Islam, Christianity and Morality ( 1 of 2 )

[islamtoparadise1]

islam islam islam

:D:D:D will win

[brancool88]

@islamtoparadise1 maybe on earth

[Jovian84]

christianity has alot to do with the way our cluture views morality, and which values should be underlined above others. at the same time I think its incomplete and christian purest fail in a moral sense because of that. but theres allot of good in the faith.

[hany00007]

Violated the girl presented

[tripletrules]

Britney Spears is by no means following a Christian lifestyle, and the fact that you say that makes me feel all the more confident about my religion, that religion of course being Born Again Christian.

hahah I'm still laughing at the fact that you would try to say that. LOL

[45axelh]

I actually think he means more of a christian society that accepts people like Britney Spears, while in Islamic run countries she would have been decapitated a long time ago.

[Jovian84]

@45axelh holy shiite sign me up!

[asdube]

Buddhists never said that Buddha (Siddharta Gautama) was a incarnation of God. Where did that come from?

[Steli111]

Evolution not that important?

well then, why do you like the mongolians?

its futile to argue with you, i just hope you see open mindedness in your heart.

Wow, a coherent vid.

[Themanwiththeboat]

Vers 30, sura 21: Doesn't they realise those who want to deny the truth, that the heavens and the earth once made a single mass (tied) and that we (Allah) separated them.

A single mass (Big bang? or perhaps how earth got its athmosphere etc?)

Verse 47 sura 51 (translated poorly again)

We (Allah) have built the world alter(världsaltet) and given it a firm structure and certainly it is we that is expanding it. (Big bang!!)

[LordDonib]

@Themanwiththeboat

Expandig it = the universe is expanding theory (big rip)

[Vodkatonic11]

PART I - You are ignorant of science AND the Koran!The Koran fails to say anything about the Big Bang or other scientific information.This is why its claim to "scientific accuracy" is to be dismissed. It makes vague metaphysical statements, that is not science.

[punctum2]

Read the article in Wikipedia about Luxenbergs research and results. There is more and more acknoledgement in philological science for the results of L.s work. (Scientific Congresses in Berlin and Paris).

The article in Wiki has the same title as the book:

"The syro-aramaic reading of the Koran"

Greetings!

[TexasMus]

The book makes no attempt to place its findings in any plausible historical context. Who were the Christian inhabitants of the pre-Islamic Mecca who used the alleged Qur'anic Aramaic-Arabic mixed language and what exactly were their Syriac writings which produced the Arabic Qur'an. How theory account for the Jewish elements in Muslim scripture, and how early Islamic exegetes manage to achieve. To believe indeed any of them have been solved by Mr Luxenberg's book. Simon Hopkins -- Univ of Hebrew

[punctum2]

There are parts of Quran originally not written in Arabic language, but in Aramaic. In its oldest parts Quaran is christian.

Luxenberg, Christoph:

The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran

Berlin: Schiler, 2007.

ISBN 3-89930-088-2

Hardcover, 352 p.

"probably the most important book ever written on the Koran." (The Guardian)

[marconiro]

punctum...

this is a way for you to wake up and realize that Islam and the prophet Mohamed have gave hope to the people after Jesus that the truth and the only way to reach heaven is believing in ALLAH Almighty, the Quran and his messenger. So if you want to live your life blindly and then reach hell ASAP, by all means do so but do not add comments and reveal your ignorance

[TexasMus]

The book makes no attempt to place its findings in any plausible historical context. Who were the Christian inhabitants of the pre-Islamic Mecca who used the alleged Qur'anic Aramaic-Arabic mixed language and what exactly were their Syriac writings which produced the Arabic Qur'an. How theory account for the Jewish elements in Muslim scripture, and how early Islamic exegetes manage to achieve. To believe indeed any of them have been solved by Mr Luxenberg's book. Simon Hopkins -- Univ of Hebrew

[Ktrain0218]

Christian = Relationship with god.

Not a Religion.

[HoLyMasSacrEe]

Blah,,,blah,,blah,,,Religion Kills...more people have died because of stupid religions than anything else.Its all about controlling the masses.Fukallah

mothe fuck badhand1!!!

[badhand1]

Blah,,,blah,,blah,,,Religion Kills...more people have died because of stupid religions than anything else.Its all about controlling the masses.Fukallah

[longof99]

This argument is not based on emotion, not well-thought out logic, reality or proof.

[samten54]

God can do miracles i.e. cure the sick, make events happen bla bla bla... Never in history has an amputee had a limb grow back. God therefore hates amputees or god does not exist. Simple.

There is no god in Buddhism. Learn something.

[darajman]

"never in history has an amputee had a limb grow back"? brilliant! so that would mean you know EVERY event and occurence that has happened at EVERY point in history since the beginning of time. wow... thats pretty impressive! common sense: a negative statement cannot be proven unless the counter statement is refuted/disproved.

[samten54]

Don't we get pedantic when a god dies? How can you seriously try to keep an archaic belief going? If you are clever enough to put the history argument forward how can you follow faith before logic?

[darajman]

good questions u have there samten54 =). well, it may be archaic but IF (now im coming from an un-biased stand on this) it was real/true, then how can i not believe it? we all believe stuff because its adequately convincing do we not? if someone says "water is clear" and i can clearly see that it is, im not going to say they're bullshitting just because its an archaic belief (water has always been believed to be clear). which partially answers your 2nd question.

[darajman]

i DONT follow my faith before logic. but i follow it bcz it DOES prove authentic when analysed unbiasedly. i encourage ANYBODY to do their own study/research into the authenticity of the different religious beliefs. theres plenty of literature that asserts that there is no evidence for these different faiths. to believe this is also called "blind faith" unless their claims are OBJECTIVELY substantiated. remember: no statement of negation can be proved unless its counterstatement is disproved.

[darajman]

there is just as much literature that gives specifics on what evidence is available to us, when/where/how it was found, how relevant and reliable it is.

[darajman]

based on these criterias its not difficult at all to come to the correct conclusion. supernatural stuff, cant argue with it - IF god exists, im sure all that is possible for him/her/it. historical accuracy of events recorded in scripture - plenty of archaelogical findings to analyse from the times and locations of the events believed by the 3 abrahamic faiths (judaism, christianity and islam). lastly - does it make theological sense?