Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · Jun 10, 2005, 12:43 pm

Don't be ridiculous. Islam and Christianity are incompatible.

James · Jun 10, 2005, 02:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: cheesenuggett

i was muslim, and i find it funny christians discredit the Quran so much, its just another extension, mohhammed did not preach that it was a new religeon, just that it was an add on.

The Quran is not the same book as the Bible. The Bible was not changed into the Quran, it was a new book.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 10, 2005, 02:45 pm

Do you know how many times the Old and New testaments have been edited?

tinybear · Jun 10, 2005, 02:46 pm

Lots. Your point is?

James · Jun 10, 2005, 02:51 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

Do you know how many times the Old and New testaments have been edited?

Yeah, what is your point? I already said that in any case that the Bible was altered, it couldn't and wouldn't be put into any form that didn't match what God wanted and what He did.

IndieC · Jun 11, 2005, 02:53 pm

I have to agree there, though i've only read that post. However, it doesn't mean it isn't to be debated, and questionned, or else there would be no point in having given us free will...

cheesenuggett · Jun 11, 2005, 08:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: James

Yeah, what is your point? I already said that in any case that the Bible was altered, it couldn't and wouldn't be put into any form that didn't match what God wanted and what He did.

this provides quite the point after looking at indiec's post...

so the reason god let humans edit the bible is because he wants us to adapt it to what fits our current society? i think that makes sense...

**Pooeypants** · Jun 12, 2005, 05:00 am

Quote:

Quote by: James

Yeah, what is your point? I already said that in any case that the Bible was altered, it couldn't and wouldn't be put into any form that didn't match what God wanted and what He did.

How would you know this? Where are your assurances of this? How do you know what your God wanted and what he did?

tinybear · Jun 12, 2005, 05:09 am

You still haven't told us what your point was, Pooey.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 12, 2005, 06:44 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

You still haven't told us what your point was, Pooey.

He said that the bible was a new book because it has been changed. Well, the old & New testaments have been many times, so compared to what it was in the past, itself should be a book as well?

tinybear · Jun 12, 2005, 12:56 pm

What???

**Pooeypants** · Jun 12, 2005, 01:11 pm

Hey, I never said it would make sense.
But then nor does the invisible sky fairy.

Agent007 · Jun 12, 2005, 07:23 pm

I agree, Agnus. However, I did not know there are homosexual people on this forum. The editing of the Bible is inevitable in that there is no other way for it to be translated into different languages; hence the term "lost in translation." However, the basic meanings of the book are not lost; if one feels that they are, then he or she could read the Latin Vulgate or the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. Pooeypants, you should not simply invalidate the existence of God and the beliefs of theists with your "hokey-pokey" theories.

lsbskins1 · Jun 17, 2005, 01:53 pm

[quote=tinybear]Don't be ridiculous. Islam and Christianity are incompatible.[/QUOTE

Sorry to kick this back up, but...

If Christianity and Islam are, in fact, incompatible, (a point I do not conceed) it is not because they did not spring from the same source, nor because they do not worship the same God. And that is what is central to my point. James claimed that God would NOT ALLOW HIS WORD TO BE CORRUPTED, he did not claim that Islam corrupts the word of God. If Islam is, in fact, incorrect (as I'm sure James believes), then it is absolute proof that the WORD OF GOD CAN BE CORRUPTED. Get it.

tinybear · Jun 17, 2005, 02:19 pm

Ermm...Not really, no. I don't quite get it.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 17, 2005, 03:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Agent007

I agree, Agnus. However, I did not know there are homosexual people on this forum. The editing of the Bible is inevitable in that there is no other way for it to be translated into different languages; hence the term "lost in translation." However, the basic meanings of the book are not lost; if one feels that they are, then he or she could read the Latin Vulgate or the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. Pooeypants, you should not simply invalidate the existence of God and the beliefs of theists with your "hokey-pokey" theories.

The burden of proof rests on those who asserts a positive, in this case that is the entity known as God.

lsbskins1 · Jun 17, 2005, 03:48 pm

I'm not sure if you are being serious or just being as contentious as I am capable of being, so i will reply as if you were serious.

James claims God's word can not be corrupted. He believes that the Old and the New Testaments are the revealed word of God and therefore, no matter how many translations, no matter how many men have their hand in the pie, this revealed word is somehow protected by God and therefore, can not relay a "false message". If we accept that premise, then we must accept the premise that the Quoran is like-wise in no way corrupt, because it is simply Mohamed's revelation of the same God who would not allow his word to be corrupted. Mohamed simply claims that Ishmael rather than Issac was the true heir to Abraham (primogeniture being what it is, he was first born and there is reason in the claim) and therefore the Arabs are the true children of the covenant. He claims Jesus was a prophet, a true man of God , but not the Son of God or part of a Godhead, because that is blasphemy. God is one and there is only one God, the God of Abraham, the god of the Jews (and therefore Christ) and the God of Islam. Same God. Not a different god, same one. So, if Mohamed corrupted what was given, he corrupted the word of the same God James whorships and his theory is out the window. See it now?

SNPete · Jun 17, 2005, 07:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

The burden of proof rests on those who asserts a positive, in this case that is the entity known as God.

Actually in the legal system of the US, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the allegation. If the State alleges that you are a robber, the State must prove that allegation

So if an atheist starts the debate by saying God is bunk, the burden of proof is on the athiest. The atheist must prove his or her point.

However, it is my observation that by the time one gets to the 10th or 20th post this burden of proof concept is lost.

belverron · Jun 18, 2005, 01:13 am

Quote:

Quote by: James

If someone is accidentally killed by another person today, and it is a true unavoidable accident, is that person not pardoned? Killing by accident is not murder. That has even been established in America's courts.

Don't mix law and religion. Even one of your Southern Baptists (Richard Land), on a related topic, commented, "We should always remember that [Bush] is commander in chief, not theologian in chief."

tinybear · Jun 18, 2005, 02:18 am

lsbskins1> I do not accept that the word of God cannot be corrupted by man. I mean, why not? Man does a lot of wrong and evil things. Why not corrupt the word of God and utilize that to his own advantage? I'm pretty sure this has been done lotsa times.

Jun 10, 2005, 02:45 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	Do you know how many times the Old and New testaments have been edited? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jun 11, 2005, 02:53 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	I have to agree there, though i've only read that post. However, it doesn't mean it isn't to be debated, and questionned, or else there would be no point in having given us free will... "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds

Jun 12, 2005, 01:11 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	Hey, I never said it would make sense. But then nor does the invisible sky fairy. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jun 12, 2005, 07:23 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
Agent007 BANNED Posts: 302	I agree, Agnus. However, I did not know there are homosexual people on this forum. The editing of the Bible is inevitable in that there is no other way for it to be translated into different languages; hence the term "lost in translation." However, the basic meanings of the book are not lost; if one feels that they are, then he or she could read the Latin Vulgate or the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. Pooeypants, you should not simply invalidate the existence of God and the beliefs of theists with your "hokey-pokey" theories. Last edited by Agent007; Jun 12, 2005 at 07:27 pm.

Jun 17, 2005, 01:53 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
lsbskins1 Redskins Rule Location: South-Western Virginia Posts: 2,472	[quote=tinybear]Don't be ridiculous. Islam and Christianity are incompatible.[/QUOTE Sorry to kick this back up, but... If Christianity and Islam are, in fact, incompatible, (a point I do not conceed) it is not because they did not spring from the same source, nor because they do not worship the same God. And that is what is central to my point. James claimed that God would NOT ALLOW HIS WORD TO BE CORRUPTED, he did not claim that Islam corrupts the word of God. If Islam is, in fact, incorrect (as I'm sure James believes), then it is absolute proof that the WORD OF GOD CAN BE CORRUPTED. Get it. All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard - Tell me, could that be you? John Kay

Jun 10, 2005, 12:43 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,106	Don't be ridiculous. Islam and Christianity are incompatible.

Jun 10, 2005, 02:46 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,106	Lots. Your point is?

Jun 12, 2005, 05:09 am	#69 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,106	You still haven't told us what your point was, Pooey.

Jun 12, 2005, 12:56 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,106	What???

Jun 17, 2005, 02:19 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,106	Ermm...Not really, no. I don't quite get it.

Jun 17, 2005, 03:48 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
lsbskins1 Redskins Rule Location: South-Western Virginia Posts: 2,472	I'm not sure if you are being serious or just being as contentious as I am capable of being, so i will reply as if you were serious. James claims God's word can not be corrupted. He believes that the Old and the New Testaments are the revealed word of God and therefore, no matter how many translations, no matter how many men have their hand in the pie, this revealed word is somehow protected by God and therefore, can not relay a "false message". If we accept that premise, then we must accept the premise that the Quoran is like-wise in no way corrupt, because it is simply Mohamed's revelation of the same God who would not allow his word to be corrupted. Mohamed simply claims that Ishmael rather than Issac was the true heir to Abraham (primogeniture being what it is, he was first born and there is reason in the claim) and therefore the Arabs are the true children of the covenant. He claims Jesus was a prophet, a true man of God , but not the Son of God or part of a Godhead, because that is blasphemy. God is one and there is only one God, the God of Abraham, the god of the Jews (and therefore Christ) and the God of Islam. Same God. Not a different god, same one. So, if Mohamed corrupted what was given, he corrupted the word of the same God James whorships and his theory is out the window. See it now? All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard - Tell me, could that be you? John Kay

Jun 18, 2005, 02:18 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,106	lsbskins1> I do not accept that the word of God cannot be corrupted by man. I mean, why not? Man does a lot of wrong and evil things. Why not corrupt the word of God and utilize that to his own advantage? I'm pretty sure this has been done lotsa times.