It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Koran a FAKE

page: 15
9
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

As far as the Quran being 'fake' (whatever is meant by that term), one really can't tell at the moment, considering that no research has been published yet.



There is some research available that makes a strong case against the authenticity and accuracy of the Quran and its teachings. You should be able to easily find this on the web.




posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


It is obvious that you have great passion for your beliefs.
One should not overlook the fact that your certainty is not shared or realized by a great many people. With all do respect, and no slight intended to any party, allow me an example, and please, pardon all the cliche's.

Heliosprime can see the light of his convictions clearly, and they are profoundly understood by him and believed to be true.

Others with whom you share and interact cannot see your light nor grasp your understanding and truth.

The reverse is also true; therefore, each party is blind to the other, and as long as both parties stay in the absolute, satisfaction, mutual understanding, and an enlightenment of ideas and truths that can benefit all will not be achieved.

The resolution is to find that which is common to all and build a bridge piece by piece to each and everyones understanding. Easier said than done.

I believe that truth is provable, or in other words, if it's true it can be proved. Otherwise it's not truth.

It is no more true, or reprehensable, to say, my God is real, than it is to say your God is false. These are personel beliefs that have no basis in fact or fiction outside of ones own mind.

When something is understood by all, it transends the self and becomes truth unto the whole. It becomes Universal Truth.

All mankind understands the need for food to survive. This is a Universal Truth.

Just because someone cannot prove to others a belief does not necessarily make it false, it could simply mean that the person does not have the knowledge, wisdom, or understanding to enlighten others to his beliefs.

My rule is; If it is not provable to all, it is not yet true.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
\reply to post by heliosprime
 


If the God of Christians is true it can be proved.
If the Bible of Christians is true it can be proved.
If the God of Islam is true it can be proved.
If the Quran is true it can be proved.

The Christian Bible clearly states that proof is necessary for one to believe.

EXAMPLE:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth."
II Timothy 2:15

This New Testament verse clearly states that God expects man to prove himself unto God.

"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
Genesis 22:2

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me."
Genesis 22:12

These Old Testament verses clearly state Gods command for Abraham to prove himself to God.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
I John 4:1

This New Testament verse clearly states Gods command to prove whether the spirits are of God.

The obvious point here is that God throughout the Bible expects man to prove himself unto God, and God expects man to make the spirits prove they are from God.

To suggest that mankind does not need absolute proof of Gods existence in order to believe in God is not Biblically sound.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus was our example and just as God requires mankind to prove himself, God as well must prove himself to mankind.

According to the Bible Jesus proved the existence of God on a continuous basis through miracles such as raising people from the dead, healing lepers, turning water into wine, healing the blind, and the crippled.

Jesus example clearly makes the case that Jesus exacted of himself in accordance with Gods will, proof of Gods existence prior to mans acceptance of God. As well God expects man to prove himself unto God before God will accept him.

To suggest that the need for proof of Gods existence is in error, or, a lack of faith is not Biblically supported.

What appears to have happend is that the state of mankinds belief and devotion to God has deteriated to such a point that man no longer has a sufficiant relationship with God to manifest the wonders of God. So it seems the only option left to try and mask mankinds spiritual downfall is to claim that one must have faith to believe in God.

Faith is not the means by which we believe in God.
A belief in God requires proof from God.
Jesus was proof that God existed. (He performed miracles)
Abraham was proof that God Existed.(He performed miracles)
Moses was proof that God Existed.(He performed miracles)

Just because we do not have spiritual leaders at this time capable of proving the existence of God does not mean proof of God is no longer required.

Faith is what those who believe in God utilize to comfort and sustain themselves in times of weakness and where God has yet to reveal his mysteries.

Present day mankind has replaced proof with faith.
Proof enables mankind to believe in God.
Faith sustains mankinds belief in God.

CybrSeer



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybrseer

Heliosprime can see the light of his convictions clearly, and they are profoundly understood by him and believed to be true.



Close , I don't believe its true, I KNOW it is true.



The resolution is to find that which is common to all and build a bridge piece by piece to each and everyones understanding. Easier said than done.


Dead wrong. Its not about "building bridges" to understanding each other, that puts allah on the same level as GOD. Its about burning down false teachings, and building back truth.



Just because someone cannot prove to others a belief does not necessarily make it false, it could simply mean that the person does not have the knowledge, wisdom, or understanding to enlighten others to his beliefs.

My rule is; If it is not provable to all, it is not yet true.



Nice try, but again dead wrong. The proof is all around you, it is you who is blind. Its not about me, my "beliefs", nor my words, wisdom, blah, blah, blah.

Its about the word of GOD. It is you who must seek he............

[edit on 14-2-2008 by heliosprime]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
So in your world following in the footsteps of Jesus is to be intolerant and narrowminded. How sad.

Many have found the exact opposite. What would you say to the Amish or the Friends i.e. the Quakers? Probably that they are the one's who aren't true Christians. How pathetic, how arrogant.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
So in your world following in the footsteps of Jesus is to be intolerant and narrowminded. How sad.

Many have found the exact opposite. What would you say to the Amish or the Friends i.e. the Quakers? Probably that they are the one's who aren't true Christians. How pathetic, how arrogant.


NO in my world there is one GOD, his son Jesus, and the HOLY Spirit. To be loving is not to blindly accept all as equal in the eyes of GOD.

Jesus was not "tolerant" of the money changers. Nor will he be tolerant of those who do not follow his fathers LAW. "Love thy neighbor" enough to correct him. It is not judgeing to put people back on the correct path.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by heliosprime]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Is that all you have to go on is that Jesus was intolerant of the money changers? Thats pretty lame.

What about let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and who is there to judge you?... no one my lord... and neither do I, go now and sin no more. Or judge not lest ye be judged or be more concerned about the beam in your own eye and less about the mote in your neighbors. I could go on.

If God is infinate and unknowable then there are infinate expressions of God... to draw something infinate in such a narrow prespective only highlights your own narrowness not God's.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by grover]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Again YOU confuse judgement with enlightenment. To set a neighbor straight on his path is not judgement. It is to point out his deviation.

Christ kept ALL commandments. Judgement is for the LORD. When something is so wrong, as is the koran, again it is not judgment. It is a simple statement of FACT. The koarn denies Jesus as the son of GOD. It denies he died on the cross and arose again.

Therefore the koran is a fake on many, many levels.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I hate putting people in ignore but it reaches a point where it becomes obvious reasoning just won't work. I have better things to do than to argue with a fanatic.

You are blind to the fact that you are as bad as those you roundly condemn. Par for the course I would say.

Byebye



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
[edit on 14-2-2008 by deenamarie53]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by Austin9599945
 


(author lets out a great sigh, as it has become obvious you are blind)

GOD bless you....................

(author treats his bloody forehead, takes out more duct tape to rebind his head).

NEXT...................



.............................................................its like you're freaking five man.
You're like a child.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kangjia57
 


You get the
because I can't find the "rolly-eyes thingy, matey.

By the way....because you're post is so full of spite and aimed at a person willing to put forth good references for discussion then you're post doesn't count.

neener, neener



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybrseer

...The reverse is also true; therefore, each party is blind to the other, and as long as both parties stay in the absolute, satisfaction, mutual understanding, and an enlightenment of ideas and truths that can benefit all will not be achieved.

The resolution is to find that which is common to all and build a bridge piece by piece to each and everyones understanding. Easier said than done.

I believe that truth is provable, or in other words, if it's true it can be proved. Otherwise it's not truth.

It is no more true, or reprehensable, to say, my God is real, than it is to say your God is false. These are personel beliefs that have no basis in fact or fiction outside of ones own mind.

When something is understood by all, it transends the self and becomes truth unto the whole. It becomes Universal Truth.

All mankind understands the need for food to survive. This is a Universal Truth.

Just because someone cannot prove to others a belief does not necessarily make it false, it could simply mean that the person does not have the knowledge, wisdom, or understanding to enlighten others to his beliefs.

My rule is; If it is not provable to all, it is not yet true.



My inference is that your definition of truth isn't actually truth. It's more like...that bridge of understanding you were talking about, yes?

Am I to understand that, by your notion, and in other words, conformity establishes universal truth? I hardly think that qualifies as truth in any sense.

Long ago, philosophers and physicists came up with ideas that, when thought about now, are in many ways absurd. From phlogiston(Georg Ernst Stahl) to geocentricism(Ptolemy), perfectly circular planetary orbit, elements(Aristotle), astrologically bases philosophies about matter, etc. Around the old times, these explanations were widely accepted as truth, but in reality were very, very false.

Those that discovered the more accurate truths were, most of time, ignored, ridiculed, and just plain frowned upon for straying from the "truth" until many years later(a lot of times after death), when their discoveries were no longer denied and the they were finally credited.

Those whose situations were this include Aristarchus(and Copernicus, I guess) for discovering heliocentricism, Democritus for introducing atoms, John Dalton who introduced the idea of molecules, and even our beloved, modern(though dead) Carl Sagan. He was the first to introduce the idea, and warn us, of global warming, way before today. Global warming awareness is only increasing today and not enough back when Sagan thought of it. Carl's situation is probably on somewhat of a smaller scale when compared to old Greeks, Europeans, and some new world Americans.

So, in all of this, my point is that just because something is widely accepted by society as truth doesn't mean it is truth. Someone that may be considered small and ridiculous could very well hold the truth, and society may not even know it as they are usually too busy with their own beliefs.

Personally, I don't think most claims religions have made can be proven, or even disproven. That doesn't mean I deny them completely, but my skepticism remains until some amount of proof may be displayed. I try to keep an open mind as well as unbiased consideration for all claims.

Still, I will say this: I thought about your "rule" for quite some time, today. Considering how, in a sense, the truths in which we study by today are relative to us, it makes sense, from a certain perspective. I'm sure we don't know everything yet, but I think we can all agree that some concepts are/were no where near truth, no matter how popular they are or were.

*And on a side note, I think I'm with Grover on ignoring Helios. He's obviously unreasonable, and I've wasted enough time. Good bye, Helios



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyuubi

Originally posted by cybrseer



Am I to understand that, by your notion, and in other words, conformity establishes universal truth? I hardly think that qualifies as truth in any sense.



No. Absolutely not. Conformity does not establish Universal Truth.
If you had a table laden with all manner of food and brought people from every nation kindered and tongue to stand before the feast, everyone would understand that it was food and know what to do with it, regardless of whether or not they could communicate with eachother they would understand. This would be in my definition a Universal Truth.

The goal of this Philosopher is to seek Universal Truth.
I define Universal Truth as that which is true for all.
Most Universal Truths have yet to be discerned.
Yes many things have been accepted as truth later to be disproved.
There have been many who knew a Universal Truth but either did not share it or were unable to present it in a form that was understandable to others. We need to build bridges between disparate thoughts, concepts, and intellects in order to gain an understanding of others. I think the most expediant way is to start with something that both parties have in common and then gradually expand to either an understanding or a lack there of.


So, in all of this, my point is that just because something is widely accepted by society as truth doesn't mean it is truth.



You are absolutely correct.



Personally, I don't think most claims religions have made can be proven, or even disproven. That doesn't mean I deny them completely, but my skepticism remains until some amount of proof may be displayed. I try to keep an open mind as well as unbiased consideration for all claims.



On this I do not agree with you.
I believe that if it is true it can be proven.
If it is false it can be proven to be false.

We must achieve the intellect of our beliefs in order to prove them.
If we cannot, than the belief is vacuous.
Unfortunately most allow their beliefs to supercede their intellect.



I'm sure we don't know everything yet, but I think we can all agree that some concepts are/were no where near truth, no matter how popular they are or were.



I absolutely agree.

Cybrseer



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by cybrseer

Heliosprime can see the light of his convictions clearly, and they are profoundly understood by him and believed to be true.



Close , I don't believe its true, I KNOW it is true.

Cybrseer responds: Correction accepted



The resolution is to find that which is common to all and build a bridge piece by piece to each and everyones understanding. Easier said than done.


Dead wrong. Its not about "building bridges" to understanding each other, that puts allah on the same level as GOD. Its about burning down false teachings, and building back truth.

Cybrseer responds: Perhaps I was vague. let me use your response as an example. If I am discussing GOD with someone who believes in allah, I can reason that his belief in allah is likely equal to my belief in GOD. I would use this commonality as a stepping stone or a bridge to gain access into his intellect, which in turn affords me the opportunity to burn down his bridge of lies, deceit, and false teachings and construct a new bridge to enlightenment.




Just because someone cannot prove to others a belief does not necessarily make it false, it could simply mean that the person does not have the knowledge, wisdom, or understanding to enlighten others to his beliefs.

My rule is; If it is not provable to all, it is not yet true.



Nice try, but again dead wrong. The proof is all around you, it is you who is blind. Its not about me, my "beliefs", nor my words, wisdom, blah, blah, blah.

Its about the word of GOD. It is you who must seek he............



Cybrseer responds: Once again perhaps I was vague.

Yes "the proof is all around you". GOD uses prophets to enlighten those who are unable to see the proof of his existence.

Correct "its not about me". Its about GOD.

GOD askes his followers to preach the gospel to every tongue, kindered and nation.

I believe that GOD is provable and that the Bible clearly states this.
I believe that mans inability to prove GOD shows mankinds lack of relationship with GOD.

If something is false than it can be proven false.
Deception should be exposed.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by heliosprime]

[edit on 15-2-2008 by cybrseer]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I hate putting people in ignore but it reaches a point where it becomes obvious reasoning just won't work. I have better things to do than to argue with a fanatic.

You are blind to the fact that you are as bad as those you roundly condemn. Par for the course I would say.

Byebye


Typical when you can't debate the issues and beat down those you oppose, you run and hide...........

byebye.............(author smiles and places yet another X on his wall for defeated foes)............

Ignore is Bliss............or is it Ignorance is Bliss?????????????

(authors laugher echos throughout his dark cave, candles flickering as his breath flows forth)



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


This has go so far away from the origin of this topic, which is funny, because the catalyst for that is mostly yourself, who started the topic in the first place. Why not come out and clearly and simply say it? You believe that because (your interpretation of) the Bible is TRUE, therefore the Quran is fake. To you, the Quran's 'fakeness' has absolutely nothing to do with the actual contents of the Quran.

While you didn't answer my original question explicitly, from your responses I'll gather that this thread isn't to find out whether the quran is 'fake' (whatever that means), but a vehicle for you to bash Islam. Some questions:

1) (Hypothetically) If something is written in the Bible and something physically present here (appears to) contradict that, is the Bible true?

2) If something is written against the Quran, and while it may not be true, since you believe the Quran is fake, then would that make whatever was written true regardless?

3) Is the Quran false only because the Bible is true, or is there some other reason?

[edit on 15-2-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

1) (Hypothetically) If something is written in the Bible and something physically present here (appears to) contradict that, is the Bible true?


Well the bible is TRUE and FACT, it is mans misinterpretation that is false. Translations from the original text into various languages allows mans mistakes to creep in.




2) If something is written against the Quran, and while it may not be true, since you believe the Quran is fake, then would that make whatever was written true regardless?



NO, the koran is fake on many levels. It's origin and much twisted content. (see additional answer below)



3) Is the Quran false only because the Bible is true, or is there some other reason?


If one plants seeds of truth inside a lie, it is still a lie, and the truth is not diminished. Thus is the koran..........much lie sprinkled with some truth to fake out the readers...............



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybrseer
There is some research available that makes a strong case against the authenticity and accuracy of the Quran and its teachings. You should be able to easily find this on the web.

The research I was talking about was research on the 'old documents' found (what this thread was originally about). There has been no research on those documents published yet.


reply to post by undo
 

While it is slightly off-topic, I felt like addressing this point. Undo, it seems rather far-fetched to assume that 'Allah' was derived from the Sumerian 'enlil', when a much simpler and more exact root would be from the armaic/semitic Alāhā/Ĕlāhā. Considering the lack of vowels, it seems odd to differentiate between 'El' and 'Il'. Now if the semitic term was derived from pagan roots, that is a different matter, although I'd think it is fairly irrelevant in today's world. The only people who would have an issue with the connection between the arabic and aramaic would be those who have an issue with the theological connection between the muslim and hebrew God.


reply to post by Iasion
 

Iasion, I'm curious where you got that whole copy-paste from, because even at a cursory glance, the references have been done very badly.

I can address those which I have found:

1. The Quran was not finalised until well after Mohamed's death
(the hadith are actually volume 6, #509 (or 201) and #505)
I think you misunderstand the islamic position. All muslims agree that the Quran was not put together as a single contiguous book until after Muhammad's death. This does not mean that it was not written down during Muhammad's life (in fact, in one of the Hadith you quoted, in the cut out part, it actually shows that it was written down).


Some of the Quran was lost to posterity :
You use the same hadith as the previous one here, and that doesn't say that any of the Quran was lost, just that some of those who had memorised the Quran died. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.


Other Qurans existed in the early days
Many people noted down and collected the Quran as it was revealed to Muhammad. Some of them may have gotten a few things wrong. In this case, the most authorised version was that which the most people corroborated to the authenticity of.


The Quran was collected from scattered memory and written materials
I don't know about 'scattered' memory, the muslims made a big deal of memorising the Quran in Muhammad's time (and even today). And considering that Zaid bin Thabit was the personal scribe of Muhammad, I'd imagine that he'd be in a good position to be collecting the Quran together.

Disputes about different versions of the Qurans lead to the first official version
Check what I said in the 'other qurans existed' pa


Originally posted by Iasion
This is not just changes in dialect pronunciation, as vowel points were not yet used - it means actual changes to the wording.

No, it WAS actually about dialect, as you can see in the other versions of that same hadith (Vol 6, #507). Zaid bin Thabit was an Ansari, while the other three were Quraish. What else could he have meant by "then write it in the language of Quraish"?

You go on to quote something by Al-Suyuti, which I hope you don't mind that I ignore, considering that the fellow was alive in the 15th century- far, far away from anyone contemporary.

I don't have a copy of Malik's Muwatta right now, but I do wish you had gotten proper references, it would have been so much easier to check them up.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by cybrseer
 


Well, I think it's a bit more difficult, for some people, to consider what a prophet may have to say about whatever truth he claims.

Many times, religious claims can be so supernatural and just wouldn't normally comply with present knowledge.

Either way, I guess this is where science comes in. Religion and science can and should work together in searching for truth; especially if what you say about the Bible urging followers to prove it's words is true. Thank you for sharing that, as I never knew about it.

Faith would only corrupt the search for truth, then. Correct?

In addition, aren't these claims pretty ambiguous? How should we interpret the words of a scripture? Literally, or symbolically? Is there anything in them that serves guidance in this question?

Honestly, I am an agnostic in many aspects. Human discovery and scienctific concepts are very much relative to us, and religion is just...so out of this world, to me, that it seems impossible to prove that there's an ultimate designer(that among other things).

Maybe science hasn't taken in discoveries in such a way that could be beneficial to confirmation or invalidation of religion. Maybe science does have the right idea and religion just fails to stand up in the ring. Maybe the words of scripture have been lost in translation, and are no longer so pure as they were, thus unreliable for even consideration.

I admire your thoughts and words, Cybrseer. I have learned a lot from you, and am glad to have done so.
I'm also confident in my understandind of your vews and respect them, greatly. I love to learn about different perspectives; different ways of thinking and interpreting.

I'm just curious, though...Are you a Christian?


I believe that GOD is provable and that the Bible clearly states this.
I believe that mans inability to prove GOD shows mankinds lack of relationship with GOD.


From that, I kinda got the impression that you believe in God, and that you might be a Christian. But then according to your rule, Christianity isn't true, yet; it hasn't been proved. So I'm asking because I'm not sure.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Kyuubi]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join