I think you'll find that the Yahweh is One, and no-where in the old Testament or any of the Jewish Scriptures will you find the concept of the Trinity or the mention of Jesus.

Allah, Yahweh, God etc. are all One. This is the one essential message that was preached by all the prophets, from Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Mohammad (peace be upon them all). No where in the Qur'an does it say Judas was crucified in place of Jesus, it just simply says that the Jews did not kill Jesus nor did they crucify him, it was only made to appear so to them.

As for suicide bombers and terrorists, God places great sanctity on human life in the Qur'an;

In Islam war is permitted for defensive purposes, but even so there are rules which must be abided by;

• Women must not be harmed
• Children must not be harmed
• Non combatants must not be harmed
• Animals must not be harmed
• Plants/Trees should not be cut down

Any sane person could see from those verses that fighting is only permitted against those who fight against the muslims and if the enemy wishes for peace then the muslim should also want peace. The taking of innocent life has no place during war time never mind during times of peace.

I suggest to all hear to actually learn the truth about Islam from it's primary source (the Qur'an) rather than relying upon hearsay evidence like the following;

There is no such verse anywhere in the Qur'an.

I tried reading the book. Really I did. Gave it the good old community college try. But I couldn't get through it because it was so repetitive and boring. It has to be one of the worst written pieces of literature EVER.

Then try "The Koran for Dummies"... although the "for Dummies" range has a few really badly written books, like "diabeties for dummies" and "transendance for dummies"

Most religious books are boring.

Depends who they're written by. I'm read several very interesting books by some good authors. And I've read a lot of shite books by crappy authors. And I've read the odd religious book that sounds very interesting until you actually analyse what they're saying and realise that they really don't know what they're talking about (God must exist because the universe is expanding and I'm going to selectively quote Einstein to prove my point...).

Don't you hate it when people quote Einstein to find proof for their beliefs?

Firstly, it's bogus (using it as evidence, I mean), and secondly, what sort of religious person is so insecure about their beliefs that they must find evidence to back it up?

Besides, proving faith denies the purpose of it. You can't have faith if you have the evidence to back it up. Then it's theory.

QFT!

Anyway, I have another little question I have been pondering about for a little while. Not to bash, not to harm and not to insult but... if a christian person claims to have seen god or jezus, and if god or jezus told him to kill a guy by throwing him off the empire state building, why is that person convicted for murder by a court that asks you to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you GOD? Given that that little sentance implies that the court takes faith in religion for the truthfullness of one's testimony (sp), why does the court not accept the idea that the defendand actualy saw god and that god actualy told him to kill the guy?
In other words, why are other christians immediatly calling people who claim to have seen god crazy? The only reason I can think off is because deep down they know that what they believe in is a big pile of BS. However, I would like to hear other reasons for this strange behavior because I don't realy get the point in praying for something, and then proceed to say that it's impossible for someone to see god.

Ummm... because the concept of swearing in a court is an ancient, outmoded and ultimately meaningless custom that probably should be scrapped?

It's not about backing up their own beliefs. It's about defending them to people who try to argue that religion is implausible. Too bad 90% of religious people are unable to conceive an atheistic point of view so they can't construct a coherent argument.

Which, for some reason, tends to leave agnostic little me defending religion. Not sure why I bother.

Well obviously. If I would have to testify to an American court...
Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? No... I don't believe in god so I can't swear to him.
Then I get arrested for being a hostile witness and we can all have a big laugh at the American justice system.

Anyhoo, thinking outside a courtroom. From time to time you read these stories about people claiming to having seen god, jezus or holy virgin Maria. Yet, even in a country where god sits next to the president, people say that the person is crazy and should go see a shrink. WTF is up with that? So, you all claim god exists, you kill people to make a point that he exists, you pray to him every day and you go to church every week, but when someone claims to have actualy talked to him we all go OMGWTFBBQ THAT CAN'T BE! YOU MUST BE CRAZY! OFF TO THE MENTAL HOSPITAL WITH YOU!
Am I the only one seeing the irony in that or...?

If you don't believe in god, they don't make you swear on a bible. They just make you swear to tell the truth in the knowledge that if you lie it's perjury and you'll go to jail.

You didn't answer my question...

Actually, I think he did.

Its almost always in your best interests to swear on it though. See Lenny Bruce's case. People think you're a real weirdo in America if you aren't a Christian.

That's because I think it's a silly question. Just because someone believes in god, doesn't mean that they will necessarily believe someone who claims to have talked to god. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it would appear to be a fundamental tenent of many religions these days that there is no direct contact between man and the divine.

Or, to put it another way; just because a man believes in god, doesn't mean he can't believe in fruitcakes.

I realize that, but quite often you see these people not even thinking about the possiblity of it being true and dismissing the idea the first chance they get. Ofcourse they don't have to automaticaly believe it's true, but giving it a fair considiration, as a fellow believer, might just only be fair.
But why are you comparing god with a fruitcake?

fruitcake = insane person

god = insane nonperson/nonobject.

Haha.

Anyhoo, okay Nate. What if tommorow the pope would come out and tell all christians on the planet that god spoke to him and ordered him to kill all the jews? The pope is the highest religious power we can actualy see, so would people doubt him as fast as they would a random person down the street?

Well there is the doctrine of papal infallibility so he probably should be believed:p . I suspect that if he did though, the Vatican would quickly put out a press release claiming ill health and over tiredness.

So even the pope is crazy when he talks to god now? This is getting more ironic by the minute. Believing, sure. Praying and requesting things is all fine, but if he chooses to answer you, you're in deep shit. Better hope your prairs(sp) arn't answered then before you end up in the mental hospital.

He's got you there Nate. If you pray for him to help you, but claim it is lunacy if your prayers are answered, it is getting a bit bankrupt.

It's not lunacy because, as I stated earlier, many religions have a fundamental belief that no-one talks to god these days.

In any case, the Catholic church has a department who's purpose is to check miracles. Example: they hire a doctor at Lourdes to verify the thousands of claims of miracles every year. In the last century they have verified only two (2!) as being miracles.

My point being that if someone stood up and claimed to talk to god, everyone would be right to disbelieve him until he showed some sort of proof, given that even the Vatican needs proof.

Yeah, not to mention the fact that the Pope killing all the Jews is a terrible terrible example.

Wouldn't have been 2000 years ago...

Anyhoo,

Last time I checked, there are thousands of people talking to god every sunday. Or every single day for that matter. But yea I get what you mean, it is believed god doesn't talk back.
So is he antisocial or something? Create an entire planet, an entire universe and then just sits there in the corner not even daring to talk to his creations? Oh wait let me guess. Somewhere in the bible there is a reason for that as well.
You can't see him, you can't touch him, you can't smell him and you can't even eat him! You pray to him, he doesn't answer back but if he does then people don't believe you because god doesn't talk to us humans! It's such a funny religion, the bible seems to only want to disprove the existance of god these days. Funny how that works.

Face it Havoc, you just don't get religion on any level. Thus you probably shouldn't debate it, just like if I were to hoe into a conversation on rap music. Or the feminine psyche.

1000 years ago, maybe. 2000 years ago, Jesus was about 12 and Judea was a powerful province of the Roman Empire under Herod the Great.:p

1000, 2000, 5000 for all I care. You know what I mean.

And you are right, I don't get religion. I don't understand any of it. I don't understand why people put their faith into an invisible father figure high up in the sky. I don't get why everyone gets their opinions from a book. I don't get why idiots are killing gay people because a book says they have to. You know what would be scary? If I actualy did get it. Because if I understand something, that would mean it has logic behind it. Religion, of any kind, doesn't not have any logic behind it at all. So no, I don't get it. But I've asked time and time again, if it apparently is so easy to understand, then why don't you explain it to me?
Furthermore, stop implying that I don't know anything about religion in general. I've spend half my life on a heavily christian school, each morning started with praying and reading stuff from the bible when I was f*cking 4 years old, alright? I know the stories of the bible, difference is that I enjoyed reading them as I do any other fairy tale.

*feels awkward*



Why does the Vatican need to prove miracles, when by definition miracles are based upon faith, and proof denies faith? This confuddles me.

^ This has long been a back and forth argument. After all, teh Church say you don't need to prove God, because you should have faith in him without need for pproof. Atheists say you can' believe in something without proof, and that as the Bible has miracles they are proof of God so faith is useless. The Church say the miracles are proof of faith, not of God. Atheists say that there must have been a God to cause the miracles, so therefore there isn't a God as God only exists through faith. It's kind of a Catch 22 argument.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, especialy coming from the athiest side.

1. The church indeed says that god should be a matter of faith and not of proof. I guess that's why they put Intelligent Design in science books...

2. You can believe in something without proof, but not the other way around. You can't disbelieve something that is proven... Then again, christianity has been doing a great job at that so far so I might be wrong.

3. The bible is a book which we don't even know to be authentic. For all we know it's a same kind of story as the three little pigs or little red riding hood. For all we know it was an ancient fairy tale and some idiot started to believe it.

4. If any miracles have ever happened (unexplainable things have happened, yes, but that doesn't automaticaly make it a miracle) then isn't god the only one who could have performed them? No points for the church.

5. And that last argument from the athiests is so stupid that I'm not even going to contest it. It's basicaly like saying that god does exist only they don't realize it...

I never said that you don't know anything about religion, I merely said you didn't get it and, as such, are completely unable to debate it because any answer a religious person can give will go over or around your head. To stretch my previous simile, it would be like debating with a penguin. Or a walrus.