Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,744 Year: 4,001/9,624 Month: 872/974 Week: 199/286 Day: 6/109 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?
John
Inactive Member


Message 366 of 385 (14828)
08-04-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Andya Primanda
08-04-2002 11:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:

then why don't you both do? Allah scored twice in this forum(the first one's in Free-for-All) right?
...sorry, can't resist the temptation to do that!

I have significant respect for Islam, despite the bad press it gets. I did a research paper of the branching of Islamic sects-- Sunni, Shiite ( and all the zillions of offshoots ).
I also had a archealogy professor who worked in Saudi Arabia every chance he got. He had a lot of respect for the religon as well, due to his friendship with the Saudi people he met in the course of his research.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-04-2002 11:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 2:38 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 367 of 385 (14866)
08-05-2002 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by John
08-04-2002 1:44 PM


I don't understand why people who don't profess the Islamic faith feel the Qur'an should be more accurate than the OT. After all, Islam is more recent than even Christianity and the tradition is that the Qur'an was delivered (in perfect form) to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel, as opposed to being first (or second, or even third) hand accounts of world events.
If we take the stance of the non-Muslim and assume that the Qur'an is the Bible put through a blender then there is no way it can be more accurate than the OT, or at least there is no way I can think of. Hence to claim that the Qur'an is more accurate than the OT, or better yet, the Hebrew scrolls, is essentially to profess faith in Muhammed's restoration and therefore Islam.
Maybe somebody can enlighten me on this because I can tell I am probably the least-well informed on this subject (I sense a learning experience ahead).
By the way, the concept of there being more evidence for Jesus than Ceasar is really a whopper. Romans weren't making coins with Jesus' image while he was alive.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by John, posted 08-04-2002 1:44 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by John, posted 08-05-2002 3:17 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 371 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-09-2002 4:43 AM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 368 of 385 (14868)
08-05-2002 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by gene90
08-05-2002 2:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I don't understand why people who don't profess the Islamic faith feel the Qur'an should be more accurate than the OT. After all, Islam is more recent than even Christianity and the tradition is that the Qur'an was delivered (in perfect form) to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel, as opposed to being first (or second, or even third) hand accounts of world events.
Well, I don't buy the handed-down-by-an-angel part. What the Koran has going for it is that it was written by one identifiable person and, as far as I can tell, does not try to be a history book. It is a work of philosophy/theology/metaphysics
quote:
If we take the stance of the non-Muslim and assume that the Qur'an is the Bible put through a blender
But it isn't. The Qur'an is a stand alone work. Other texts are accepted as valid religious works, such as the Old Testament, but the Qur'an isn't the OT revisited.
quote:
Hence to claim that the Qur'an is more accurate than the OT, or better yet, the Hebrew scrolls, is essentially to profess faith in Muhammed's restoration and therefore Islam.
Not really. Accuracy is relative. I also happen the think the Illiad is more accurate than the OT, but that doesn't mean I accept Greek mythology as fact.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 2:38 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by blitz77, posted 08-10-2002 9:23 AM John has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 369 of 385 (15053)
08-08-2002 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by John
08-03-2002 2:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Admitedly, the veracity of the fact that "Godidit" will not be available in the sense you're suggesting until Jesus returns to the Earth and straightens all of the survivors out. I'm not saying that our textbooks should say "Godidit"; how about just not making our textbooks as proselytizing tools for the metaphysical desciples of naturalism, as I intimated above.
j: Essentially then, we are left with faith of which there are many. How do we distiguish between these faiths before it is too late?
reply:
m: Historical facts make the distinction simple. The Bible meets the demands of the three principle means of determining historicity (the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test), better than any other humanistic religious belief system. "Discoveries have proven that the Bible is reliable and accurate in every single area where its statements could be tested. As for archaeological evidence, no discovery has ever controverted a Biblica reference. Scores of archaelogical findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible."
There's all sorts of valid reasons for accepting the Biblical message. To take a random example, Julius Africanus commented on the phenomenon of darkness that occured during the crucifixion of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. He wrote (in 221 AD): "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an exlipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." Thallus acknowledged that the darkness phenomenon occured, and he speculated it had been caused by an eclipse; Africanus argued that it couldn't have been an eclipse, given when the Crucifixion occurred. And additional sources confirm the world-wide darkness phenomenon. Paul Maier wrote: "This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian . . . it was a 'cosmic' or 'world event.' Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 AD, reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 AD) there was 'the greatest eclipse of the sun' and that 'it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.'"
There's volumes of material that, when taken cumulatively, makes a more sensable case for the acceptance of Biblical reality than for any other belief system.
And by the way, there aren't any credible historians who accept the Christ-myth myth.
quote:
I'm just saying that it is more empirical to not assume, because we are limited to a study of nature, that nature is all that exists--a philosophy that is implicit to "science" textbooks (as I make reference to below).
j: You are mis-using the term 'empirical'. 'Empirical' refers to the senses. It is that simple.
m: Perhaps it would've been more accurate for me to say, ". . . fundamentally more consistent with empirical method . . ."
j: I think what you mean is that it is more rational to not assume. I can agree with that, but it leaves nothing of substance. Everything becomes ephemeral. One has to accept some assumptions-- start from somewhere and the only place to start is with the only thing we've got.
reply:
Fine, but explain this mindset (as assumption) when it's relevant, all along the milky way throughout textbooks, instead of presenting it just like the actual empirical stuff.
quote:
Then, do you also have a problem with textbook tradition in the sense of what I intimate above (which is demonstrated further in my final referece below)?
j: I have a problem with textbooks being too dogmatic and inflexible. I do not have a problem with textbooks presenting conclusions based on the only evidence we have.
reply:
m: see latter response
quote:
they are PREDICTED by the creationist.
Creation doesn't predict anything. It means different things to different people. old earth, young earth, theistic, hindu, etc. It isn't a model. There are hundreds of versions of creation and not one can be tested.
reply:
m: Yes, similar to evolution in that regard. But just as evolutionism is wrong, some creationist sub-groups are wrong. I was referring to some basic predictions that the correct creationist view can make.
quote:
Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronism and incongruities.
j: Which the Bible does in spades, but through faith its believers are blind to that fact.
reply:
m: As you are blind to the fallacy of the whole evolutionary perspective?
quote:
Yes, the sociological vortex of evolutionary doctrine is certainly entrenched, "and they are few, who fighting it, can cry once sharply of the essential greatness in man."
j: yes, the conspiracy....
reply:
m: Well, John, what do you think about the possibility that it is indeed a sort of conspiracy (if you trace the inspiration to its ultimate founder, Satan). Doesn't it concern you that if you ride your world view to the grave, that it will be too late? Or, is that a bit too irrational of a consideration?
quote:
By the way, I really like the sound of the part, ". . . the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all."
In context, assuming God for the moment, it is. It is the only reason I can think of that God would design as we would. Of course, it is just as easily explained by our having created the concept of god. Deadlock.
Reply:
Perhaps for now.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by John, posted 08-03-2002 2:33 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by John, posted 08-09-2002 12:06 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 370 of 385 (15059)
08-09-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Martin J. Koszegi
08-08-2002 10:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
m: Historical facts make the distinction simple.
I'm afraid it doesn't.
quote:
'Discoveries have proven that the Bible is reliable and accurate in every single area where its statements could be tested. As for archaeological evidence, no discovery has ever controverted a Biblica reference. Scores of archaelogical findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.'
You are quoting something, but I don't now what. Nonetheless, the statement made are wrong. The Hebrew slavery in Egypt and subsequent exodus, has never been proven for example. And that is a big one. This, of all the stories in the Bible, should have left a record. The Egyptians mention it not once.
Granted, there are a few possible archeological confirmations of some minor details in the Bible. I'd be surprised if there where none at all. But even these are very tentative. We are talking about a people that lived and died, and wrote about it. Actually, I am surprised that there are not more confirmations. There is much better data on other cultures of the region.
quote:
There's all sorts of valid reasons for accepting the Biblical message. To take a random example, Julius Africanus commented on the phenomenon of darkness that occured during the crucifixion of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. He wrote (in 221 AD):
Well, first off this is second hand and was written 190 years or so after the fact.
[/b][/quote]
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an exlipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." Thallus acknowledged that the darkness phenomenon occured, and he speculated it had been caused by an eclipse; Africanus argued that it couldn't have been an eclipse, given when the Crucifixion occurred.[/b][/quote]
Was Africanus qualified to make this calculation of eclipse occurances?
quote:
And additional sources confirm the world-wide darkness phenomenon. Paul Maier wrote: "This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian . . . it was a 'cosmic' or 'world event.' Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 AD, reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 AD) there was 'the greatest eclipse of the sun' and that 'it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.'"
I cannot find anything to back this up except for christian apologetics that is. Perhaps you have something factual to share?
quote:
There's volumes of material that, when taken cumulatively, makes a more sensable case for the acceptance of Biblical reality than for any other belief system.
Volumes perhaps but very few facts.
quote:
And by the way, there aren't any credible historians who accept the Christ-myth myth.
The Christ-myth myth.... that a man named Jesus lived a couple of thousand years ago? I think that a MAN named Jesus probably did live around that time. I think that there were a slew of candidates actually. There were numbers of messianic cults around at the time. This doesn't make the Biblical accounts true. The evidence isn't specific enough.
quote:
Fine, but explain this mindset (as assumption) when it's relevant, all along the milky way throughout textbooks, instead of presenting it just like the actual empirical stuff.
Ok. For the record, anything that involves thought assumes something. The actual empirical stuff is lifeless. Red is red. That's about it. Anything else involves assumption.
quote:
I was referring to some basic predictions that the correct creationist view can make.
Correct creationist? Haven't you listed these predictions before? And weren't they untestable?
quote:
As you are blind to the fallacy of the whole evolutionary perspective?
You didn't respond to the question. This is a fallacy called misdirection.
quote:
Well, John, what do you think about the possibility that it is indeed a sort of conspiracy (if you trace the inspiration to its ultimate founder, Satan).
Isn't Satan one of those non-empirical assumptions? But, I grant, that the only way such a conspiracy could survive and promulgate would be with supernatural assistance.
quote:
Doesn't it concern you that if you ride your world view to the grave, that it will be too late?
Yes it does concern me. I got into this whole arena of inquiry not by asking "Does God exist?" but by asking "Which God is the right one?"
quote:
Or, is that a bit too irrational of a consideration?
The rational answer is that I cannot find anything in any of the various mythologies that warrants belief it one over another. And you can't have 'em all, so here I am.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-08-2002 10:37 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 371 of 385 (15079)
08-09-2002 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by gene90
08-05-2002 2:38 PM


Guess I should do the explaining...
Islamic theology considers that the Qur'an is the words of Allah, revealed in Arabic to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) gradually. The Prophet is an illiterate man; after he received some Qur'anic verses, he always said it aloud and have it written down by his faithful companions. Muslims consider that Allah protected the Qur'an from deviations like those plaguing earlier revelations (the only ones explicitly referred in Qur'anic texts are Torah (revealed to Moses), Psalms (to David), and the Gospels (to Jesus) but there are also claims that Allah had revealed His word to thousands of prophets for every human soul on earth); He protects the text by keeping them in the minds of the 'hafiz' (Qur'an memorizers, and yes, there are many of them!) and by the Muslims' practice of writing Qur'anic verses in Arabic as the Prophet's companions did.
(IMHO I think that the 'text protection' belief is a positive feedback, because the authenticity of the Qur'anic text would be kept in constant scrutiny by both means (written and memory). And the Qur'an is rather immune to frauds. Throughout history, some false prophets tried to incorporate new verses to it, the most recent is Anis Shorrosh, but the consistency of the memorizers and written texts can always identify the false verses and throw falsehoods out.
John's opinion agrees with mine that the Qur'an is not intended to be a strictly historical document. The part most relevant to this forum, the creation stories, are scattered and told as allegories and examples. Therefore Muslims (IMHO) have a more relaxed view of creation, unlike those who wants Genesis to be true. However there are other more apologetical opinions among Muslims, which said that the existence of some historical events in the Qur'an have been confirmed by evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 2:38 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by John, posted 08-09-2002 9:33 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 372 of 385 (15087)
08-09-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Andya Primanda
08-09-2002 4:43 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
[B]He protects the text by keeping them in the minds of the 'hafiz' (Qur'an memorizers, and yes, there are many of them!) and by the Muslims' practice of writing Qur'anic verses in Arabic as the Prophet's companions did.[/quote]
[/b]
oh... I forgot to mention this part. Glad you said something. Unlike the Bible which has been translated and retranslated from translations with the source text mostly being lost along the way (along with some of the subtle meanings of the language, as anyone who has ever tried to translate one language to another can attest), the Qur'an can still be found in its original form. Also interesting is that while one has to go to some lengths to get a Bible in its original languages (what few parts are original), every translation of the Qur'an I have ever seen, has the Arabic version included. I believe this is an official requirement of some kind.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-09-2002 4:43 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 10:26 AM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 373 of 385 (15091)
08-09-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by John
08-09-2002 9:33 AM


[QUOTE]John: [B]Also interesting is that while one has to go to some lengths to get a Bible in its original languages (what few parts are original), every translation of the Qur'an I have ever seen, has the Arabic version included. I believe this is an official requirement of some kind.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've heard that until very recently it was taboo to even translate the Qur'an to any language other than Arabic in the first place. The concept of the hafiz is interesting, I wonder if the Coptic Christians ever tried anything similar.
[QUOTE]Andya Primanda: [B]Therefore Muslims (IMHO) have a more relaxed view of creation, unlike those who wants Genesis to be true.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
To me, that is surprising because the Western media generally portrays Islam, especially Islam outside the US, as being much more conservative than Western Christianity.
I wish that American Christianity would learn from that and be comfortable with the concept of allegory, and that if something did not *literally* happen the way it was written then the religion itself is not destroyed.
[QUOTE]Andya Primanda: [B]However there are other more apologetical opinions among Muslims, which said that the existence of some historical events in the Qur'an have been confirmed by evidence.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Gotta watch those people.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by John, posted 08-09-2002 9:33 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by John, posted 08-09-2002 8:05 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 385 (15111)
08-09-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by gene90
08-09-2002 10:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I've heard that until very recently it was taboo to even translate the Qur'an to any language other than Arabic in the first place.
I believe you are correct. I am sure Andya can verify this.
quote:
The concept of the hafiz is interesting, I wonder if the Coptic Christians ever tried anything similar.
This is an interesting point. But I doubt that anything like this was implemented. Why? You ask? Islam has the benifit of actually have A document to preserve. Christianity had hundreds of scattered documents and writers, most of which have been lost. None of it was ever globalized or canonized until Constantine. Even after Constantine, local documents were still in circulation and considered valid in various individual congregations.
quote:
To me, that is surprising because the Western media generally portrays Islam, especially Islam outside the US, as being much more conservative than Western Christianity.
Yeah, western media thrives on the negatives. Islam throughout history has been a bit more dignified than Christianity. It was Islam that preserved what survived of the knowledge we had before the fall of Rome, when Christianity set about destroying everything pagan.
Interesting side note.... I once read an article written for Scientific American (I think) in about 1870. The author commented that recent evidence showed the Romans to have had technology equal to the technology of his (the authors) time. I thought about it. And I was stunned. He was mostly right. The Romans were very close to that level of technology.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 10:26 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-10-2002 9:17 AM John has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 375 of 385 (15132)
08-10-2002 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by John
08-09-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I've heard that until very recently it was taboo to even translate the Qur'an to any language other than Arabic in the first place.
I believe you are correct. I am sure Andya can verify this.
Yes, in Indonesia, it does. Here, at least until early 20th century Muslim children which underwent religious education were obliged to understand Arabic; although this practice has been diminished, we still taught kids to at least read Arabic (sadly this is a disturbing fact... A percentage of Indonesian Muslims can read Arabic, but they just stop there. They cannot understand the meaning so that's where translators step in) in order to be able to read the Qur'an. And there indeed was a taboo in making translations, but the taboo has eroded now, due to the fact that there are more Muslims without the knowledge of Arabic meanings.
quote:
quote:
To me, that is surprising because the Western media generally portrays Islam, especially Islam outside the US, as being much more conservative than Western Christianity.
Yeah, western media thrives on the negatives. Islam throughout history has been a bit more dignified than Christianity. It was Islam that preserved what survived of the knowledge we had before the fall of Rome, when Christianity set about destroying everything pagan.
Thanks. May Allah bless you both.
Anyway, I still don't understand why creationism (ID version), which is a fundamentalist Christian all-American invention, can gain its way into the Muslim world by way of Harun Yahya? I get the suspicion that he's being funded by ICR or something... That guy invites Duane Gish & John Morris to Turkey to gave speeches!
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 08-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by John, posted 08-09-2002 8:05 PM John has not replied

blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 376 of 385 (15133)
08-10-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by John
08-05-2002 3:17 PM


quote:
Well, I don't buy the handed-down-by-an-angel part. What the Koran has going for it is that it was written by one identifiable person and, as far as I can tell, does not try to be a history book. It is a work of philosophy/theology/metaphysics
Interestingly, Muhammed originally thought that the angel was a demon.
quote:
But it isn't. The Qur'an is a stand alone work. Other texts are accepted as valid religious works, such as the Old Testament, but the Qur'an isn't the OT revisited.
The Qur'an says that the OT and the New Testament are true.
quote:
Not really. Accuracy is relative. I also happen the think the Illiad is more accurate than the OT, but that doesn't mean I accept Greek mythology as fact.
How about the Greek translation of the OT, dating way before the first surviving NT?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by John, posted 08-05-2002 3:17 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by gene90, posted 08-10-2002 11:03 AM blitz77 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 377 of 385 (15138)
08-10-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by blitz77
08-10-2002 9:23 AM


[QUOTE][B]The Qur'an says that the OT and the New Testament are true.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
But there is at least one very important difference. I know of only one but I'm sure there are many others. (Warning! More second-hand information.) I'm told that in the Qur'an Jesus is "only" a prophet, a great prophet second only to Muhammed, but not the Son of God. Hence there is none of this faith-on-Christ-to-gain-salvation doctrine that is the basis of Christianity.
This is the problem with trying to use the Qur'an to substantiate the validity of the Bible. It requires the base assumption that the Bible is the "real" text and the Qur'an is a modified, and presumably incorrect version. However, it is just as easy to assume that the Qur'an is the correct text and the Bible is a modified, incorrect version. A Christian apologist could try to use the older age of Christianity and Judaism compared to (Restored) Islam in order to try to push the Bible as the correct one, but in doing so he would only undermine his argument because he would be claiming that the Qur'an was not contemporaneous with the Bible and so it could not be used as a second witness to Bible events.
This same problem exists when Flood advocates try to pass off flood myths of non-Christian, non-Jewish cultures as "distorted" descriptions of the Judeo-Christian one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by blitz77, posted 08-10-2002 9:23 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-10-2002 10:47 PM gene90 has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 378 of 385 (15172)
08-10-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by gene90
08-10-2002 11:03 AM


We can continue this. First. The Qur'an do acknowldege that Jesus is a prophet of Allah, but not the Savior. Muslims do not have the concept of Redemption. Salvation is a personal issue (although some extremists as the Taliban thought that it was a political issue).
Second, Ibrahim (Abraham) sacrificed Ishmael, not Isaac. The sacrifice is an important issue in Islamic theology.
Third, the Flood was only vaguely referred, and Noah was carrying only livestock and the faithful people of his time (not just his family). No mention of Noah & co. doing the most ambitious specimen-collecting project of all time.
Fourth, it is a common opinion among Muslims that earlier revelations have been corruted by the words of man. Possibly it was caused by lack of original texts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by gene90, posted 08-10-2002 11:03 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Philip, posted 08-11-2002 2:48 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4748 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 379 of 385 (15173)
08-11-2002 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Andya Primanda
08-10-2002 10:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
We can continue this. First. The Qur'an do acknowldege that Jesus is a prophet of Allah, but not the Savior. Muslims do not have the concept of Redemption. Salvation is a personal issue (although some extremists as the Taliban thought that it was a political issue).

--Respectfully, Andya; you state that Muslims do not have the concept of redemption, this loaded word, this complex idiom. The Qur'an is filled with redemption in its assimilation of concepts of love, charity, making it to Heaven by God, etc., as from a redeeming creator. Certainly, the law of Moses is zealously expounded with judgement in both the Qur'an and Bible so that all of us are damned and doomed, period.
Most religions, even yours, has redeeming concepts invoking meditation, deliverence, salvation, etc., else you're stuck with the condemning law(s) of God. If you state your religion is anti-redeeming or non-redemptive (perhaps in any sense of the word), watch out; you are as negativistic as Moses trying to force the Law of God down the wretched Israelites' throats, only without a redemptive sacrifice offering. Your religion would seem to me most damnable and impossible, without redemptive elements. You and I have much sin and fall short of the glory of God.
Please, Andya, consider your choice of words of what non-ignorant Muslims per se should believe in your opinion; else quote your sacred text(s). Redemption is critical to us all, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-10-2002 10:47 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-12-2002 3:56 AM Philip has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 380 of 385 (15258)
08-12-2002 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Philip
08-11-2002 2:48 AM


First, if I have been interpreting 'Redemption' wrongly, I am sorry. Islamic theology has no concept of the Fall of Humankind and Original Sin. Therefore Muslims find nothing in the concept of Jesus as Savior. Adam & Eve's sins were forgiven when God ordered them to leave the Garden of Eden.
You asked for some verses which back up my position. Muslims believe that their fate in the afterlife will be judged only by their deeds.
53.31 And Allah's is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, that He may reward those who do evil according to what they do, and (that) He may reward those who do good with goodness.
45.22 And Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth and that every soul may be rewarded for what it has earned and they shall not be wronged.
45.15 Whoever does good, it is for his own soul, and whoever does evil, it is against himself; then you shall be brought back to your Lord.
41.46 Whoever does good, it is for his own soul, and whoever does evil, it is against it; and your Lord is not in the least unjust to his servants.
Page not found | www.free-minds.org
I once had a discussion about redemption with a Christian friend (she was trying to convert me ). And I still cannot understand why all sins are forgotten just because somebody sacrificed himself...
(Maybe we should continue in another forum/thread?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Philip, posted 08-11-2002 2:48 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Philip, posted 08-28-2002 1:58 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024