bible/religion as fact Options

[*Statues/Shadows*]

In nearly every debate, people always seem to insist on using "I believe this because of my religion" or "it's in the bible."

However, are these actual valid foundations for debate?

[*I Shot JFK*]

no. just because it is fashionable to exalt faith over reason doesnt make it logical or inteligent.

not listening to reason doesnt make you faithful. it makes you an idiot.

people are certainly entitled to have opinions based on their religion, but it is not valid to use such logic in the face of factual or legislative debate, as seen in debate over gay marriage. the idea (not fact) that your god may not care for homosexuality is NOT a valid grounds for denying that right to people who do not believe in said god.

[AngelinaTaylor]

It's not factual.. It's good for morals and everything, but the context (most of it) isn't accurate.

I know I'll get shit for this, but you should know - I've studied it for quite a while.

[smoke]

^I agree. I don't think it's a good idea to use in debate because people make reference to things that haven't been proven yet, however, numerous historical accounts in the bible have been proven. It's still used in schools and studies as a historical text because of that.

I've also studied it for quite some time.

[*I Shot JFK*]

^I agree. I don't think it's a good idea to use in debate because people make reference to things that haven't been proven yet, however, numerous historical accounts in the bible have been proven. It's still used in schools and studies as a historical text because of that.

I've also studied it for quite some time.

well yes, but the authenticity still doesnt make it a great source for debate, as it provides little reasoning behind its statementsm other than, obviously, christian/jewish tradition and beliefs.

just becaues there are authentic portions of any text, religious or not, doesnt lend the content any weight, particularly. it is still arguing from the basis of opinion.

[smoke]

^ Right, that's what I said. Usually the things that have been proven are used in schools and studies, but I don't think there's a place for it in debate because most people use is vaguely without any reason beside the fact that "It's what I believe," etc. They seem to think that just because some things are proven that the entire book is proven.

[*I Shot JFK*]

i know thats what you said, i was reinforcing.

although i would reconsider the idea that things that are proven are used in schools... especially pre-college.

and, for the record, i'll join the 'have studied christianity culb'

[ChaosPunx]

Some things that happened in the past where recorded in the bible sure im not saying i believe in it.(ive read the whole thing do you know how boring it is?) anyways my sister prayed to god before we went to a concert asking to met someone famous and we did =| made me think... anyways alot of the stuff isnt true and alot of people base everything on it sometimes it gets a little annoying. Religon Basically is something that tells people from right and wrong.

[demolished]

It's kind of stupid.

debating is about using evidences, logical reasoning, and reasoning. not some bible.

[*Libertie*]

As someone who was raised in a Christian home, I have studied the Bible and I'm not completely moronic when it comes to this topic, so I'll say that before the whole "You haven't read it!" torpedoes come flying in my direction.

The thing about the Bible is that to Christians, it is solid fact, truth, whatever. However, not everyone is a Christian, yes? Therefore, not everyone holds Biblical scripture as a valid truth. Not only that, but the reason the Bible is regarded as fact to so many people is largely based on faith, believing that it's true. Because of this, I simply cannot take anyone seriously who tries to throw scripture at me in a debate. I end up feeling like they're throwing morals at me rather than fact.

I do understand that some parts of the Bible have been proven, and if that's the case, it's probably okay to use. I won't go into detail of what's okay to use in a debate and what's not, I'll just say this: when using any source, you have to consider whether it proves something or if it just expresses a strong opinion. For some people, it can be hard to tell the difference.

[timeflies51]

If you took the Bible away, there would be nothing to support any Christian argument.

[NoSex]

If you took the Bible away, there would be nothing to support any Christian argument.

That's where you're wrong.
Many famous theologians, specifically natural theologists, have created numerous arguments in support of christiany, and have written volumes on the subject, without ever using biblical scripture as a premise. Most notably, of these men, was Saint Thomas Aquinas.

However, more seriously, you are mistaken in assuming that the Bible alone, in any way, supports a Christian argument. It doesn't. The Bible, itself, does, in no way, work as proof towards the supposed reality of Christianity. That is a logical fallacy, and a mere argument from authority.

Simply because the Bible says it will never make it so, whether it is indeed true or not.

[*Uronacid*]

I believe that most of the arguments brought up in the debate section are a moral issue. Because many people use their religion as a base for their moral values, the Bible/God/Jesus will come up quite often.

I think that the debate section is great. It lets you see how people think, and why they think that way. You have obviously come to the conclusion that you don't like people makeing their descitions base on their religion. Well, it's too bad... when you believe in a religion it effects your life, and the descitions you make.

I'm not offended XD

[cassjamminx]

some things i just think people.. made up for the religion. and catholics are expected to believe it. i don't.. really. when you think about it, there are no real proofs. soo.. i believe what i believe. i believe in God, but not necissarily all the stories and stuff.

[promenade]

What I think is that morality is how you choose to live your life. It's what you feel is right (and other people might not have the same views on morality as you do), and the Bible preaches about this morality. It is what the creators believe is the correct way to live your life. While it might be historically correct, what is stated in the book is pure opinion. Because it is opinion, it is not reliable as a source in debate, because it's what someone thinks about how to live their life.

Does that make sense?

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

some things i just think people.. made up for the religion. and catholics are expected to believe it. i don't.. really. when you think about it, there are no real proofs. soo.. i believe what i believe. i believe in God, but not necissarily all the stories and stuff.

yeah, totally.

[bobby james]

Some stuff in the Bible is fact or better yet will be fact, some is just opinion, it depends on what you are talking about. I am very two-sided on almost everything. As far as moral goes, yes, even though I do not follow some

If you look at it and it's teaching about morals, then it makes a lot of sense. The more society has let go of it's religous morals the more corrupt it has become. Those things were put there for a reason. Now some of the stories and stuff in there have me looking like this But in the end of the day, I just never know.

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ yes, because there was NOTHING corrupt at all about the crusades or witch burning... let's go back to that! yay!

[bobby james]

^ yes, because there was NOTHING corrupt at all about the crusades or witch burning... let's go back to that! yay!

I didn't say there wasn't

[illriginal]

The Qur'an is more authentic than the Bible... and Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an as well. Plus the Bible is one big book of contradictions anyways, where as the Qur'an has no flaws.

[*digital.fragrance*]

^ How does the Bible have contradictions?

Sure, it's never good to say, "I believe it cuz it's in the Bible!" Sure, Christians will accept it, but no one else will. If you are going to say anything, back it up with something other than that.

[illriginal]

I know religion is a very sensitive subject... but the New Testament is actually quite disgusting, in my opinion. Then again it was the Romans who scripted the final "draft" of their belief system into Christianity. Why do you think Christians faught Christians? Sure wasn't because of race or over land... it was the belief system.

But if you want that proof... give me a bit I'll show ya :)


Here's a little something people should take a look at:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9&q=naik+zakir

Its not one sided but there's a christian speaker vs muslim speaker. without crucifixtion there's no christianity.


I read in a article that many christians/non-muslims converted into Islam due to this muslim speaker named Zakir Naik.

[*digital.fragrance*]

Sure, go for it.

[illriginal]

Also if you haven't studied the Egyptian belief system... or atleast Osiris, here's some information you should learn: Keep in mind that the Romans gain their belief system from the Egyptians... physical proof on that is the fact that one side of their coins had a mithra on it whie the other side had the face of their leader.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
http://www.ra-horakhty.co.uk/Esoteri...afterlife1.htm
http://www.ra-horakhty.co.uk/magic/p...surrection.htm
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com...boutosiris.htm



Oh and please do look at this specific link: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep.../christian.htm




If Jesus wasn't crucified, what really did happen?

Question: All Muslims agree that the Jews did not succeed in killing him, though they sure tried to. Some seem to think that he was not even placed on the cross. I consider that he was placed on the cross, but did not die on it. The word "salaba" in Arabic refers to "death on a cross", not mere placement on it.

Answer:

And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;

And because of their saying in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise; - (Qur'an 4:157-158)

It would follow that the Qur'an is repeating itself: "and they did not kill him, nor did they kill him on the cross."

This would violate the Qur'anic principle of mughayara or semantic differentiation. If the Qur'an states "A and B" then A is necessarily different from B according to mughayara. It is a good idea to approach Qur'anic interpretation through the sciences and rules that were developed to help us achieve it.

A second proof against the above misinterpretation [posed in the question] is that the whole point of the denial is that Allah did not let his Prophet be subjected to infamy. The latter does not reside in being killed -- as other Prophets were killed -- but in the modality of being displayed on a pole like a criminal. Lapidation (stoning) is ruled out for the same reason.

A third proof is that, to my knowledge, the imams of commentary have not mentioned the hypothesis that `Isa himself was placed on the cross as a possibility, although they left no stone unturned in collecting narrations and going over the various scenarios. So the statement that "Some seem to think that he was not even placed on the cross" is disinformation posing as a statistical remark. The real statement would be that some seem to think that he was actually placed on the cross.

A fourth proof is that in Arabic usage salb or crucifixion does not denote death on a cross -- contrary to what is being claimed above -- but only hoisting or being hoisted up on a cross or plank or pole for the purpose of defamation and humiliation.

Abu Nu`aym in Hilya al-Awliya' (1985 ed. 10:154=1997 ed. 10:161) narrates with his chain that when al-Daylami -- one of the early Sufis -- was captured by the Byzantines "he was crucified" (fa salabuh), and "when the Muslims saw him crucified (fa lamma ra'ahu al-Muslimuna masluban) they freed him after a raid and brought him down alive. He came down and asked for water, etc."

Al-Tabari in his history Tarikh al-Muluk wa al-Umam (1987 ed. 5:414) in the chapter of the year 252 describes the events of `Abdan ibn al-Muwaffaq's demise: "He was crucified alive (fa suliba hayyan)... and was left crucified (turika masluban) until the midafternoon prayer. Then he was thrown into jail and remained there for two days. He died on the third. It was ordered that he be crucified again..."

There are also examples using the term salaba or crucify for defamation-displays taking place _after_ the death of the crucified, as alluded to in the Qur'anic sequence: "They never killed him, and they never crucified him."

When Caesar's governor over Amman at the time of the Prophet Farwa ibn `Amr al-Judhami declared his Islam, he was imprisoned until he died. After his death, he was crucified. Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (7:435) May Allah be well-pleased with him, he believed in the Prophet (pbuh) in the Prophet's time, yet never met him, like Uways al-Qarani.

In the hadith of Salman al-Farisi about the corrupt episcopus of the Syrian church who died, then it was discovered that he had amassed a treasure out of the people's alms, Salman narrates: "They said we shall never bury him. Then they crucified him on a plank and stoned him." Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (4:77), al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (1:167) and Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (2:311).

In 231 Imam Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuza`i -- may Allah be well-pleased with him -- was decapitated in Samarra. "When his head was brought to the authorities [in Baghdad], they [literally] crucified it (salabuh)." Al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad (5:179). It is evident that the meaning here is "They displayed it on top of a pole."

Source: http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e74.html

[*kryogenix*]

The Qur'an is more authentic than the Bible... and Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an as well. Plus the Bible is one big book of contradictions anyways, where as the Qur'an has no flaws.

Why is Jesus a well respected prophet of Islam when he someone who is apparently misguided and even a blasphemer for saying he is God?

Point out contradictions, I'll debunk them. Do it in a seperate thread. All I ask is that you use a real Bible and look up the contradictions yourself, rather than cut and paste. Cause I'll know.