly limited view to claim a differing view (e.g. one that accepts some "knowledge" may not be "knowable" using only scientific method) is wrong, simply something to make people feel good, superstition, etc. is problematic since the critiquer is in effect saying that because you don't buy into my view of knowledge, you are inferior in some way.

First, I don't see that as the case: a definition of knowledge that was tied to the scientific method does not seem anymore intrinsically limited than the justified true belief theory. Although, I think that the correct view is the the scientific method comes close to fitting a theory of knowledge, while religious beliefs do not even touch on knowledge.

And, second, I didn't expect this of you, but you seem to be completely misunderstanding the purpose of a definition. You can criticize the definition, which you did in your first paragraph, but you CANNOT say that, given the definition in question, it is still wrong to say that people who do not satisfy the definition lack the connected positive attribute (in this case, knowledge).

Religious people fail to satisfy the criteria necessary for knowledge in their religious beliefs, but that should be fine for you. They are not knowledge attempts, they are faith-based. The purpose of faith is believing in something that you cannot know. It would be silly for me to speak of my strong and brave faith in my own existence.

 

[rjd970]

In particular, your statement of "trying to make yourself feel good" is particularly concerning. One of the beefs that I have with those who argue against a belief in a God is the tone of superiority of thought. As Hound Dog suggested, the unwavering belief in scientific inquiry as THE method through which we "know" is quite dogmatic.

If the belief didn't make people feel good, would they still believe it? To me, that is a huge point being overlooked here. How many times in history have people believed things outside of empirical evidence that didn't make them feel better about themselves, or give their life comfort? There is an element of bias with what you are arguing. Feel good or not, the scientific approach to gaining knowledge is what it is. And then to say that other processes (unscientific, non-Western, etc) is somehow on equal ground or better depending on the question being asked, is in fact disengenous.

Does it make me feel good to believe that we are just a small spec of life in the wide expanse of the universe, living in a solar system that resides in a particularly boring and unspecial galaxy? No, not really, but that is what the evidence suggests. Would it make me feel better to believe that there is an all powerful creator out there somewhere looking out for my best interests, and made the entire universe with us specifically in mind? Sure that would make me feel pretty good and important, but there is zero empirical evidence backing any of that up. And philosophically backing your way into a "feel good" answer to what amounts to being an "Nobody knows" question is not approaching the intellectual honesty of empirical and scientific thought.

There is nothing dogmatic, arrogant, or shortsighted about that.