This conversation is closed.

Islam beliefs & Christianity beliefs. fiction? deviation? true?

this topic is not related to existing or proving God and assumed God exist.
existing God is discussed in other topics like:

is there any connection between two beliefs?
Christians worship Jesus Christ as God our creator.
Quran validate the Bible to some extent
does the Bible validate the Quran?
are the Muslim God & the Christian God are the same?
Islams says extinction of human existed before Adam&Eve.
does Some Christians also believe this?
is there any deviation in original Bible? (the Bible at time of prophet)
is there any deviation in original Koran?(the Koran at time of prophet)
such beliefs are true or deviation?:
God cannot look on sin, neither can there be sin in heaven.
Sin causes death.
Death entered the world because of Adam & Eve, who exercised their right to chose, & chose to sin.
Mankind has chosen to sin ever since.
There is only one way that sin could be neutralized; if a sinless eternal being gave himself up to death. So God came to earth in the person of Jesus & paid the price, so that all who believe are free from sin & death.
Islam believes there is no savior unless the person's good deeds and prophets only can have some help to God forgive some shortcoming of true believers.
Islam believes God is not human nor material and created all materials.
does Christians believe God is a human?

  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • May 29 2011: Hi Iqbal, brilliant, I agree with every word.
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: Hi Iqbal
      Hopefully any BIOLOGISTS out there will keep me right.
      As I understand it the cells in our bodies are being constantly renewed; at the rate of about 10,000/sec. The result of this is that our whole body gets replaced within 10yrs or so. This means that in material terms we are all less than 11yrs old. This looks like a system that was originally designed to continue for ever, but of course we grow old. Why ? I presume there is a fault in the mechanism. Is this right guys ?

      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Not that I am a biologist, but I am pretty sure I now the answer one would give; No there is no fault in the mechanism, many enough will live long enough to produce offspring, that is why our species not dies and life is propagated down the generations. Life is a continuing process, an individual is a link in the chain, or a branch in the tree. Once an individual has lived long enough to ensure the survival of its offspring, there is no need for it to continue a life of its own.

        I have to say that to fully embrace evolution theory is a quite humbling experience, not so much the egoistic rejection of a creator as it often is portrayed as.
        • May 29 2011: Hello Kristofer. I agree, evolution is not the same recipient of egoistic rejection as a divine creator. Having said that; the way evolution progresses gives me some thought along those lines. The only way our species can evolve is by using information stored in the subconscious, (memory.) In the absence of divine help, the species (us) must feed all the information to allow evolution to proceed. Because of the vast time scale involved in evolution, that information must be retained until its use is needed. If this is so; when we die , our memory or some would call emotions, would have to live on. Evolution= ability and ability where ever it exists must have some control, or it would spiral out of control.
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: I am not sure I understand what you are saying? Do you say that evolution takes place in the mind? It's the DNA that is passed on from generation to generation and gradualy evolves. And why would evolution spiral out of control? Isn't survival of the fitest the mechanism that provides the control?
        • May 29 2011: Hi Kristofer, in the absence of a divine help, that just leaves the species. A species when it mutates, has to benefit all species, not just its own. The food chain is one example. DNA cannot do this alone there must be another unknown source that as yet to be found. Somehow the prokaryotic cells, jump into the eukaryotic ones, in doing this the dna seems to adjust to the task ahead,which suggests there is a pattern to how life evolves. This is the ability to which I refer. Survival of the fittest is still prominant, but survival of the most intelligent is the most important. Intelligence and ability go hand in glove.
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Most mutations are quite minor ones, can't see how it drastically would affect any other species. Do you have any sources that explains such a concept?
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222/evolution_vs_functional_proteins_where_did_the_information_come_from_doug_axe_stephen_meyer/

          @ Derek
          "It is these cell changes that allow this to happen, my question is; how do these cells get their information, the information about when and what to mutate into?"
          That's the million dollar question. Many think it just doesn't happen, others put their faith in random mutation + natural selection.
        • May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer, check out the Galapagos Cormorants, there are some big changes going on there. The minor changes you refer to are there, but you must take in the amount of time it takes for evolution to evolve. If it went to quick, the mistakes would pile up with chaos everwhere. The speed with which evolution progresses allows for mistakes to be rectified before they can spiral out of control. It is these cell changes that allow this to happen, my question is; how do these cells get their information, the information about when and what to mutate into?
        • May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer, I would just like to add that all life is dependent on each other in some way. The food chain is the main one, it establishes the need for dependence on one another for survival; we don't all eat the same thing. Survival allows life to evolve; saying it this way sounds like I am describing a design in nature. I am not rerring to some divine help, but a natural design. When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Depending what you believe, without divine intervention; that means the species are passing on the information for evolution to evolve. It also means that all life is connected in some way. Science dictates that all life started from one source, so isn't it possible that in some way, we are still one.
      • May 30 2011: Hi Peter. Random mutation over billions of years would have spiralled out of control without some way to govern it. Ask any gambler what chance would have done? That leaves you with two choices, was the control coming from God or from the species? If it was coming from God then the bible is a load of rubbish, because it goes against the workings of evolution. We all know that the evidence is firmly with evolution and I must go along with the evidence. We have gone so far down the wrong path it's hard to get back to the truth, but we are gradually getting there.
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Derek
          " .......the bible is a load of rubbish, because it goes against the workings of evolution."
          I totally agree, I wish some of my Christian friends could get this right

          "We all know that the evidence is firmly with evolution"
          Not really, I don't see the evidence for random mutation/natural selection evolving anything. Maybe you could enlighten me ?

      • May 31 2011: Hi Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. Random mutation and natural selection only work up to a point, that is , unless there is some kind of guidance. Where you and me differ, is the source of that guidance. Logic and science dictate that the first life-form was most likely a dormant one. If this is so then traits of that first ancestor must have been handed down. Where do we look for this dormancy? Without memory no life could exist, how would it know what to eat and where to find it? This is just the simplest of examples, but it will suffice. To have a memory all life must have a subconscious. When we dream most of what we dream can be explained by our everyday knowledge; however there are some dreams that happen now and again where there is no explanation. It is alienated from our own experiences. This dormancy that all life possesses, because all life has a subconscious, is just as important now as it was all those billions of years ago when life first started.
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Derek

          Well I'm guessing you know my (biblical) hypothesis. (Folks on this site like to use the correct words). All 'types' of creatures were created at once fully functional. A type would be originally creatures that could mate & produce fertile offspring. Within each type was the coding for lots of variation to help the creature adapt to it's environment. So we have natural selection, which over millennia have produced tremendous variety. However we have to operate within the code that was originally written into the dna, as mutations have yet to show the ability to write new code.
          When it comes right down to it, the actual empirical science backs biogenesis; ie life only comes from life. There is zero evidence that non-living matter can produce life. Even Dawkins concedes this & calls on panspermia, which of course leaves us with the same problem, but on another planet.
          I'm not sure that I understand your hypothesis, but I understand it requires a mind. How on earth do we get a mind by natural processes ? I guess you accept evolution in general, but see the problem with mutation/selection, and are trying to address this with a theory of mind. That's commendable, but to build on evolution I would suggest, is shaky ground.

      • May 31 2011: Hello Peter, try looking up Graig Venture, in 2010 he managed to bring forth life from non-life. For the other part of your question I can only repeat myself. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left however improbable, must be the truth. It depends on what you eliminate as to what decision you will come to. I myself have eliminated God; based on the evidence, that was the only decision I could come to. It's a bold statement to make, but I have almost reached the point where , the reality explains the whole. I can't be to far wrong if this is the case. Keeping it simple does not weaken a debate, it only adds more strength.
        • thumb
          Jun 1 2011: Hi Derek

          "Venter took the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides and transplanted it into the bacterium Mycoplasma capricolum. After multiple rounds of selection, the M. carpricolum lost its own genome and now contained only the genome of M. mycoides. Further testing confirmed that the M. carpricolum had become the donor strain of M. mycoides. This was heralded as the “creation of a synthetic lifeform” or “first new form of artificial life” giving the impression that Venter had created life in the lab." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/semi-homemade-life
          To me it seems he took genome of one bacteria, put it in another bacteria, & produced a third type of bacteria. So he starts with living material; no doubt useful & very clever, but hardly life from non-life. Let's assume he made bacteria from dirt, what does that show. That intelligence can produce life; right.

          I think where we differ is on what is impossible. To me empirical science proves evolution is impossible, to you it proves god is impossible.

    • thumb
      May 29 2011: Don't take that literally guys.For me, I think sin causes death spiritually.I agree with Iqbal when he says that no matter what we do , we'll die anyway.But he takes it literally.Hope you guys do articulate on this matter more.Do correct me if I am wrong.Have a nice day
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Spiritual death is to be separated from our creator. This life is merely the departure lounge where we get to chose our destination; 1. To live with our creator, or; 2. To live apart from Him.
        When history has run it's course, then there will be a new universe where we will be given perfect bodies & live forever with God; if we go for option 1.
        That seems to be the bible message. Sounds good to me, but I seem to be in the minority here.

        • thumb
          May 29 2011: I used to hope so too. But part by part the foundation I built my hopes upon seemed to fall apart.
          If you are interested in an explanation of atheism from the point of view from someone who really wanted to be a christian, watch this documentary http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/ .

          It's not at all important to me that anyone loses their own faith. I only hope to communicate that all atheists not are so because they have a problem with the idea of gods authority.

          Regarding Muhammads note about sin causing death spiritually, I think there is much wisdom in these words. But I would rather like to frame it in more concrete words such as; egoism, greed, hate, ..., leads to unsatisfaction, frustration, anger, ... .
        • Jun 1 2011: Hello Peter. Isn't it strange how our species will pick out that which goes along with what they believe and not what is. Why do we have to prove that life came from non-life, we are here after all? Why don't we have to prove what came before God; how was God created? We can only go forward with the facts that we know, to speculate is the way to chaos. Just out of interest, when I decided to eliminate God from my research; the reason was, that with religion I could go no further than what religion tells me. With evolution came a multitude of new ideas, ideas I could never have imagined. The point I am making is; religion stops you from thinking and I find this rather tragic because most of the believers don't realise this. If we hadn't come up with new ideas, the world would still be flat and the moon made of cheese.
        • Jun 11 2011: Dear Derek Payne,
          "how was God created?"
          any creature has a creator.
          even Big Bang has a creator.
          possibly a creator itself has other creator.
          so we have a chain of creators.
          so there is two possible situation:
          1- there exist an unlimited chain of causes (creators)
          2- finally there is a creator with no creator.

          which you pick?

          philosophers say the 1 is impossible rationally and makes paradox for example paradox with concept of time.

          if you pick 1 can you prove it is possible rationally?
          if you pick 2 then what is the name that final cause?

          also sprite can have growth or decline in levels of nearing (not physical, but knowing and obeying) or even sprite of human can die.
          when human is born his heart (sprite, think, soul, beliefs) is white. each sin makes a black point on heart.
          step by step heart becomes totally black. that heart is dead heart.
          dead heart can not hear (understand and accept) truth like a deaf human does not hear sound.
          one drug of dead heart is reading holy books like Koran.
          it makes heart white again.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 29 2011: Do you suggest that Buddhism stands out from the crowd just because I draw my conclusions using reason and experience. Hey, you make me feel very speciall! =)

          (Sorry, I'm just kidding. I get your point. Maybe I'm a Buddhist then =D)

          And hey, maybe you should spread Buddhism here. Everyone is spreading every other religion, so why not Buddhism too! :D

          I think the religious dialouges can get even more interesting if more faith systems are compared with each other. I started a thread[1] to find out what opinions and values we all have in common in this diverse set of people. It would be very interesting if you and everyone else would make a contribution there.

          [1] http://www.ted.com/conversations/3058/finding_common_ground_what_do.html
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer
        "But part by part the foundation I built my hopes upon seemed to fall apart."
        Watched most of the vid. skipped over some of the more predictable stuff.
        I think this is why Jesus preferred fishermen to intellectuals, He needs a degree of childlike trust. I didn't get 'saved' until I was 35, by which time I had learned that the intellectuals didn't really have all the answers. So much of our beliefs hinge on the last good book we read.
        Sorry you lost your faith; maybe the wrong foundation ?

        • thumb
          May 30 2011: How can you know which parts are predictable before you have watched them?

          The foundation I built it upon was that I realy liked the concepts such as honesty, surrendering the ego to gods will, compassion, and so forth, which I tightly connected with my faith. But I think the value I placed in many of these concepts also was what undermined my faith. I fully agree with you that "intellectuals" not has all the answers, but I think it is a common missconception that scientists, philosophers, and so forth claims to have all the answers. The difference I see between an "intellectual" approach to understanding the world and a fatih based approach is with what honesty questions are tackled. With faith, things that contradicts ones presuppositions about how things works tends to be neglected, while with an intellectualy honest approach one allways have to be willing to be proven wrong.

          In my opinion, many religions seems to be a great force for taking people from an egocentric morality, to a compassionate morality. But for further moral development, religion often seems to be a hurdle.

          P.S. I am sometimes sorry for myself having lost it too. It is so much more comforting to be able to believe in someone having a plan with my life.
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2011: Hi Derek
        "Isn't it strange how our species will pick out that which goes along with what they believe and not what is." Agreed; but we are both of this species.

        "Why do we have to prove that life came from non-life, we are here after all? "
        Agreed; but the scientific conclusion, given the law of biogenesis; should be that we came from life. To conclude otherwise is to move outside science & into faith.

        God claims to be spirit. Time only has effect on material things; ie atoms with mass. God has none of these, so he is eternal. Without beginning or end; as he is not within time. If he has no beginning, then he has always existed. That is as far as modern science can take it.

        The majority of the scientists up until recently believed in a god, & it was no barrier to thought; what's different ?
        Evolution told us that most dna was junk left over; we are now finding that it has purpose. Just as well we looked. Dinosaur bones with blood cells still intact have the scientists wondering how it survived 65 million years. Empirical science would say this is impossible . Because they believe the current extinction story (the most recent of many) they cannot entertain the idea that it may not be that old.

        Christian scientists can consider both the material and the spiritual; mainline modern scientists are restricted to the material. Who has one hand tied behind their back ?

        ps. Flat earth & cheese moon are not part of any religion I have encountered.

        • Jun 1 2011: Hi Peter. The flat earth was not referring to religion, but new ideas that stimulate an intelligent species. Without that stimulation we could not exist, only somewhere down the evolutionary scale on the same level as bacteria. Do you see how important it is to possess negative and positive emotions, each compliments the other. God= positive. Devil= negative. How could you know one, without knowing the other? You can't! It's only by understanding a problem will we ever solve it. Here are a few more examples of negative and positive emotions conplimenting each other. Love-hate, achievment- failure. It goes on and on. There is no emotion that does not have a negative and positive side, except in one area of our lives, I will leave you to figure that one out. You say God has always been around, can you prove that? See what I mean about facts? It is only facts that will give us the satisfaction we crave. Evolution is there for the benefit of the species and I do not deny there is a design in nature. A design goes along way to convincing me that there must be a sort of destiny for mankind, a destiny designed for the benefit of mankind, because it is designed by mankind. What could be more satisfying than that?
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2011: Hi Derek
        How does our good & evil emotions substantiate evolution ? Surely this cosmic war is described perfectly in the bible. How would this evolve by natural selection, or any other way ?

        I cannot prove to you that God has always been around; you can't prove the Big Bang; we're square.

        How can the design in nature be designed by mankind, when by your reckoning, man wasn't around ?

        I thought we were being scientific.

        • Jun 1 2011: Hi Peter. My mistake, before mankind nature was in charge and always will be. The human species have evolved from nature and now take a major role in that evolving. If this was not so, then we would not have evolved. I did mention that genetic mutations when they occur, are for the benefit of all, not just the species that is changing. Good and evil emotions, I prefer to call them negative and positive. You ask what part they play in evolution? Without negative and positive emotions, how would an intelligent species evolve? There would be nothing to talk about, nothing to write about, nothing to read about and ambition would be non-existent. In other words we would not be here and that is why these emotions are so important. The blood cells found in dinosaur fossils, I did research this a few years ago, the lady concerned (I forget her name) was investigated and is still being investigated. There is still doubt, it is thought that she could have put it there herself, due to her very religious beliefs. This was quite a few years ago; I am sure you will agree with me that it should have been cleared up by now, if there was any truth in it. It must have turned out to be blood from somewhere else. I agree with you Peter, we are both of the same species and possess the same weakness, to this I plead guilty. However I do try to stick to the facts that I am aware of,and not what I am told or what I read.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: Hi Derek
        "try to stick to the facts that I am aware of,and not what I am told or what I read." How does one become aware of facts but by hearing & reading ?

        Dino Blood (Mary Schweitzer)

        National Geographic certainly doesn't think the controversy is over. Here is an article from last year.

        I think this was the original 60-minutes interview.

        There is no mention of religion anywhere. Mary is totally convinced that her specimens are millions of years old. If she was a creationist of any type she would certainly have cast doubt on the age.
        Isn't the internet wonderful.

        "before mankind nature was in charge and always will be. The human species have evolved from nature and now take a major role in that evolving." "I do not deny there is a design in nature. A design goes along way to convincing me that there must be a sort of destiny for mankind, a destiny designed for the benefit of mankind,"

        You are talking in riddles Derek. Mankind is part of nature, nature has evolved, nature designed itself ?
        Where are the facts; what aspect of nature does the designing ? How did that aspect come into existance in the first place ?

        • Jun 2 2011: Hello Peter. First fact is; Mary's place of work was like a religeous shrine, she was obsessed to the point of substituting real for fantasy and that is why she had to be rigorously investigated. To make your workplace a shrine is a bit worrying woudn't you agree? Second fact; you do not substantiate her findings. (blood cells.) She has certainly changed her story from when it first happened, I wonder why? 3rd fact is; I said I try to go by the facts, by that I mean I don't take in all I read or am told, it does not mean I don't do these things. 4th fact; nature= evolution. Evolution= ability. There is no riddle to the laws of nature, they exist for a purpose. Ability without some kind of guidance would spiral out of control. this applies to ability wherever it exists. This also means evolution. 5th fact is; my intention is not to be malicious or disrespectful but evolution has brought us to this stage in our evolving. With intelligence our knowledge grows daily and with our expanding knowledge comes an expanding environment, (The Cosmos.) Also, with our continuing growth of knowledge comes the realization that there other reasons, other than supernatural ones. We are all brainwashed to a certain level without even realising it. You can see the tide turning, be it very slowly, but changing it is, and we will all be the better for it.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: Hi Derek
        "Mary's place of work was like a religeous shrine, she was obsessed to the point of substituting real for fantasy"
        Specifics please, I see no shrine. All that is around is lab equipment. It does seem that she is a Christian, & had one plaque with a bible verse, but she is an ardent evolutionist . Her boss is Jack Horner who is an eminent paleontologist , & he seems quite happy to put his reputation on the line.
        The Paleo Group thought enough of the idea to Carbon Date the materials.

        ".....various carbon dating labs. Then the bones were dated by the Accelerated Mass Spectrometry method. These tests run on numerous samples have confirmed that those dinosaur bones are less than 50,000 years old - not 65 million years old."

        I think you are all too ready to dismiss facts that don't agree with your theory. There is an anomaly here that honest folks are trying to work out, & that should be encouraged.

        • Jun 2 2011: Hi Peter. I don't dismiss their facts, however the story has changed since I first researched it and since you only mention the fossils , not the blood cells; I can only assume that it is you who is avoiding the truth. Having said that; what has it got to do with my fact based theory of evolution? Ability= Evolution. Can you send me details concerning dinosaur blood cells?
        • Jun 3 2011: Hi Peter. You did not send me the details regarding the dinosaur blood cells; I am genuinely interested. I have written a book and this could really affect certain chapters. Thank you.
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2011: Hi Derek

        [Dinosaur Blood Cells?

        The hints of hemoglobin remain speculative and are not covered in the new, peer-reviewed study, which appears in today's issue of the journal Science.

        Some scientists suspect the hemoglobin is a contaminant.

        If it's not a contaminant, "it is much bigger news than [the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper," said Pavel Pevzner, a computational biologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the new research.]

        This from the National Geographic link above.

        So the blood cells are not confirmed, only "Blood Vessels and other Connective Tissue". Although you could infer the possibility by doubting "some scientists" as there must have been hemoglobin present to have been considered a contaminant ?
        Check it out yourself, I am pressed for time.
        There does seem to be a flurry of interest in C14 in general. It seems to be present in just about everything with a carbon content. Conventional wisdom would have it that with a half-life of 5730yrs it should be totally undetectable after 100Kyrs or so. Diamonds is particularly interesting, as they should be immune to all the usual suspected sources. As usual there are two sides & both have possibilities.

        "my fact based theory of evolution? Ability= Evolution."
        Well I guess if the scientists got the timeline wrong with the dinosaur extinction, then maybe they got evolution wrong as well.
        I strongly suspect that stories of Dragons are based on true accounts of man's interaction with the remnants of the dinosaurs. As scientists had long discounted stories of dragons, they had to come up with another story when they started to be dug up; Dinosaur was invented, & far from being eliminated 65 million years ago, they survived much later.


        • Jun 3 2011: Thanks Peter, It was as I had thought. thank goodness there are no changes. It was this assumption of Mary's that put everyone on their guard. I don't really want to get into a discussion about dinosaurs but; China has the largest collection of dinosaur fossils and so follows their passion with dragons. Early man was not lacking in intelligence altogether and an intelligent species discovering these fossils, would have done the same thing has we still do today. Technology as moved on since then, instead of cave walls we use computerized graphics. No change there then? I do have an interesting question; what purpose did the dinosaur's reign have in God's eternal plans? Evolution is the only place I can find the answer. Science has no answer, they can't see the wood for the trees.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2011: Hi Derek

        :...what purpose did the dinosaur's reign have in God's eternal plans?"

        I see no 'reign' of the dinosaurs. They were just created creatures like all the rest. During the 1500yrs before the flood it is recorded that man lived over 900 years; it seems reasonable to assume more favourable climatic conditions caused this and the animals would be long-lived as well. As dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles continue to grow throughout their lives, it makes sense to assume that the reptiles would attain great size. After the flood we would have had an ice age; warm seas + cold land mass = lots of snow. This would have pruned the species count somewhat, and any large ones left would be hunted by man.

        This is a reasonable hypothesis if you accept the bible at face value; if however you go for the millions of years of evolution, then another narrative is necessary. I don't really understand the requirement for mass extinction of the dinosaurs. If I remember correctly, first by indigestion, then by suffocation, and now by meteorite (all in my lifetime). Why can't they just die out like all the others ?

        Going away for a couple of weeks on monday, so if I go quiet, it's nothing personal.

        • Jun 4 2011: Hi Peter, Whether dinosaurs evolved or were created by God is irrelevant. We both agree that there is a design in nature, if there was no reason for the dinosaur, this would mean that there is no design. Nature cannot be random, food chain etc. This not only applies to all life,but our species also. If the only way to answer is to move the goal posts, then the debate becomes farcical. We must have the courage of our own convictions. Science often reconstructs the demise of the dinosaur in so many different ways; it is obvious they have not got a clue. On the other hand, their purpose is never aired, this is the area that religion and science do not venture. I will address this at some other time. (There is an answer.) Enjoy your holiday.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2011: Hi Derek

        You have stated in other places that you believe in evolution, so clearly it is relevant. Why should there be any more reason for a dinosaur than there is for a bear. Man is excited by dinosaurs because they are big & exciting. To my way of thinking all creatures are made by god to show his power, & to make life more interesting for us. He succeeded, nature is awesome & points many to the Creator. If it were just random, then there would be no point to it at all.

        I don't know if you have come across the video "The Privileged Planet". It is quite good at putting our puny thoughts into perspective.


        • Jun 5 2011: Hi Peter. Of course all life is important, but all life has its part to play in the design that both of us agree on. A dinosaur has a different reason for being here than the bear. If there was no pattern, there would be no reason, all life would be the same. there would be no variety and that is just one reason why life is as varied as it is. Without variety; where would we get most of our stimulation from. If God is showing his power by making so many creatures; why the mutations? Does this mean that God gets it wrong sometimes?
          Evolution with mutations; the scenario changes dramatically, evolution is improving the species, not making mistakes. If God is behind these mutations, then he hadn't got it right in the first place and he still hasn't, because life is still evolving and mutating. ( There is proof of this.)
          I cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, but a God that consistently makes mistakes, well it takes some believing. We all know what the bears place in nature is; to keep its habitat balanced in a way that preserves the life that lives there, all is finely balanced. Could this be said about the dinosaur or had its presence started to upset the balance that was required all those millions of years ago? They reigned for more than 2 million years, which makes me think their presence was bit more important than that. They had gone along very smoothly doing what nature intended, so what did finally kill them off and why?
        • Jun 6 2011: Hi Peter. I have just watched "The Privileged Planet." I have seen it before somewhere, it gave me a buzz then and it still does. We are not so far apart in what we believe, it's just the source that divides us. There is so much to discuss about the video, but I will make one point. Science does not have a clue why we are able to understand the intricate workings of the Cosmos. Remember me saying that our knowledge is spreading throughout the Cosmos, so our environment is expanding also. Evolution; if getting its information from the species, then it is aware of our changes and in time, who knows, if we keep evolving? Do you see how important evolution is? I could go on about a lot more. They mentioned Einstien's theory of relativity, but not his theory of general relativity. I wonder why? They should have considered it alongside the Quantum theory of gravity which does not equate.
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2011: Hi Derek
        The reason for mutations. God gave us a choice at the beginning, to obey him or not. We chose not and the consequence of that is death. Mutations bring death, that is fairly obvious.

        It would be really cool if you could come up with proof that mutations improve the species & evolve us. That would be a first.

        Off on the hols; catch you later.

        • Jun 6 2011: Hi Peter. Mutations also bring life the means to evolve and adapt to environmental changes. Check out the Galapagos cormorants, you can see the changes going on that will allow them to adapt to the environment. But when checking, remember the scale by which evolution adheres. Don't you hesitate, when you see a religeous based video where they are at a loss to explain the fundementals of life because they ignore what might be the alternative? They ignore that which will give them even more understanding and explain why they understand. You mention death has a punishment from a forgiving God. I look on death not as punishment, but for the multitude of the most unpleasant emotions we will ever experience. I then try to figure out why! Environment changes must have brought those same emotions to the species affected and gave them the presidence to change. But with intelligence comes another dimension with death. (Afterlife.) I have to repeat myself again, but if evolution is getting its information from the species,(us.) then those terrible emotions that we feel are for our benefit; in the greater scheme of things that is. I hope this gives you a clue to our evolving. We both agree to a design. so intelligence did not happen by chance, it was destined from the very beginning. Intelligence was perhaps to match the way we evolve because like in the video our environment is changing. Like science, perhaps we can't see the wood for the trees. There is proof that we are still evolving, however it is too detailed to go into in this debate. That is why I wrote a book.
        • Jun 11 2011: Dear Peter,
          "God gave us a choice at the beginning, to obey him or not"
          you mean Adam? or all humans?
          it was only for Adam.
          but we all have free will in our life.

          I disagree our death is the result of deed of Adam.
          our dead is our nature. is creation of God. is decisions of God. like why we have hand and eye. why we have eye? at the same time we have death.
          why we does not have more eyes? because Adam had disobey?
          sin is when a religion exist. before coming Adam to earth no religion existed.

          also why we should pay the price of deed of Adam?

          any one has its own bill of deeds.

          it was the scenario of God for sending human in earth. it was a lesson to us.
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: ..
      Oh Thou, who didst Man of baser Earth make,
      And even with Paradise didst devise the Snake:
      For all the Sins wherewith Man has blackened his face
      Man's Forgiveness give--and take!

      Omar Khayyam
      • Jun 11 2011: Dear Richard,
        can you copy Persian version?
    • thumb
      May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer
      "How can you know which parts are predictable before you have watched them?"
      The section on biblical inaccuracies; I have checked out more of these than I care to remember. Likewise alleged creation problems, Noah's Ark etc. I only had an hour or so.

      I came to believe after years of searching when I realised that the evolution hypothesis just cannot work. Folks think that a living cell has the complexity of something like a Space Shuttle (or major city etc). So we are made up of trillions of these, which are all slightly different depending on their position within the body. This universe of cells reproduces other universes and constantly renews itself. It is also capable of moving, breathing, thinking etc. It has 3D colour vision, and can contemplate the wider universe.
      Some say this came about over millions of years of trial & error with no intelligent input, even though there is no solid scientific evidence. Sorry; I don't buy it.

      It is good to surrender the ego to God; but first you must be convinced that He really does exist. If not then you are doomed to fail. Did Jesus really physically die & resurrect in Jerusalem 2 millennia ago, or not ? Is the bible true ? If these are just fables, then I wouldn't waste my time. It is what is true that really matters, not what we would prefer to be true.

      • thumb
        May 30 2011: I think I can agree with your last sentence, and agree to disagree on much of the other things. I think my experience is much of the reverse of yours.

        I just wanted to point out that the hypothesis that we have two choices, to accept or reject God is an assumption that exists within the framework that assumes Gods existens. And by judging all people by that framework atheists are portrayed as rejecting God as authority for egoistic purposes, when that often isn't the case.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: I think that folks like Dawkins come over as egoistic, & there are many like him. Many times I have been told that I am stupid, because I don't accept evolution. Now I fully agree that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I have better manners than that.
          I agree that the majority of Atheists are ordinary Joes with whom a rational discussion is possible. Many, like the guy in the vid, have thought it through & can give rational reasons for their position & I respect that. Let's face it, if one is really an Atheist, then the subject of God should be one of moderate indifference. I don't have time for football, but I would never raise the interest to go on a ban football rally. In fact I would likely stand against any attempt to ban it.
      • May 30 2011: HI Peter. I am an evolutionist or athiest, whatever you want to call me will be OK. I might surprise you but I think that religion is of the utmost importance; if it wasn't it would not be there. I also think that evolution is important for the same reason. Wouldn't it be better if both sides could come together and maybe arrive at some kind of compromise. I know and you know, though you may never admit it; but because they are both there; they must both be linked in some way.
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Derek
          I hope that we can compromise in that we can agree to differ, and in the meantime have constructive dialog. I think that there is perhaps a bit of confusion surrounding "religion". Most of religion is formality, dress, pecking-order etc. It encompasses belief in a higher power, certainly, but it has become so wooly recently that I resist classing myself as 'religious'.
          When man comes up with a concept, his first instinct is to form a committee; this way the blame get's shared. A lot of religion is the same beast.
          So from your point of view, if I may be so bold, religion fulfills an evolutionary function in binding individuals together in a common cause. So they are linked.

          My position is somewhat different; no surprise there.
          I have two pertinent views. 1) Soup to man evolution is a fallacy. 2) God controlled the contents of the bible.
          I believe there is one creator God. He wants us to seek him, find him, and love him. In order for that to be meaningful, he has allowed us options from which to chose. So we have lots of religions to sidetrack us, but if we are honest & logical, the truth can be found. I'm afraid that I would lump evolution in with religion. It seems to me that at every point we have to take the opinion of someone as to what actually occurred, as there is never any repeatable experiment that can show it happening. Again we have a link.

      • Jun 11 2011: Dear Peter Law,
        Evolution is not a hypothesis.
        it is a theory including many hypothesis.
        I agree Evolution and accept it as a useful theory for knowing the life and species more and more.
        Adam and Eve came to earth near 7000 years ago and are different of species of homo before Adam and Eve.
        also I doubt a species can transform to other specie in a random process.
        but natural selection is clear true. we can see it.
    • Jun 11 2011: Dear iqbal,
      "before that the world was doing ok. so does it sound a sensible way to think that these two guys are from God?"
      human is the only creature of God in material world with free will.

      I do not believe sin causes death. it is the belief of some or all today Christians.

      I believe sin cases punishment. perhaps in some cases punishment be in form of killing.
      about Adam and Eve i do not consider eating of that tree sin. because before Adam and Eve come to earth no religion existed. and before any religion be significant to human, sin has no meaning.
      actually I consider it the scenario of God for creating wold and sending human in world.
      as God is arrogant and proud selected this scenario.
      God selected the attribute of arrogant only for himself and banned it for human to humble people against God be known.
      any way the fuel Hell is people and stone and hell needs fuel.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2011: So there needs to be a clarification of life. Are you speaking to the flesh or the soul. The life and death being discussed is the one of the soul.
  • thumb
    May 28 2011: The bible is exclusive - it does not validate the Koran in any way and Christians do not worship Jesus Christ. You seem to be heavily misinformed on that note. Jesus said “no man comes to the father except through me". This quote has often been misinterpreted mostly by Christians and non-Christians. It raises easy questions like 'what about those who never heard of Jesus Christ before they died?

    What Jesus meant was no one comes to his father except by obeying his message of LOVE. Even a nonreligious person can be considered a candidate for heaven if he loves his neighbour as himself
    • May 28 2011: Dear Ehis,
      "The bible is exclusive - it does not validate the Koran in any way "
      does it include gospel of barnabas?
      can you explain more about "message of LOVE"? does it mean God loves all and all go to Heaven?

      "Even a nonreligious person canbe considered a candidate for heaven if he loves his neighbour as himself"
      Fatima (peace on her) the daughter of prophet Muhammad (peace on him) said:
      "first neighbor, then home"
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: I say water your own tree before watering everyone else's. To quote Ataturk, as much of a bastard as he was, "Happy Home. Happy World!".
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: SR I have gone through with you about the Gospel of Barnabas, which you are clinging onto for dear life.

        Not to be confused with the Epsistle of Barnabas, A Hoax with no evidence its existence before the 17th century. Fabricated in the Ottoman Empire because of the dire need to rectify the claim in the Quran that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible. In fact there is no reference to him, unless you take Jesus's warning of False Prophets.

        The Wikipedia references you used to give earlier clearly says so (fabrication no evidence of prior existence), which I pointed out.
        • Jun 11 2011: Dear Richard Dawson,
          actually all Bibles are Fabricated. and the oldest Bible is written near 100 years (do not know exact) after Jesus. because after Jesus all bibles were collected by church and all destroyed. an until year 170 (please correct me if not exact) had no bible.

          if only you accept Gospel of Barnabas existed before start of Islam is enough.
          there are some historical evidences showing Gospel of Barnabas existed before start of Islam.
          Muslims only say Gospel of Barnabas has minimum conflict and max. match with Koran.
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Dear SR

        The message is "Love Your Neighbour as yourself" and there is no such thing as 'gospel of barnabas'. Where did you get that from?

        The problems we have on earth today are due to lack of Love . . . Jesus said Love your enemies and he proved that several times. . . So, Jesus is Love. The best way to follow Jesus Christ is not simply by declaring him as your saviours and practicing discrimination or any form of hatred. . It is by showing love especially to those who need it . . .

        Some Christians know this . . but others are quick to condemn anyone of different ideology . . condemn the gays and people of different faith instead of showing them love and pray for them . . .

        Christianity means Christ like . . it’s a religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth . . Jesus only teaching was "Love Your Neighbour as yourself".
        • Jun 11 2011: Dear Ehis,
          "Where did you get that from?"
          I quoted it

          "Christianity means Christ like . . it’s a religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth . . Jesus only teaching was "Love Your Neighbour as yourself"."
          yes but today the original Bible is not accessible and different partially deviated versions exist.

          only this one message?
    • thumb
      May 28 2011: Hi Ehis

      Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
      Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
      Hbr 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

      Guilty as charged, it was I who (mis?) informed S. R. Ahmadi that we see Jesus as God. I don't suppose we can get into a bible-study; but from the passage above it is clear that He "is the heir of all things"; "made the worlds"; "is the brightness of His glory"; "is the express image of God"; "upholds all things by His power"; "He purged our sins".
      If this was the only passage, there may be doubt, but there are dozens of passages pointing to the same conclusion. I can't honestly say that I know of any Christians who don't accept that Jesus is God; at least as far as humans are concerned.
      "What Jesus meant ...."
      I think Jesus said exactly what He meant. If we were capable of getting into heaven by 'being good' then why did He have to go through all that business on the cross ?

      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Mr. Peter Law

        You are highly misinformed as most Christians. If you take the bible literally then it is contradictory in tone, inconsistence in instruction and out-dated in some parts. If you take Jesus Christ as a message then it is “Love Your Neighbour as yourself”. Jesus Christ is a message and Love for everyone (your enemy inclusive) is at the core of that message.

        It is ridiculous to think otherwise because there are so many folks even in the present world that never heard of Jesus. I've got some Chinese friends that never heard of Jesus Christ but have heard of the message one way or the other. I am African and most of my forefathers never heard of Christianity but that message is part of humanity its self. Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ but the message is central to their religion – Muslims and other religion have a similar message of love.

        Do not quote me verses Peter – because I can cite verses that even the Pope cannot explain. . Take the message, let your life be what makes you a Christian not what you claim to have read. . .
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Hi Ehis

          If we have to read a book non-literally, then how do we decide what it really means ? It means whatever we want it to mean, and the chances of getting any truth from it are zero.
          Usually what happens is some guy tells you what it means, and we follow him. I think I'll stick to the literal.
          I'm sorry that you don't like what it says, you'll need to take that up with the author.

      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Hi Peter

        Perhaps you can explain the following verses literally.

        (1) “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18),

        (2)“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

        (3)“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

        (4) “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

        (5) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

        You cannot read a book that was written Two Thousand years ago literally, that’s common sense. The bible is timeless but it is also contextual - if you see it literally then it must be out-dated . . . You have to understand this.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Hi Ehis
          How about you interpret them into today's language for us. You seem to hold to the bible for Jesus, but think it needs re-interpretated. So you interpret these passages as you see it, and then I'll do the same.

      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Mr. Peter - you said " If we have to read a book non-literally, then how do we decide what it really means ?" also, " I think I'll stick to the literal". If you follow my extract literally you know what it makes you . . .

        And why do you intend to interpret the extract when you already declared that it should be adhered to literally . . . they are self-explanatory.. it encourages discrimination against gays, promote slavery, cause women to be subordinate and ordain as a religious duty the killing of witches.

        My point - do not take the bible literally - the extract was written to fit a particular time and place. It is quite obvious that our time do not fit into the extract so that passage is not for us . . It is out-dated. . However, we have our part in the scripture and that part is "Love Your Neighbour as yourself". This message fits into the current world. . if you love your Neighbour you will not discriminate him/her even though he is gay . . since you do not wish to be the slave of anyone - you do not wish that for someone . . . That is simple .

        Now you understand me Mr Peter . . It takes more than the physical sense to understand the word of God . . Not all passages are yours . . look for yours and leave the rest alone.
        • May 30 2011: I am confused, very much confused...
          What particular time and place can justify mentioned above verses ?
          And how it can support the main idea of teaching
          "Love your neighbour as yourself"
          Out-dated eternal book ?
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Hi Ehis

          So your view of keeping up to date is just to drop the parts you don't like, and keep the parts that you personally agree with. Using that system I could use just about any book as my guide.
          You use particularly emotive passages to make your point, presumably to get a mass reaction to my views. It is difficult to explain these in a few lines as full understanding takes a lot of study to get the context; however I will have a go.
          1) Slavery is normally associated with the African Slave Trade in our eyes, but the biblical understanding is different. If a man owed money, which he couldn't repay, he was given the option of working it off. If I remember, for a max of 7yrs. There were strict rules for both slave (or servant), and equally strict rules for the master. Sometimes when the money was paid the slave would stay on voluntarily for life. If he did his ear was pierced as a sign.
          2) Man is designated the head of the household, & has to love & cherish his wife, who in turn follows his lead. The man has the responsibility, the woman has the security she needs to bring up children; it's a good system. Men have abused it, but that's down to men, not God.
          3) This is a prophecy of what it will be like towards the end. It tells of unbelief & mockery & general rebellion against the Word of God. It's coming true in our time & much worse is to follow, but instead of seeing the prophecy come true, we nit-pick about the wording. We are warned not to get involved in homosexuality; if we do & get hurt, then it's down to us. It's a sin just like all the others, in Sodom it was a prelude to disaster.
          4)This one is from the Old Testament, the rules were a bit different then. Witchcraft was legalised for some reason recently (UK). I guess folk thought it was a fairy story, time will tell how much (if any) harm is done. Maybe they were boiling children in cauldrons back then; I don't know....ctd
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: .......ctd
          5) This is related to 2) and is the general pecking order. It may have been relevant only to the church in that time, or not, there is much debate on this. Certainly women are free to contribute in our church services and bible studies.

          This last one sort of exposes the position. We are saved by the blood of Christ period. We do our best to live according to His wishes, but as human beings we make a hash of it. Thankfully that is unimportant in the scheme of things. Jesus himself told us not to judge each other by how well we kept rules. The bible is God's book, it is His Spirit that reveals the truth to His people, to the rest it is foolishness, which makes it an easy target for complaint. It has however stood the test of time, & is still changing lives for the better.

        • May 30 2011: Thank you, Peter
          Your explanation is really helpfull,
          but doesn't it mean that you can't read the bible literally?
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Natasha, you do not have to be confused - I cannot explain the justification of those verses in historic times because it would be from hindsight. But what those verses showed is the reality of the world we use to live in, say, five hundred years back . . My point to Mr. Peter is that we cannot read such verses into the present time.
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Natasha you said "Thank you, Peter Your explanation is really helpfull, but doesn't it mean that you can't read the bible literally?"

        My whole argument with Peter was that one cannot read the bible literally because if you do it raises serious questions that not even Pope can explain . . and Peters attempt to twist direct quotes from the bible causes irritation. There is slavery in biblical times in the form of America slavery . . I bring your attention to the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt and how Joseph was sold for slavery . . . How dare you try to twist that to mean what you dream it to be. . . Peter's attempt to twist the biblical meaning of slavery is so annoying.

        I can provide more verses of slavery . . . .

        "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

        "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colossians 3:22)

        "Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back ." (Titus 2:9)

        I thought you were brainy enough to get away with these question . . . let me help you out. The Bible was written by people, not a deity. Most books are account of happenings and the slavery part were written because of the context of its time . . . and Jesus Christ wrote none of the books in the entire bible.

        To take the bible literally is an act of madness. . . For your information i am a proud christian but not one in denial.
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Natasha also said "What happened to eternal truth back 500 years ago?"

        The real question should be ' what is the eternal truth?' And i say the message of Christ. . what we have been grappling with is a side show . The real message is ‘Love Your Neighbour as yourself’ and not all passages of the bible supports this message. You have to realise that the bible is an account of early events and the books to be included in the bible was debated and voted upon. . so do not think it is some kind of message faxed from heaven . . because it is not. That is my point.

        Like every human message – it is contextual and seeks to answer questions of its time. The mistakes of most religious people is to hold to those old views and equate them to the realities of today . . for instance the Islamic Sharia law. That law was created to prevent the rich from stealing from the poor but an uninformed Muslim thinks it was a direct message from God. There are human element in the bible . . get that.

        If you really understand the meaning of Christianity you do not have to go to church to prove you are one . . Christianity means 'Christ like', a religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazaret. The teaching of Jesus was unconditional love for everyone . . nothing else. . . That is the eternal truth not the discrimination of women or slavery which some writers included in the biblica account.
        • May 30 2011: Hello, Ehis !
          That's exactly what I was trying to lead to...
          Bible is a product of human mind, people, which were exposed to and influenced by the ideas of their time, they happened to live in.
          Bible is not a book, it's a library,where you can find a lot of things, but it does not in any way diminish the great teaching, which Jesus brought into the world, and the message of love lies at the core of it.
          A simple crystal of insight tells us how the world is built:
          All is One
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Ehis (Natasha)

          "Do not quote me verses Peter – because I can cite verses that even the Pope cannot explain."
          For someone who doesn't like to have verses quoted, you sure do quote a lot. The verses on slavery make perfect sense. Slavery was a fact, God didn't instigate it; man did. God gave the Jews rules to keep it humane , the Egyptians did not give a toss about the Jewish Law. Jesus told us to 'turn the other cheek'; to be honest & hardworking, whether slaves or not. I see no problem.

          I have explained the passages, they can be taken literally by those who understand. If you think I have twisted them then I'm sorry. Jesus stood foursquare behind every word of the old testament.
          Mat 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
          So if you admire Jesus so much, then you have to factor that fact into your thinking.

          Jesus main theme was to love Him & love one another. He also said that if we truly loved him we would obey his commands. Many people admire Jesus, whether Christian or not, but if we are to be consistent we have to put the bible into context. It's not a pick & mix.

        • Jun 1 2011: Dear Peter,
          If your belief, the way it is, makes you a good man, husband and father, and I am sure you are,
          then I am truly happy for you! Keep going,
          God bless you.
    • thumb
      Jun 2 2011: You don't need theism to believe in love.
      If that's all we can conclude, then seriously.
      The virgin mary just told a blatant lie, and this got seriously out of freaking control.

      What even is the point of theism if people have broken it down THAT much just to justify what they have become emotionally attached to.
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2011: Ehis -
      It is literally impossible to love another person as you love yourself.

      You don't love yourself, first of all, you only look to satisfy the aspirations of your brain.
      You can be nice to others, but you're only being nice because YOU want to be nice. Everything you do, you decide to do for your own benefit.

      Second of all, even if you were right (despite being brutally wrong), I could search the planet a thousand times and I can guarantee that every single person cares more about themselves than anyone else.
      This is nature, this is literally what makes us human. The aspiration for personal fulfillment.

      Even the most selfless people out there, lets say somebody donates millions to charity.
      They decided to do so because they decided those people deserve better.
      That person WANTS those people to be better off.
      That person wants to be able to sleep at night.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2011: Here's a Veritas Talk at Columbia with three theologians, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish on wrath and love. Worth checking out! Might help spark the conversation a bit: http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/1024

    From what I understand, Islam does take some inspiration and source material from Christianity, but it represents a departure from Jesus' Gospel such that it represents a profoundly different religion. Jesus as portrayed by the apostles in the New Testament is very clear that he has come to fulfill Judaism, and I've always thought that Muhammad did not make the same claim relative to Jesus with anything like the same strength.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jun 11 2011: breath, death, Hell,

      breath is the count down of death.
      each breath is one pace nearer to death.
  • Jun 11 2011: Dear Derek Payne,
    about Random mutation has it observed yet?
    I think it is near 300 years that research of evolution continues.
    I agree natural selection. but I disagree Random mutation. I mean Random mutation that lead to transform of a specie to another specie.. for example a dog transform to wolf.
    has such case observed yet?
  • thumb
    Jun 4 2011: "is there any connection between two beliefs?"
    Yes. The Quran is a spin-off from the Bible, further altered by Mohammad.

    "Christians worship Jesus Christ as God our creator."
    Protestant and Catholic Christians (i.e. most people in the US), yes, but not all flavors of Christians. Most other flavors worship him as the son of God, rather than God himself in a human form.

    "Quran validate the Bible to some extent does the Bible validate the Quran?"
    Other than the basic parts they both share (such as Genesis and the story of Abraham), no. The Quran is "Bible + Something else", in the same way that the Bible is actually "The Torah + something else".

    "are the Muslim God & the Christian God are the same?"
    They have the same base, yes. But are they the same God? Hmm... maybe... if God has changed his mind on a lot of questions between the Bible and the Quran, which would make him fallible, which would contradict both the Bible and Quran.

    "does Christians believe God is a human?"
    Once upon a time, they did. Today, most Christians don't believe this.

    "Islams says extinction of human existed before Adam&Eve. does Some Christians also believe this?"
    You mean there were humans before Adam & Eve, but they went extinct? No Christian believes this.

    "Death entered the world because of Adam & Eve, who exercised their right to chose, & chose to sin."
    Interesting way to put it... Christians believe that they didn't know good and evil, and they chose to know it. God punished them for this sin (which because of lack of knowledge they didn't know was a sin), and blame the rest of humanity for it (even though they had no say in the matter).

    "Mankind has chosen to sin ever since."
    Allegedly, man kind inherited the knowledge of good & evil, which is inherently a sin, so yeah... one of the many paradoxes... by knowing good from evil, you're already evil.

    "so that all who believe are free from sin & death."
    If this was true, I wonder why Jesus' disciples aren't living with us anymore.
    • Jun 4 2011: Hi Vasil. Religions are not conceived by a spiritual source. They are conceived by us and altered by us to suit whatever it is we believe in. You don't have to take my word for it; just read the correspondence attached to this debate.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2011: I know this full well... but I decided to play by S.R.'s rules, and assume God exists in some form (just not exactly as described in the Quran or Bible). We both know the concept of the Abraham God is so flawed that it defeats itself, so we can grant everything he wants, just as long as he can rationalize the ambiguities (which we know exist because holy books are man made).
        • thumb
          Jun 11 2011: when looking at other religions, Judaism, Chrisanity and Islam are the most related. each of their holy books focus on a connection by the worship of God

          when looking at each other having different gods then that's a bit misleading, the reason why because for Allah it just means God in Arabic and for God, the name come from the English language, in many different countries God is named depending on the language you refer to him, but if that's not the case then his real name would be Deus which is in Latin or Yahweh which is in Hebrew, the only difference between them is a language barrier

          when looking at there personalities a bit confusing, for the founders of the religions like Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed they are related as prophets from god to spread to idea of god and his commands because of some misinformation of him liked Abraham stating he was a Jealous God or Jesus stating he was a loving god
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2011: The jealous vs. loving is actually one of the few instances where I don't see a contradiction in that God. Just as humans can love someone and be jealous of them when they stray to others.

        The only problem is that this characteristic only makes sense if other gods exist. If there is only one God, there's no one to be jealous of.

        People who have read/seen "History of God" by Karen Armstrong* will know this, but believers relate to this characteristic without taking it to its logical conclusion that while God may be jealous, he must have no reason to be if he was the only one.

        • thumb
          Jun 11 2011: thats the reson i am a bit confused because it does stated in the bible in text i think its chapter exodus or genus but its a possibility that its just a writer misinterpreting it because in that time their was a bunch of polytheistic religions but what i don't know is why not just state that there is no such gods and their is only one god?
    • Jun 11 2011: Dear Vasil Rangelov,
      thanks for your replies.

      "Yes. The Quran is a spin-off from the Bible, further altered by Mohammad."
      he was uneducated and did not write any thing anything in his life. he at age of 40 started saying some amazing sayings (revelation).

      "Protestant and Catholic Christians (i.e. most people in the US), yes, but not all flavors of Christians. Most other flavors worship him as the son of God, rather than God himself in a human form."
      in Islamic view both are false. God has no son and prophet is different of God.

      "if God has changed his mind on a lot of questions between the Bible and the Quran, which would make him fallible, which would contradict both the Bible and Quran."
      God has absolute knowledge and power and never do mistake and never change mind.
      please consider possibility of deviation in holy books.

      "Once upon a time, they did. Today, most Christians don't believe this."
      so Christianity is changing over time?
      so how some one can be sure this religion is still true and original and accepted by God?

      Dear Vasil,
      really i did not know that Christians know Abraham God is so flawed that it defeats itself.
      before I thought Christians really think God was a human that was walking on water and so on.
      now I know Christians better.

      "You mean there were humans before Adam & Eve, but they went extinct?"

      knowledge of good and evil is not as sin. why sin? wonder. it is knowledge! and knowledge is very good.

      "because holy books are man made"
      original holy books not.
      but today holy books yes (at least partially) unless Koran.
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2011: "he was uneducated and did not write any thing anything in his life. he at age of 40 started saying some amazing sayings (revelation)."
        Still... it was he who had the revelation that happened to be a very close to the Bible kind of revelation. So it's still the Bible with alterations from Mohammad.

        "God has absolute knowledge and power and never do mistake and never change mind.
        please consider possibility of deviation in holy books."
        What does that suppose to mean? There are for a fact deviations in holy books... but the existence of those deviations can be explained in one of three ways:
        1. God, as described in any holy book, does not exist and all holy books are man made, and some men have different views on certain issues.
        2. God exists, and all holy books are his word, but he has changed his mind over time on some issues.
        3. God exists, and only one of the holy books is correct, because God doesn't change his mind on any issues.

        The position of any atheist is option 1.

        Option 2 is demonstrably false, because all holy books claim that God does not make errors, and therefore does not change his mind.

        And if you go with option 3, there's no way to show which holy book is the right one. Jews might say it's their book, because it's the earliest, and everyone else just twisted God's message to their own agenda, which to me personally makes sense (except their book was also conceived in this way, but... details). Christians might say that because Jesus was the son of God, he was a living person who knew first hand what he was talking about, so his word is the right one if in conflict with the old testament, which also makes sense if Jesus was indeed the son of God. And you might say not only that Jesus was not the son of God, but that all prophets before Mohammad, while being acknowledged as prophets, did not received/communicated the message properly, and somehow only Mohammad was an exception to this. There's no evidence for any of it, which is why I go to 1.
        • Jun 12 2011: if we consider the original versions of holy books yes they are from one God and no conflict. they all validate each other.

          "can be explained in one of three ways:"
          by deviation I mean changes done by evil people in text of holy books in order to control people.
          if we consider the original versions of holy books (what exactly prophet said that maybe different of what we today have) they are still have differences while have no conflict. actually their difference is completing. changing while no conflict. this can be in two way:
          1- God changed mind
          2- God developed the book over time (change with no conflict to past books) based on new context of human life.
          it is like one book written for different level of ages. does it mean writer changed mind? no. it means writer wrote for different ages.
          holey books are like that. people think/tech/knowledge/context change. not mind of God.
          so better to add a 4th way:
          4. God exists, and all of the holy books is correct, because God changed books based on change of human.

          "The position of any atheist is option 1."
          I think they do not know Koran well.

          please distinguish the original book and the book available today after thousands of years. they are not necessarily the same. only today Koran is exact the same as what prophet said. (by enough historical and rational proof)
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2011: "so Christianity is changing over time?
        so how some one can be sure this religion is still true and original and accepted by God?"
        They're taught to believe that what they're being thought is how it always was. That what their pastor says is the original message of the religion. So when he says that God is outside of time and space, they think that's how God was always perceived... which is false. God was initially perceived as living in the heavens i.e. everything above Earth's atmosphere (the evidence is in the Bible - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."). In time before space exploration, this made sense. Shortly after the first space explorations and the shift to the heliocentric model, it was said he's outside of the universe. And now with the multi-verse hypothesis, they say God is outside of space and time (i.e. not in any of those other universes, should they turn out to exist). If one day we prove the 11 dimensions with a test rather than a math equation, and specify the properties of those dimensions, they'll say that God is in another dimension.

        God is always just around the corner of what is proven, and shifts as soon as we realize there's no God there.

        A large percentage of the Christian population hasn't read the Bible, and a good percentage of those who do turn atheist because they realize the nonsense of it. The rest turn into creationists and pastors. I'm willing to bet that this is also true for the larger part of the Muslim population, especially in countries with secular governments like Turkey.

        "knowledge of good and evil is not as sin. why sin? wonder. it is knowledge! and knowledge is very good."
        How does the story of Adam & Eve look in the Koran? Were they and their descendants not punished for disobeying God by acquiring knowledge of good & evil through the fruit?
        • Jun 12 2011: agreed
          also about Muslims large part of them do not read and do not know Koran (people) or interpret Koran in their benefit or censor parts are against them (governments) in all countries.

          "How does the story of Adam & Eve look in the Koran? "
          God created Adam and Eve and sent them in a garden (not paradise) and told do not near that tree. then Satan cheated them and they neared that tree and so God said them go out and go down to earth until a certain day while some of you are enemy of some other.
          and did not said it was a sin. sin is by religion. before Adam come earth no religion existed.
          and did not say humans should punish for Adam. but said:
          (no one will be punished for sin of other)

          verses about Adam (آدم):

          "Were they and their descendants not punished for disobeying God by acquiring knowledge of good & evil through the fruit?"
          only Adam went out from nearing to a tree.
          please not about trees in heaven:
          those trees have all kind of fruit based on Intend of who want to eat from that tree. so it is tree of all fruits.
          but as I know it was not for acquiring any kind of knowledge.
          God himself learned all the knowledge of every thing to Adam:
          this knowledge is not related to that banned tree.
          that knowledge was transferred from each prophet to next successor (selected by God) and today this knowledge is with 12th Imam:

          totally God had been decided to send Adam to earth before send Adam and Eve to that garden.
          when Adam came out of garden and came to earth was very sad and was crying very long time and God did not speak him any more until an angel came to earth and Adam asked it:
          what God said about me?
          angel: God said to us:
          "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority"
          Adam became very happy and knew it was Intend of God not sin
        • Jul 15 2011: Vasil - I think most Christians also believe that God dwells inside them through the holy spirit, and also in the omnipresence of the world.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2011: Well according to the bible, I have been sentenced to eternity in hell since I was 7. "You may not be forgiven for doubting the existence of the holy spirit."

    This and thousands of other loopholes in the bible lead me to the conclusion that the bible is a compilation of utter crap.

    A common argument I encounter: "The bible is just a big metaphor for what Christianity is, we don't actually believe in that."

    Well if the bible was never written, Christianity would have never been conceived. Religion started out as a ridiculous concept, and over the years those who wish to maintain faith due to personal attachment broke these concepts down to ideas and principles which are more easily justifiable.

    EDIT: This may not belong in this discussion, didn't look over the guidelines very thoroughly.
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2011: "Well according to the bible, I have been sentenced to eternity in hell since I was 7. "You may not be forgiven for doubting the existence of the holy spirit."

      Nuts ! The thief on the cross had no idea about the Holy Spirit, he just trusted Jesus. It's not how you live that's essential, it's how you die. It usually comes unexpected though, so the smart move is to get it sorted asap.

      • thumb
        Jun 1 2011: What are you suggesting?
        That the bible is in fact nonsense?
        It's how I die? What if I am drugged, and I then kill somebody, then kill myself?
        Your interpretation of theism is just another one of millions that create a massive hypocritical web.
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Hi Cole
          1) The bible is 100% correct.
          2) If you die trusting in Christ you will go to be with him.
          3) If you don't, you wont.
          Simple huh!

      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: If the bible is 100 percent correct, than I am going to hell, to suffer for eternity.
        What if somebody is raised on an isolated island and is taught that god is wrong, jesus is wrong, and all religion is wrong.
        And then they die.
        They have done nothing wrong, but according to the bible they have.
        DO they deserve to suffer for ETERNITY?
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: Hi Cole
          I see you bill yourself as an Atheist . Why are you so worried about someone who doesn't exist ?
          If you are on an isolated island who is teaching you about religion being wrong? Do you have to believe them ?
          The bible tells us that the wonders of nature testify to a Creator God and that if we don't recognise that then we are being deliberately ignorant. If we insist on this path then we are without excuse, & will be judged accordingly. If however we recognise that there must be a creator, and make every effort to contact him, then this will be taken into account.
          From what I know of God, He will be fair & merciful; no worries.

      • thumb
        Jun 3 2011: You say that the bible is 100 percent correct.
        Then you say that god will be merciful and fair.

        Well the BIBLE, tells me that I am in fact sentenced to eternity in hell.
        That is not fair.

        Worried? I'm not worried about an entity that doesn't exist, im in fact optimistic. Because theism is on a downwards slope, and statistics tell us that once theism is eliminated from society, we will flourish.

        Do I have to believe them? I can't believe this.
        I have no standard to compare my teachings to. yes I will believe them.
  • May 30 2011: they are called abrahimic faiths for a reason. they originate from the same father. first it was judaism, but the message got corrupted so allah sent jesus but jews rejected him and his message, and later there was a need for as new revelation and that was the quran.

    and allah himself promised to guard the message of islam and the quran:

    "We have without doubt, send down the message; and We will assuredly guard it(from corruption)." The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 15, Verse 9
    • Jun 11 2011: well said.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2011: The issue with this is the purpose of Christ's gospel. Was Christ there only for the Jews? Christ makes a clear claim "I am the way the truth and the life and none will enter the kingdom but through me."
  • Comment deleted

  • May 28 2011: Hello SR. Forget about sin and the non-sinners, forget about God and the Devil. We possess a multitude of negative and positive emotions, each compliments the other. Without these different emotions, niether the Quran or the Bible would exist. Example; how would we know love without knowing hate? How would we know the thrill of achievment without knowing the frustration of failure? If we did not have these positive and negative emotions complimenting each other, what could we write about? What could we talk about and what could we read about? All ambition would be absent! This debate would not be taking place because our species would have become extinct, just like you mentioned. If the human race has become extinct in the past, you now know why. It is no longer the survival of the fittest, it's the survival of the most intelligent! There is only one way to solve a problem and that is by understanding it. Religion hasn't done a very good job up till now, thank goodness the tide is turning!
    • Jun 11 2011: Dear Derek Payne,
      I agree you.
      negative attributes help us know positive attributes.

      but why forget?
      what about risk of Hell?
      if I went to Hell then can you escape me?

      our body will die.
      but our soul never die and we will have new body for Hell or Heaven.

      "Religion hasn't done a very good job up till now, thank goodness the tide is turning!"
      I do not know well about other religions today.
      I know each religion was for context of its own time and not usable for any time.
      each time a religion became out dated God send new updated religion.
      and today the most updated religion is Islam and God did not send any more religion after islam and this means that for our time Islam is usable.
      I know Islam has solved problems well and had done its job well.
  • thumb
    May 28 2011: if god is all things and sin exsist, wouldnt sin exsist within god?
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: Hmm interesting point. But I could argue that crack dealers don't do their own crack roughly put ;)
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: God is not all things - definitely not anything impure . . .
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Who creates something impure?
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: You are occupied with irrelevant questions. . One could create something and not be part of it
        • Jun 11 2011: "Who creates something impure?"
          its creator.

          God created all thing unless himself.
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Ha ha is it so ? (well better to be occupied with questions even if it is irrelevant than archaic thoughts).

        My question is irrelevant?
        Did my question asked whether creator of impurity was part of impurity or not ?

        So who is the one who created impurity not being part of it ?
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: You know i cannot answer your question - i can try to but i will be attempting what i do not understand myself. . It is a mystery.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2011: Great question. Scriptural God is not all things. God is all good. If the understanding is that sin is evil it is by definition anything that is apart from God. There are several points within scripture where these differences occur and what they are.
  • thumb
    May 28 2011: The Quran seems to be a Syro-Aramaic interpretation of Christianity. In any case Christian faith, just as Islam, has a philosophical basis. Taking some distance from the 'bookish beliefs' that have been emerging, we can see how in previous times people were often more wise with religion. Religion can never be bigger than God / Allah himself, for instance - it's that simple. God has to be bigger than the history of religion. But religion is valuable too, for the same reason. Religious thought is where the big questions of humanity have always been asked. Not the answers, but the questions are the beginning of the quest.
    • May 28 2011: Dear jcm,
      "The Quran seems to be a Syro-Aramaic interpretation of Christianity."
      please explain this more.
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: Dear jcm manuel

      You must be a comedian to say "the Quran seems to be a Syro-Aramaic interpretation of Christianity".. . I hope you know there is a Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran....
      • Jun 11 2011: I do not know the meaning of Syro-Aramaic.
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2011: His point is exactly that. The Koran is a syro-aramaic interpretation both culturally and philosophically of ideals found withing the writing of Christ but crafted to the purposes of the culture and locale of its writings.