Qur'an 5:110, clear sign of fakeness

[marduk]

Oh, I see what it meant now. Saying the Rosary could be considered as praying to Mary like she was a god able to hear prayers, for instance. Humans can't hear prayers, even if they're dead and are in the spirit world. Christians also pray to saints sometimes. Since when are saints able to hear prayers? When did they become psychic? Would they not go insane from all the prayers if they could hear them?

It may be true that there are not three gods, but there are definitely at least TWO, Allah and his wife Asherah.

Stavrakopoulou bases her theory on ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in the ancient Canaanite coastal city called Ugarit, now modern-day Syria. All of these artifacts reveal that Asherah was a powerful fertility goddess.

Asherah's connection to Yahweh, according to Stavrakopoulou, is spelled out in both the Bible and an 8th century B.C. inscription on pottery found in the Sinai desert at a site called Kuntillet Ajrud.

"The inscription is a petition for a blessing," she shares. "Crucially, the inscription asks for a blessing from 'Yahweh and his Asherah.' Here was evidence that presented Yahweh and Asherah as a divine pair. And now a handful of similar inscriptions have since been found, all of which help to strengthen the case that the God of the Bible once had a wife."

http://news.discovery.com/history/god-w ... 10318.html

[Fernando]

You're trying to say Christian didn't make things up, Eagle, to obscure the beam in Islam's eye. How many false hadiths do you need to be shown?

[marduk]

Funny how the Quran repeatedly states that the Injeel, the Gospel, meaning "good news", is true and then proceeds to denounce the core tenets of Jesus' ministry as completely false, meaning the "good news" that Jesus is Allah's son and has the power to absolve them of responsibility for their evil deeds and that people no longer have to abide by Allah's OT laws, like that annoying Sabbath thing and all that animal killing. That's good news indeed, because Judaism was just not worth the trouble before that.

My point boils down to the question of how the Gospels can be correct if 99% of them is Jesus saying that he is the only way to Heaven because he has special status with Allah because he's his son. If that's not the true part then what is? The one line about Ahmad? Then why didn't Allah say "the Injeel is all false except for one sentence"? At no time did Jesus say "Islam is the only way and this is how you should pray (proceeding to pray 5 times in the direction of Mecca)". He demonstrated how we should pray, we're supposed to pray once only, in a direction of our own choosing because otherwise we would be praying to a building, and the words are completely different from all 5 Muslim prayers. Since the Quran said that the Gospels are true, that's all we need to hear really. We don't need the Quran at all after that. We'll just read the Injeel instead. It's conveniently in Aramaic, a popular language.

[Fernando]

Goodness, Marduk, you make the Koran sound positively irrational!

[HomerJay]

I've read the Quran, but I can't for the life of me remember any of Christ's teachings that Mohammed supported. For all Isa is so "revered" by Islam, did Mohammed completely edit out all the "universal brotherhood", golden rule, and non-violence that Christ spent almost ALL of his time talking about? Was all that pacifism just "corruptions" of the true faith? I suppose Christ actually let his men fight off the Roman guards, then escaped to a nearby city where he started robbing all the merchant caravans headed into and out of Jerusalem, murdering critics and driving the inhabitants from their homes and businesses? Is that what REALLY happened?

[Ozes]

Indeed, Marduk positively destroys the quran with each page. Good going.

[marduk]

Oh thanks, that's very nice of you to say. I just look at it as a challenge, to find the evidence to prove that the Quran is a fraud. It's like being a lawyer and trying to win a case. It just bugs me that people are taken in by the Quran and proceed to waste their lives on silliness. Somebody has to explain their error to them in such a manner that they can't rationalize their way out of it.

It's my duty to my fellow man to try to guide them back to the straight path of reality when they have been led down the yellow brick road by a person of low character. Do Muslims resent me for that? Then they should ask themselves why. Why would anyone resent a person for simply pointing out obvious facts that they have apparently missed? If I tried to pull a blindfold from their eyes would they resent the bright light of day? They'll get used to it after a while. The light of truth only stings for a few minutes.

[ringmaster]

Oh thanks, that's very nice of you to say. I just look at it as a challenge, to find the evidence to prove that the Quran is a fraud. It's like being a lawyer and trying to win a case. It just bugs me that people are taken in by the Quran and proceed to waste their lives on silliness. Somebody has to explain their error to them in such a manner that they can't rationalize their way out of it.

It's my duty to my fellow man to try to guide them back to the straight path of reality when they have been led down the yellow brick road by a person of low character. Do Muslims resent me for that? Then they should ask themselves why. Why would anyone resent a person for simply pointing out obvious facts that they have apparently missed? If I tried to pull a blindfold from their eyes would they resent the bright light of day? They'll get used to it after a while. The light of truth only stings for a few minutes.

Marduk.....I am disappointed. You are obviously missing out on islam's spirituality. I remember listening to that Arab guy that we have corresponded about before, and he told the chat room about a hadith in which the prophet said that when a muslim goes ass up to pray, satan will pluck hairs from his butt until he farts.

Don't you think that is spiritual?

[HomerJay]

The trouble with logical arguments is that they proceed from the position that all humans are of equal worth. That's where things break down in discussing Mohammed's actions. We can argue till we're blue in the face that what Mohammed did and taught was immoral, but it unfortunately falls on deaf ears because such things are NOT unethical when we are talking the "chosen of Allah" vs. the "vilest of creatures". It's not a sin to rob and enslave and kill animals. Or Kaffir, it seems. How can you argue fair treatment and the universality of rights with a mindset that prescribes different penalties for killing Muslims and non-Muslims? It's impossible.

[marduk]

Judaism was almost as bad in the days of the Talmud. The whole idea of Judaism is that Jacob's descendants are the special people of YHWH and everybody else are worthless filth. In those days literally everybody else in the entire region were idol worshipers, so it was "the Jews are right and the rest of the world is wrong". Islam, being based largely on Judaism and arising in an area where idol worship was the majority religion, was very similar that way. With them it was the Muslims against the idolators whereas in Israel it had been the Jews against the idolators. Of course, it's extremely easy to criticize idolatry so the "Prophets" of these religions had plenty of material to use to stir up religious hatred against them. But what happens when most of the world no longer engages in idolatry? Then the Jews and Muslims have nobody to act superior to and condemn, other than different sects of monotheism.

So now it's just various groups of Abrahamic monotheists denouncing each other, arguing about the most irrelevant details because without some other group to vilify how can they still tell themselves that they are the chosen ones? If the whole world is Abrahamic monotheists of one type or another then none of them have anything to scare the others into joining with. So now they have to say that unless people worship the one god exactly as they specify then he will still torture you for eternity. What a picky god. Just humiliating yourself before him is not enough, you have to do it exactly as specified in one or another "holy book". The obvious problem being that god didn't bother to actually tell us which one is real, and not through a puny human, with an angel whose wings we can pull on to see if they're real. If he's not going to send even one of his supposed countless angels to give us a CLEAR message, then there's nothing we can do for him really. Can't pray to him at all because we might get it wrong. That would be offensive to the one god and he might torture us for eternity so we'll just wait until he gives us praying instructions from an angel. That's the only prudent thing to do.

[HomerJay]

That's true enough what you say. All branches of Abrahamic monotheism have a monopoly on the ONLY route to salvation, but their walking papers are a bit different. Although there are a lot of pretty supremacist and even violent passages in the Talmud, most or all Jews recognize that these are arguments put forward by human and therefore fallible writers. Jews have always been free to select from these "arguments" which parts they feel are right. And Christ's mantra of absolute pacifism is clear enough. Mohammed, unfortunately, decided to cement this special status with God into a military/expansionist framework, and further taught that his was the FINAL word and his actions were to be emulated for all time.

Outside of Jesus, there are no branches of Judaism and Christianity that teach that ANY other person in the "good book" was a sinless guide for all time like Mohammed. Characters like Moses, David, Solomon, and Noah are all demonstrably fallible and sinners, and are taught to kids that way. No Jew or Christian is taught that Noah's drunkenness or David's lusting after a sunbathing married woman (and placing her husband in the vanguard of the next battle) were actions to be emulated. But all of Mohammed's deeds ARE supposedly perfect and to be copied forever.

That's why I'm not concerned with Judaism and Christianity. Though "spiritually elitist", the two religions are not at their cores expansionist. Judaism is insular, and focused primary on economic growth and safely for the "chosen people". And violent and hateful Christians REALLY have to do spiritual gymnastics to fit ANY kind of violence within the framework of Christ's teachings. But Islam was built for domination and subjugation. It's essentially a deal with the almighty: follow the 5 pillars and give Allah's Apostle 1/6th of the booty, and you can raid and enslave and rape all you want with a clear conscience and a great afterlife retirement package.

The countries that have grown from Judeo-Christian roots are unarguably the most prosperous and progressive nations in the world and have by far the best record in terms of human rights and democracy. I would argue that's a product of the Jewish study and work ethic, and the Christian focus on the Golden Rule. But Islam? I think we all know how far those states with Islamic roots have come after 1400 years. Still carving each other up in the 7th century desert.

[marduk]

Christianity has developed over the centuries. In the early days it was actually very similar to Islam in that it was an "us against them" mentality and all non-Christians were seen as "savages" to be converted or killed. Eventually they realized that such actions were becoming unacceptable as the world advanced. Now we have very few Christian groups advocating crusades against other religions just because they don't agree with them on the nature of Jesus, like the Cathars who were basically Mandaens under a different name. A crusade against Muslims might be justifiable, to retake ALL of Jerusalem for instance, because the Muslims took it from the Christians, meaning the Romans. Simple case of what's good for the goose. Attacking others solely on the basis of their religion is no longer acceptable in any mainstream Christian group though. The Muslims STILL think its okay to kill people just because they don't agree with them that "Muhammad's scrap book" is the direct word of God. Christianity knew that it had to reform or or it would be seen as evil by civilized people. Muslims can't figure that out. Christians used to torture people to get confessions, but they stopped when the rest of the world started to see it as unacceptable. Muslims STILL torture confessions out of people. Islam is currently what Christianity WAS until it wised up and got with the times. Now they only molest children, they gave up the torturing. That's progress. Muslims still do both.

[Ozes]

Can you show some signs of non-Christians murdered in the name of Christianity in the early centuries?
The crusades were a blessing but only took place 11 centuries after the conception of Christianity.

[marduk]

I suggest you research the history of the Romans, though they were really pagans with Jesus' name tacked onto the religion of Mithras. The Romans/Byzantines were the Christian army, in essence. Prior to Contantine, the Christians were simply too few in number to create much mayhem. After they had the entire Roman army behind them, Christians were able to get into the mass murder game themselves.

[Ozes]

The only wars seems to be the continuation of wars prior to the Christianization of the Roman empire.
Spreading religion by the sword, not so much. The history of the Romans is quite vast so some actual examples would be helpfull.

[HomerJay]

"Got with the times"? "Became unacceptable as the world advanced"? "Seen as evil by civilized people"? Who exactly do you imagine were these peaceful, civilized people that the evil Christians eventually sought to emulate? It was pretty much the Christians who WERE following Christ's teachings. He certainly never taught anyone to proselytize via the sword or torture conversions out of people. These demands for ethical reform came from within. From Christians.

[marduk]

I'm thinking of the Crusades mainly. They weren't defending themselves, they were going to the Holy Land or the Languedoc and attacking people. I can't blame it on Christianity itself, just certain Christians. That's the difference between the Gospels and the Quran, the Gospels don't encourage warfare. Sometime between 33 and 600 AD Allah apparently decided that warfare was better than peace and love and that it was actually good for people (at least the winners). Must have started drinking or something.

[ringmaster]

The crusades were a reaction to muslim aggression. Actually, Christians sat idly by for quite some time before they reacted. To me, the crusades were no different than America's decision to enter WW2. The difference was that America was successful in WW2, and the crusades were unsuccessful.

[Centaur]

The crusades were a reaction to muslim aggression. Actually, Christians sat idly by for quite some time before they reacted. To me, the crusades were no different than America's decision to enter WW2. The difference was that America was successful in WW2, and the crusades were unsuccessful.

Actually Yes and No, it prevented islamic onslaught further into mainland europe or delayed it and when it happened was able to repel it. And this one was a classic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_%281565%29

[marduk]

One thing's for sure, the Catholics ordered a whole lot of torture and murder in the name of Christianity. When the major Christian church in the world condoned and encouraged the cruelest of tortures it's hard to say that Christianity is guiltless. Of course the problem is that few "Christians" actually follow the words of Jesus. They went from a few very simple beliefs and practices to entirely different ones, retaining little other than the name Christ from the original form of Christianity. You see, the Romans were a very military people. When they stole Christianity from the Jews they turned it into just another military hierarchy. Then they weren't called "Captains" but "BIshops". Aside from that, it was still the Roman army.

When did Jesus say "thou shalt make a militaristic hierarchy in my name and carry out all sorts of brutality which I never even suggested, much less ordered" ? Jesus told us how to pray and how to eat wafers and wine. How does that require an establishment or a leader? The "church" is really just a bunch of vultures feeding off the people who are too dumb to actually follow Jesus' prayer instructions on their own so they pay some guy to do it for them. Their own laziness and stupidity has allowed a horde of people to live entirely off them, known as the clergy. What work do they do? How hard is it to stand up and say a bunch of stuff for an hour or so? Pretty damn easy. Beats the hell out of working.