Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the bible (or any other religious book) be taken seriously?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Stone people, old testament, almost every chapter.
    Don't stone people: given above (something about being sinless before you're allowed to stone people, always comforting to know that you're given the ability to kill if you're a GOOD BOY)
    Give me the exact quotes, not from your mouth love.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Too many crazy people here. I'm out!
    • 87 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    I've refuted everything you said
    So are you ever going to get around to replying to this?
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y.yousef)
    i'm joking idiot.

    Why take everything serious?

    NO ONE HERE KNOWS HOW TO HAVE A LAUGH! :indiff:
    Yea, that's ****ing funny, you massive joker.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    I see.

    Jesus wasn't the same god as the old testament...
    God's word isn't eternal...

    One of the above has to be true. Face it, denying the old testament is equivalent to denying the new testament.

    In addition, Jesus' teachings had contradictions in any case.

    1) Treat everyone equal, love everyone.
    2) He who is not with me is my enemy.

    Attachment 149158
    Okay you made a good point so I won't flip out on you.

    In the OT, the primary objective was to "not sin". In order to do this, strict rules and laws were given. Mankind was expected to follow those rules and laws, and thus not sin and in doing so, make things right with God and go to heaven.

    The New Testament however shifted from the "not sin" mentality to "forgiveness for sin". This does not mean that God's word is not eternal, what it means is that while the burden of redemption was on you as an individual in the Old Testament, in the NT, the burden was shifted to Jesus.

    What changed was the recognition that all are sinners. In the OT, people like the pharisees were content with themselves because they saw themselves as righteous and without sin. In the NT, it was stated that ALL mankind has sinned and thus falls short of the glory of God. This was an entirely new concept to them and when their egos took ever, they figured...no bloody way are we sinners! We're the Pharisees! We don't sin. Kill this Jesus for spreading these lies. That's why they had Jesus killed.

    Now I used to have the exact same question as you....why did the laws change? Why are both OT and NT different?

    The answer for me was in Galatians 3: 23-25
    It says: "Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."

    It basically means that before the time was right, for faith to arrive, the law was there. Now that faith has arrived (faith meaning faith in Jesus), the law is not required.

    You must understand that God as a creator too has a time-table...or better put...things happen when they are supposed to happen. In following this time-table, certain things happen as God wishes them to happen. For example, the 10 commandments were given at a time when human beings had already existed for so many years. So the question might be...why were they given so late? Well its because that's when God deemed it right to. Another question might be, we what happened to those people who died without the commandments? The answer again is in the bible: Romans 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law"

    It means that those who die without the law will not be judged by that law. I am not sure how they will be judged but God by definition is just and fair. So it is my faith that the 56 year old man who dies without ever having heard of Jesus or of the resurrection will not be judged by any law. It is not his fault.

    But if you have heard of the law and yet you sin, then as the prior verse says, you will be judged under the law.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    again completly illogical - i asked why would they have the quran form the wife of mohammed destroyed - if anything it would have value of antiquity and a link to your final prophet and could have sat along side your 'standardised' version of the quran. Even from a non reigious aspect, as we hold various artifcats of religious antiquity form all over the world without it affecting whatever religious beliefs you hold.
    The part you're having trouble understanding is that Hafsah was alive during Uthman(ra) standardizing the Qur'an, in fact she let him use that original to create the standardized version, which she herself approved of.

    The only reason did the later Caliph destroy the original is in case anyone got a hold of this original, and tried to alter it or somehow use it with intent on causing problems amongst the community;


    "'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'" - Marwan b. Hakam - http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html - [GF Haddad, Hafsa's Qur'an Folios]

    Of course, no one would actually be able to alter the Qur'an (even if it was an original) as it immediately have been found out;


    "[i]f any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace." - Bell's introduction to the Qurʼān By Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, p. 51:


    But Marwan wanted only the standardized version (Uthman's) to remain, allowing the Muslims to be united on one Ahruf, which was based on the dialect of the Prophet(pbuh)'s mother toungue.

    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    That is of course, unless the orignal versions were differnt to the uthamn version of the quran, which then i would agree, would have caused divisions as to who is following the proper version of the quran. Then it makes sense for uthman to cnesor or destroy all other version of the quran, no?
    It is illogical to say "they were different" when the Original was used by Uthman(ra) under Hafsa's permission and acceptance.


    Thereupon, on the Caliph's order, the mushaf was taken from Hafsah for transcription, and from it Zayd ibn Thabit (who was the main scribe) prepared several copies with the help of 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Hisham (both members of the original committee that compiled the Qur'an) and Said ibn al-'As. While the original was returned to Hafsah, one of the copies was kept with the Caliph at Madinah and the rest were sent to major Islamic cities. [14]


    Furthermore, everyone at that time agreed for Marwan to destroy it, so there's only Uthman's Standardized version, had they not agreed, then there would have been a revolt, which there was not. Marwan was fearful of future disagreements. This implies that there were no disagreements during his time.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    So are you ever going to get around to replying to this?
    Sure, I remember I did refute it pretty badly last time, but when I clicked the rich text editor (to format my indents) it caused my text to disappear.

    But I'll be happy to refute it again.

    Please can you PM me the link and when I get time i'll reply.

    My profile - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/member.php?u=903491
    • 87 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Sure, I remember I did refute it pretty badly last time, but when I clicked the rich text editor (to format my indents) it caused my text to disappear.

    But I'll be happy to refute it again.

    Please can you PM me the link and when I get time i'll reply.

    My profile - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/member.php?u=903491
    Or you can just reply in the thread.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    Or you can just reply in the thread.
    I replied to your post in another thread, not sure if you've had a look yet. Would appreciate a response.
    • 87 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .eXe)
    I replied to your post in another thread, not sure if you've had a look yet. Would appreciate a response.
    Link to it? I'm not sure what thread you're talking about. I've got my quote box to show the last 5 and I've been getting quoted really quickly lately.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    Link to it? I'm not sure what thread you're talking about. I've got my quote box to show the last 5 and I've been getting quoted really quickly lately.
    Whoops my mistake I've got the wrong person lol
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Anything that teaches you to be kind and sensible , should be taken seriously
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .eXe)
    Because you imbecile, Christians don't follow the Old Testament. Christians recognize the presence of the OT, because it is history, and it details the past and the prophecies and everything that led up to Jesus but we do not ascribe to the laws in the OT. Neither do the jews for that matter.

    For F sakes how hard is it to understand that CHRISTians follow Jesus CHRIST, which is the NEW TESTAMENT.

    My God, it's like arguing with illiterates.
    I'm sorry, did I say talking snakes and donkeys?

    I meant raising zombies and feeding a few thousands of people from some leftovers from a basket.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by K the Failure)
    I'm sorry, did I say talking snakes and donkeys?

    I meant raising zombies and feeding a few thousands of people some leftovers from a basket.
    Right, what a well thought out point. Go have a glass of water, your 3 brain cells are tired.
    • 87 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .eXe)
    Whoops my mistake I've got the wrong person lol
    Here I thought we had something together, eXe. :cry2:
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    Or you can just reply in the thread.
    Or you can just PM me the link. I still (like anyone at Uni) am in the middle of exams, so I can't waste time replying to posts that I'm bound to probably write an essay on. I get quoted alot, so I miss the sidebar quote of any particular person.

    It's not hard to click on my profile, and put the link there so I can find it easily and I wouldn't forget.

    Not a big ask, especially if you want a reply.

    edit: nvm I'll do it myself. And i'll reply when I get time.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .eXe)
    Whats wrong with them being modified? Humans arent perfect, translations can go wrong and may later need to be corrected. Whats the big issue?

    As the bible stands currently, whats the problem with it? Is there something wrong with forgiveness of sin? Does turning your other cheek sound immoral? Is loving your enemy a bad thing?

    If anything my question is why shouldnt the bible be followed? Its not as if it teaches us to be criminals, immoral or evil. Quite the opposite infact.


    Posted via TSR iPhone App
    1. It presents certain things as factual history, when they are in fact not. Leading people to not accept perfectly valid scientific theories

    2. There are also some BAD things that it teaches - Leviticus has some of the more extreme examples.

    It would be a lie to say that there aren't admirable things that would be accepted in the Bible...but it also wouldn't be true to say that there aren't any scary, crazy punishments that would not be accepted in this day and age in there as well
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's simply something people have created in order to create meaning in a meaningless existence! I think I've been reading too much of The Stranger by Albert Camus for English Lit though haha, crazy stuff!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-Toe)
    Er, if a couple of blokes gave us a book to us to apply to our everyday lives I think we do.
    but do you think you have a right to say that the quran is wrong? or the bible etc...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    The part you're having trouble understanding is that Hafsah was alive during Uthman(ra) standardizing the Qur'an, in fact she let him use that original to create the standardized version, which she herself approved of.

    The only reason did the later Caliph destroy the original is in case anyone got a hold of this original, and tried to alter it or somehow use it with intent on causing problems amongst the community;


    "'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'" - Marwan b. Hakam - http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html - [GF Haddad, Hafsa's Qur'an Folios]

    Of course, no one would actually be able to alter the Qur'an (even if it was an original) as it immediately have been found out;


    "[i]f any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace." - Bell's introduction to the Qurʼān By Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, p. 51:


    But Marwan wanted only the standardized version (Uthman's) to remain, allowing the Muslims to be united on one Ahruf, which was based on the dialect of the Prophet(pbuh)'s mother toungue.



    It is illogical to say "they were different" when the Original was used by Uthman(ra) under Hafsa's permission and acceptance.


    Thereupon, on the Caliph's order, the mushaf was taken from Hafsah for transcription, and from it Zayd ibn Thabit (who was the main scribe) prepared several copies with the help of 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Hisham (both members of the original committee that compiled the Qur'an) and Said ibn al-'As. While the original was returned to Hafsah, one of the copies was kept with the Caliph at Madinah and the rest were sent to major Islamic cities. [14]


    Furthermore, everyone at that time agreed for Marwan to destroy it, so there's only Uthman's Standardized version, had they not agreed, then there would have been a revolt, which there was not. Marwan was fearful of future disagreements. This implies that there were no disagreements during his time.
    You seem to be trying to convicne me with your own opinion instead of evidecne or logic - You are telling me what Uthmans intentions were, but you dont know what his genuine intentions were. HE was not mohammed or a prohet, simply a man following his own agenda, yet he alterd the whole course fo islamic hsitroy and practice.
    You say Hafash didnt object to her codex being detroyed, but isalmic record states clealry she refused to give up her copy for destruction and the caliphs wiated for her death before doing so. Same records also state that those original followers that uthman demanded to give up their versins of the quran for the complilation of his own version were against the idea also. MAny orignal authors of the qurans, it is told to us by the caliphs and their biographers, were "killed in battle" Could they not have been killed by uthman instead - to make sure there was no challenge to his version. I mean why would you logically send the handful of men that had been dictated mohammeds quran directly, to war, to risk being killed? Seems strange no?
    Unless of course you were trying to wipe out all the alternative versions of the quran so your own one was only to remain. Then you could claim (as cailph) you eradicated the entire history and traceable record of mohammeds original words - for the purpose of "standardisation" and no-one is left to prove you wrong

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 29, 2012
New on TSR

Naughtiest thing you did at school

Did you get away with it or were you punished?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.