By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - A Muslim writes about Jesus - Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

MDMAlliance on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Runa216 said:
happydolphin said:

I have read nearly the whole thing bar a prophetic book or two and I believe Numbers. I have also read some aprocryphal text.

No, so far I have found the gospels do not contradict each other and when contradiction points are shown they are always highly debatable, for instance the genealogy of Jesus.

For such ancient texts, they hold up exceedingly well. I challenge you to find any other historical books that so strongly agree, being possibly without contradiction.

Good luck, get back to me when you find it.

@Addiekienen. No.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

You sure about that, bub?  

Heh, I didn't ask for bible contradictions, I asked for historical books that so strongly agreed with each other (let's not misread each other please). You can find spots on a white rag, but it doesn't change the fact that it's white, and the spots might just be on the lens.

Having said that I'll look at the contradictions give me a sec.

(Edit: Runa, I was talking about the gospels, not the bible as a whole)

@MDMAlliance. It doesn't matter, because I could cite many inconsistencies in the evolutionary theory along its history and that wouldn't help either cause. These viewpoints refine themselves over time, so it's pointless to point out flaws from the past from either side.


I was simply making a statement, and honestly the past of Creationism specifically doesn't have much of a scientific history at all so really I don't know what you're trying to prove with that.



Around the Network
Figgycal on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:

@bold. That's your choice, but if you're going to go with majority, just remember that majority was with the church in Galileo's day. Just sayin', majority was wrong.

@Peer review. That's simply untrue -> http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

@Validation of theories. That's wrong, they posit theories to support the biblical claims, and often disagree with each other within the creationist community.

@Pseudoscience. What YOU'RE doing is pseudoscience, excuse me. You're just repeating words from the anti-creationist community and I hear the same words over and over again, they are just meaningless drivel (no joke). This is not to offend you, I just proved a few claims by you and MDMAlliance false already, there is likely much more.

So to answer your last paragraph, I trust them a lot because they actually do science rather than pretend to in order to fit with the concensus. There are good scientists on both sides, but imho the onus is on creationists to prove their worth and so I have seen what they do and trust it more as a true quest for scientific truth than the other way around (so far). It's my opinion. If I were to choose someone to tell me the truth, I'd choose the creationist.

Keyword is scientist. Galileo was a scientist- an astronomer-those who opposed him and turned out to be were wrong was the Catholic Church.

I completely respect whatever you choose to believe in, but I don't like the idea of confusing science and belief.



Runa216 on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Runa216 said:
happydolphin said:

I have read nearly the whole thing bar a prophetic book or two and I believe Numbers. I have also read some aprocryphal text.

No, so far I have found the gospels do not contradict each other and when contradiction points are shown they are always highly debatable, for instance the genealogy of Jesus.

For such ancient texts, they hold up exceedingly well. I challenge you to find any other historical books that so strongly agree, being possibly without contradiction.

Good luck, get back to me when you find it.

@Addiekienen. No.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

You sure about that, bub?  

Heh, I didn't ask for bible contradictions, I asked for historical books that so strongly agreed with each other (let's not misread each other please). You can find spots on a white rag, but it doesn't change the fact that it's white, and the spots might just be on the lens.

Having said that I'll look at the contradictions give me a sec.

(Edit: Runa, I was talking about the gospels, not the bible as a whole)

@MDMAlliance. It doesn't matter, because I could cite many inconsistencies in the evolutionary theory along its history and that wouldn't help either cause. These viewpoints refine themselves over time, so it's pointless to point out flaws from the past from either side.

See bolded.  you claimed that you didn't see gospels contradicting one another, I gave practically the first three google links that shows the MANY examples where gospels and books in the bible contradict one another.  How could you possibly put so much stock in a book that has more inconsistencies than multidimensional comic books?  

Also, you pointed out in a response to another that "Evolution keeps changing its tune, just like creationism does, because science does that kind of thing and both theories are based on science."  Let me just say that, no.  Just no.  There is absolutely no science backing intelligent design.  Claiming that Science supports intelligent design is like saying that  you're using math to solve a sudoku puzzle with random numbers.  

Please, stop being foolish and pushing your evangelical nonsense on others as though it were a rational, respecable argument.  It's getting old. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Talal on 28 July 2013
Kyuu said:
Talal said:

You can't disagree with anything in the Quran if you're a Muslim.


But there is disagreement regarding its interpretation.


Indeed, but that particular issue is agreed upon and he even states that it is. So he's disagreeing with the Quran not an interpretation of it.



Runa216 on 28 July 2013
Aielyn said:
Runa216 said:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

You sure about that, bub?

Why would an atheist write about the bible? :P

Because, in that case, most Atheists I know were born and raised christian or jewish, and left that archaic thought process behind when they learned real critical thinking.  

I know that's how it happened to me. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
Tigerlure on 28 July 2013

Fox News - Journalism at its finest :D



happydolphin on 28 July 2013
Runa216 said:

See bolded.  you claimed that you didn't see gospels contradicting one another, I gave practically the first three google links that shows the MANY examples where gospels and books in the bible contradict one another.  How could you possibly put so much stock in a book that has more inconsistencies than multidimensional comic books?  

Also, you pointed out in a response to another that "Evolution keeps changing its tune, just like creationism does, because science does that kind of thing and both theories are based on science."  Let me just say that, no.  Just no.  There is absolutely no science backing intelligent design.  Claiming that Science supports intelligent design is like saying that  you're using math to solve a sudoku puzzle with random numbers.  

Please, stop being foolish and pushing your evangelical nonsense on others as though it were a rational, respecable argument.  It's getting old. 

@bold. You can't say that. If I report you you're going to get banned, and I want to talk. Stop pegging me in a pigeonhole. What does it matter what religion I believe, I don't have an agenda, I simply trust more the bible than the naturalistic sources you trust. I'm not gonna report you this time but seriously stop.

@No science backing intelligent design. Do you realize that creation.com is a site filled with a plethora of scientific articles using modern science to explain what they believe to be biblical phenomenon which can be explained by science? In other words, they try to hold the bible accountable to modern-day science. It's not pseudo-science I've gone over this with you a million times. Have you even read some of their articles?

@Contradictions. I went through your list and there were not many NT ones. The contradictions of the NT I skimmed over were "Scarlet" rather than "Purple" for Christ's robe, or "Vinegar" versus "Wine with myrrh", stuff that makes the sources even MORE credible as these are eye-witness accounts.

And again, I asked for other historical texts that support each other as much. You still haven't provided any.

@Evolution keeps changing its tune. Are you seriously saying that evolution got it right the first time and didn't change since Darwin?



Runa216 on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Figgycal said:

As with many things; I think I'm gonna go ahead and agree with 99 percent of the world's scientist on this issue. And young earth creation scientists are not actual scientists : their works are not peer reviewed, they limit their thinking and conclusions to a religion - these "scientists" will never arrive to the conclusion that they might be wrong, because that's not an option for them. They start out with an answer from their religion and work their way down to find out how that answer might be possible, rather than the other way around. In many cases these scientists are also priests, or preachers, or evangelists, or plumbers, regular people, etc. Their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny from actual scientists. What they're doing isn't science; it's pseudoscience.

You wouldn't want someone who wrote an article that wasn't peer reviewed, and yet went against everything scientists know as fact, for example: "not exercising and eating excessively is good for your health" be your doctor would you? So why let a person like that be the one you trust for accurate information?

@bold. That's your choice, but if you're going to go with majority, just remember that majority was with the church in Galileo's day. Just sayin', majority was wrong.

@Peer review. That's simply untrue -> http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

@Validation of theories. That's wrong, they posit theories to support the biblical claims, and often disagree with each other within the creationist community.

@Pseudoscience. What YOU'RE doing is pseudoscience, excuse me. You're just repeating words from the anti-creationist community and I hear the same words over and over again, they are just meaningless drivel (no joke). This is not to offend you, I just proved a few claims by you and MDMAlliance false already, there is likely much more.

So to answer your last paragraph, I trust them a lot because they actually do science rather than pretend to in order to fit with the concensus. There are good scientists on both sides, but imho the onus is on creationists to prove their worth and so I have seen what they do and trust it more as a true quest for scientific truth than the other way around (so far). It's my opinion. If I were to choose someone to tell me the truth, I'd choose the creationist.

You scare me.  The above response is 100% the kind of tricky, slippery, slimy, backwards, do-anything-to-contort-the-world-to-prove-a-point mentality is about 75% of the reason I'm so aggressively outspoken about religion being taught and perpetuated in modern civilization.  It's an affront to progress both intellectually and sociologically.  The other 25% goes out to the terrorists and extremists that perpetuate the "Science raises buildings, Religion brings them down" mentality that I've been harbouring for years.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

happydolphin on 28 July 2013
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm

 

Failing on so many simple details alone tells us that nothing in the New Testament can be trusted.

 

Though I guess that you would hardly need to find contradictions within the NT to reach that conclusion. The thing is biased as hell and has a very clear message that the authors wish to send. (One that I'd love for more people, including Fox News, to follow: Love your enemy as you love yourself.)

Have you read them? They are very weak. Example:

2)Who approached Jesus?  (Matthew 8:5-7)  The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant.  (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7)  The Centurion did not approach Jesus.  He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

It should be obvious that whether the centurion or his friends approached Jesus, the oral tradition accounts for variances such as those. Ultimately what mattered is that the centurion, or people in his name, approached Jesus.



Talal on 28 July 2013
NightDragon83 said:
Muslim writes about Jesus... gets unfriendly interview with Fox News.

Christian writes about Mohammed... gets a fatwa issued and has to go into hiding for the rest of his life.


I don't think he offended Jesus in his book since he's a Muslim. Muslim's can't offend any of the prophets. That being said yeah, Muslims are way way too sensitive. It's annoying.