Scientific Comparison Between Qur’an And Bible - Page 3

Astreja · 09-23-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse

You say there is no compulsion in religion then suggest that if we do not join your religion we are deaf, dumb, and blind. Have you ever heard of peer pressure? That's compulsion.

It's also verbal and psychological abuse.

And counterproductive, too. When I hear such ad hominem attacks on non-believers, I don't want to get any closer to the believers or their god(s).

SirArthur · 09-23-2007, 06:34 AM

Wais, is useless, I told you before you can't prove Quran using Bible. For me they're simply two stupid books; thus I like the New Testament, because Jesus was a good man for his time and preached for no hate or violence, Bible's Old Testament and Quran can burn together.

Apple Pie · 09-25-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wais shirzai

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON BETWEEN QUR’AN AND BIBLE

If you glance through the Bible and the Qur’an you may find several points which appear to be exactly the same in both of them, but when you analyse them closely, you realise that there is a difference of ‘chalk and cheese’ between them. Only based on historical details it is difficult for someone who is neither conversant with Christianity or Islam to come to a firm decision as to which of the scriptures is true; however if you verify the relevant passages of both the scriptures against scientific knowledge, you will yourself realize the truth.

a: Creation of the Universe in Six Days
As per the Bible, in the first book of Genesis in Chapter One, the universe was created in six days and each day is defined as a twenty-four hours period. Even though the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of years; this word has two meanings: firstly, it means a standard twenty-four hours period i.e. a day, and secondly, it also means stage, period or epoch which is a very long period of time.

When the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement. The creation of the universe has taken billions of years, which proves false or contradicts the concept of the Bible which states that the creation of the Universe took six days of twenty-four hour durations each.

Since we understand that the authors who penned the Koran merely copied the same "6-day" creation theme from the Holy Bible; why would you feel that the creation "day" spoken of in Genesis to be any different than that of the one copied into the Koran....?

Further, the Holy Bible details the events of each creation "day". Where does the Koran list the creation details for each "day"?

Thanks...

Jesse · 09-26-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

It's also verbal and psychological abuse.

And counterproductive, too. When I hear such ad hominem attacks on non-believers, I don't want to get any closer to the believers or their god(s).

I agree. When I am told I am deaf, dumb, and blind for not accepting some ancient text, I always jump with joy that the door has been opened to heal my deafness, dumbness, and blindness. (rolls eyes)

Quote:

Wais, is useless, I told you before you can't prove Quran using Bible. For me they're simply two stupid books; thus I like the New Testament, because Jesus was a good man for his time and preached for no hate or violence, Bible's Old Testament and Quran can burn together.

Jesus did preach hate and violence. Yahweh was a murderous tyrant but never in the Old Testament did he threaten eternal torture. Yahweh inflicted momentary pain but Jesus introduced Hell and declared the righteousness of confining people in a dark dungeon where they would experience the amount of pain Yahweh inflicted but multiplied by infinity.

Quote:

Since we understand that the authors who penned the Koran merely copied the same "6-day" creation theme from the Holy Bible; why would you feel that the creation "day" spoken of in Genesis to be any different than that of the one copied into the Koran....?

Exactly.

Welcome to the forums, Apple Pie!

SirArthur · 09-26-2007, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse

Jesus did preach hate and violence. Yahweh was a murderous tyrant but never in the Old Testament did he threaten eternal torture. Yahweh inflicted momentary pain but Jesus introduced Hell and declared the righteousness of confining people in a dark dungeon where they would experience the amount of pain Yahweh inflicted but multiplied by infinity.

Say that you might go to Hell, one thing you've to settle after your death, is not the same as saying that you must fight on Allah's cause during your life.
Besides, Hell already existed on many cultures before Christ, I don't know who the Hell invented that Jesus introduced Hell and Satan!

Jesse · 09-26-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse

Jesus did preach hate and violence. Yahweh was a murderous tyrant but never in the Old Testament did he threaten eternal torture. Yahweh inflicted momentary pain but Jesus introduced Hell and declared the righteousness of confining people in a dark dungeon where they would experience the amount of pain Yahweh inflicted but multiplied by infinity.

Say that you might go to Hell, one thing you've to settle after your death, is not the same as saying that you must fight on Allah's cause during your life.
Besides, Hell already existed on many cultures before Christ, I don't know who the Hell invented that Jesus introduced Hell and Satan!

You seem to have received the wrong impression from my post. I was not defending Allah/Quran, Jesus/NT, or Yahweh/OT. I think all three characters had abominable moral codes. My point was that Jesus thought it righteous to inflict infinite pain on people. Morality consists of more than just actions but also thoughts and that thought of Jesus is a morally abominable one.

You also seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I said Jesus introduced Hell. I didn't mean he was the first person on this planet to have believed that. The Nark of the Hindus is an example of Hell before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I meant that he (or the NT writers) introduced it into the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

SirArthur · 09-26-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse

My point was that Jesus thought it righteous to inflict infinite pain on people. Morality consists of more than just actions but also thoughts and that thought of Jesus is a morally abominable one.

That is just if you believe on Jesus and the whole Judaism for a start. As I stated on my introduction in this forum, as an Agnostic, I care for no theological/mythological stuff other than how those doctrines may reflect on one's life (and during his life, not after death) and society.

The doctrines of Jesus are then not that bad, we can call it acceptable. No claims for violence and conquering. If somebody did otherwise claiming to be doing it on Jesus' name, is that person fault, such claims are in nowhere from what we know of his life.

Jesse · 09-26-2007, 05:16 AM

I am talking about the morality of the character, regardless of the character being historical or fictional, regardless of Hell being true or false, and regardless of any religion being true or false. A person who thinks it is right to inflict an infinite amount of pain on others is a person with an abominable ethical code. Ethics encompasses actions and thoughts. One can argue that Jesus' ethical code is superb if you remove Hell and that very well might be true but if you remove Hell you're no longer talking about Jesus' ethical code but of someone else's.

SirArthur · 09-26-2007, 05:27 AM

But Jesus didn't say he would inflict eternal pain, but that eternal pain is present on Hell.

Jesse · 09-26-2007, 07:24 AM

It doesn't matter if Jesus is the one inflicting the infinite pain. Jesus, as the story goes, is the judge of whether someone is worthy of suffering infinite pain and many will suffer that infinite pain. This means Jesus will conclude that infinite pain is a just, righteous, punishment for many people.

A person who could conclude "infinite suffering is a just punishment for finite crimes" is a person with an abominable ethical code, regardless of whether there is such a place of punishment and regardless of whether they have the power to send people there. The acceptance of that conclusion alone constitutes proof of an abominable ethical code.