The Quaran Experiment

a reply to: reldra

BTW, Christ was born in July.

shucks you must have the direct ear of God to be so sure...

newsfeed.time.com...

One such interpreter is Bill Darlison, former Unitarian Church minister and current vice president of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in the United Kingdom. Like others before him, he asks whether Christ was actually born on Dec. 25 or whether perhaps he was born “on one of about 150 other dates which have been proposed down through the centuries. Was he born in Nazareth or in Bethlehem and, if Bethlehem, was it Bethlehem in Judea or Bethlehem in Galilee?”

I like how the two kids (red head and black kid) were all against the verses when they thought it was from the Quran but accepted it once they found out it was the Bible. That's what you call cognitive dissonance and religious people are experts at it.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: visitedbythem
None of that is in the new testament. There was a reason for everything in the old scriptures. Blood sacrifices of animals and religious behavior. It was to show that they were worthless. You need to rersearch and dig deeper if you really want to find the truth. Just remember one thing. In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us. Merry Christmas all. There was a purpose, and still is. God said that those who love him and accept his Son, will be hated, because the world hates the Living God and Creator of all beings and things, bothseen and unseen.Wise men still seek him. Again, Merry Christmas

Oh really? I immediately recognized some of those from the New Testament.

Matthew 5:29-30, King James Version (biblehub.com...)

29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mark 9:43 says something similar (biblehub.com...)

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

And the Book of Timothy has much of the stuff about women, like Timothy 2:11-12 (KJV)

11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

You're basically proving the point of the OP and the video.

EDIT: If you check the Biblehub links I gave for the quotes from the Book of Matthew & the Book of Mark, it looks like he was using the English Standard Version or one of the Berean translations.

Now can you point to me where Christians are cutting off body parts, or where women aren't allowed to teach or are learning in silence?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: visitedbythem
None of that is in the new testament. There was a reason for everything in the old scriptures. Blood sacrifices of animals and religious behavior. It was to show that they were worthless. You need to rersearch and dig deeper if you really want to find the truth. Just remember one thing. In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us. Merry Christmas all. There was a purpose, and still is. God said that those who love him and accept his Son, will be hated, because the world hates the Living God and Creator of all beings and things, bothseen and unseen.Wise men still seek him. Again, Merry Christmas

Oh really? I immediately recognized some of those from the New Testament.

Matthew 5:29-30, King James Version (biblehub.com...)

29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mark 9:43 says something similar (biblehub.com...)

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

And the Book of Timothy has much of the stuff about women, like Timothy 2:11-12 (KJV)

11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

You're basically proving the point of the OP and the video.

EDIT: If you check the Biblehub links I gave for the quotes from the Book of Matthew & the Book of Mark, it looks like he was using the English Standard Version or one of the Berean translations.

Mention is only made of the right eye; not but that the left may be an occasion of sinning, as well as the right; but that being most dear and valuable, is instanced in, and ordered to be parted with:
pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
which is not to be understood literally; for no man is obliged to mutilate any part of his body, to prevent sin, or on account of the commission of it; this is no where required, and if done, would be sinful, as in the case of Origen: but figuratively; and the sense is, that persons should make a covenant with their eyes, as Job did; and turn them away from beholding such objects, which may tend to excite impure thoughts and desires; deny themselves the gratification of the sense of seeing, or feeding the eyes with such sights, as are graceful to the flesh; and with indignation and contempt, reject, and avoid all opportunities and occasions of sinning; which the eye may be the instrument of, and lead unto:

for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
This is still a continuation of the figure here used; and the meaning is, that it will turn to better account, to lose all the carnal pleasures of the eye, or all those pleasing sights, which are grateful to a carnal heart, than, by enjoying them, to expose the whole man, body and soul, to everlasting destruction, in the fire of hell.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: visitedbythem

There was a reason for everything in the old scriptures. Blood sacrifices of animals and religious behavior. It was to show that they were worthless.

and you are only looking at it superficially and toeing the party line. Blood sacrifices releases the life force - absorbed by the priest or cultist increasing their personal power and/magical works. There is also plenty of reasons that the jehovah character of old was sometime referred as Demiurge - the false pretender god.

The great pretender walked blind in the garden tempting Adam with the 2 trees. Not very omniscient was he?

It's pretty obvious that a god who demands blood sacrifice whether from animals or from "his son" is the great pretender, the lofty jealous mountain god - not the Supreme Creator.

You're statement is false. The wages of sin remain the same. Someone has to pay. There is only One who can pay, who did pay, and return from death. Up from the grave he arose. He conquered death. Oh death, where is your sting.
Yes I have read the whole bible many times , and have many different versions of it. I have been reading it for over half a century

BTW, Christ was born in July? Who cares?
You may be able to tell the approzimate date by when the census took place. It really doesnt matter when He was born, just that he was born of a virgin, and that He was the son of God. Mary however did not remain a virgin after she bore him. She had plenty of sex with her husband Joseph, and provided Jesus with brothers. There is no Virgin Mary anymore, and she is not to be worshipped. Jesus said " Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? Those who obey me are my brothers

edit on 19-12-2015 by visitedbythem because: (no reason given)

The interesting thing to me is the difference between this and the other video. The other video had universal acceptance at the start that it was being quoted from the Quran (or at least that was what the video was edited to show). This one had lots of people disagreeing right from the start. I'd hazard that it is down to the multicultural (my how some people here will have their blood boil at that word being used in a positive sense ) nature of New York City. Since so many people from so many different backgrounds are together, it is much harder to "otherify" a specific group, especially among children who don't care about their parents' racist tendencies.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Now can you point to me where Christians are cutting off body parts, or where women aren't allowed to teach or are learning in silence?

You mean how those specific passages are used as evidence that women cannot be priests or lead the church?
Sure, it is changing in some fringe churches (and fringe mosques, with much of the muslim world having the same issue), but it is still an issue.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

LOL What, drone strikes, "collateral damage", "bugsplat", constant wars, and the torture at Abu Ghraib not enough for you? Or do you not count the millions of civilians killed in Vietnam, Algeria, DR Congo, and every other country that broke free from European Christian-majority countries during the Cold War? Or the countless beheadings & mutilations the Christian-majority Latin American cartels commit? Or do those not count either?

Also, why are you moving the goalpost? Someone claimed these things weren't in the New Testament so I directly proved that they are. Then I pointed out that they were proving the OP right: people talk about the New Testament without ever having read it. Just like people talk BS about the Qur'an, but have never read it either.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Huh? So let me get this straight: you claimed the New Testament didn't contain the things in the OP's video. I proved that several of them are in it, and those were just the ones off of the top of my head. If I cared enough about this, I'd go over each quote in the video just to find & list which books they're from, New or Old Testament. But that's unnecessary because I proved your statement was wrong. So are you admitting that the ones I listed from the video are in the New Testament or not?

More importantly, let me get this second part straight: The New Testament has passages that directly state someone should mutilate him/herself if they sin with those parts. Your personal or denominational interpretation is that those things shouldn't be taken literally. Fair enough. I'll acknowledge that.

But tell me this, do you afford Muslims that same leeway? If you've ever seen a controversial passage from the Qur'an and a Muslim tells you not to take it literally, do you agree? If a Muslim explains the context of the statement the way you just explained the context of the passages I listed, will you accept their explanation? Or will you judge those controversial passages by what they actually state?

Also, can you honestly say that none of the 30,000 plus Christian denominations take those passages literally? And if some of them do, do you consider them representative of all Christians or do you acknowledge that they only represent their own interpretations?

Edit to Add: I'm asking those because of the blatant hypocrisy I see. People first claim only the "controversial" stuff is in 1st half of the book, Old Testament, so critics should ignore it. Then they admit the "controversial" stuff in the 2nd half of the book, the New Testament, is there but shouldn't be taken literally. Yet the same people will turn around and are outraged by every single controversial thing in the Qur'an, regardless of the context or how Muslims interpret them. Double standards much?

a reply to: enlightenedservant Allah is nothing more then a fallen being known as Lucifer. He was an Alien. He was refered to as a serpent in the garden of Eden. He truly is a powerful creature, but does not know the future except what he can glean from both old and new testament. He is a very angry being who has already been judged by the Living God and creator of all things. Allah was the tempter of Christ at the temptation. Remember what Jesus told him? You shall not tempt the Lord God. Jesus is God. He is the Word. The Creator. The Savior, and Salvation. He is the Lilly of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star. Allah is nothing more then a washed up old sinful cherub that was filled with pride and fell from grace. He wished to be like the Most High, now he may not even approach the Living God. Now he tricks foolish humans into bowing to him several times a day and doing works for him in order to get Revenge on the Living God. " There is a way that seems right to mankind, but in the end, it leads to death" Not virgins and eternal life.

Enjoy the balance of your day.

a reply to: visitedbythem

In other words, not only do you not know what's in the New Testament, but you don't even know the first thing about Islam either. If you're going to lie about God/Allah and disrespect Him like that, then we're through. Nothing else to say to you. Even Arabic Christians call God "Allah" because that's the Arabic word for "God", not like I should expect you to know that.

Arabic: Allah
Aramaic: Elah/Elaw
Hebrew: Eloh(im)
Canaanite: El

a reply to: enlightenedservant Yahweh/Jehova Yoshua/Yeshua

I have a stack of many versions of the scriptures, both old and new testament. I have read them many times in my almost 60 years. My father is 89 this month, a genius scientist, chemist, microbiologist, medical back ground, director of research for a fortune 500 company, consultant to the whitehouse. How about them apples? He taught pastors and consults. They come to him. He translates scripture and does extensive lessons on scripture, especially end time prophesy, There are very few genius in his category or league. You are over your head son. I understand what you believe. I have found it to be wrong. I guarantee there are no white house officials calling for your consultation or sending you across the planet and paying your way, paying for your opinions and services. You have been tricked

Furthermore, My Grandfather was born in Turkey at the base of mount Ararat. His great uncle was Minister of finance for Turkey. People from our city have been on Noahs ark in the 1700s and 1800s and before when there has been 15 or more years consecutive drought.
And who are you?

originally posted by: reldra


You are saying the OT was a guide of what not to do? I don't really follow the rest of what you are saying. Happy Holidays. BTW, Christ was born in July.

Wow So Christ was Born in July? Was he now... 'chuckle'.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: enlightenedservant Yahweh/Jehova Yoshua/Yeshua

LOL So now I'll just assume you've never even read the Bible, much less studied it. The Elohist writings in the Old Testament refer to God as "Elohim" & the Jahwist/Yahwist writings refer to God as "YHWH". Both Elohim and YHWH are in the very Bibles you're claiming to have read. Just as the passages I linked earlier are in the very same New Testament you're claiming to have read.

The title needs a theme tune.



The Quaran Experiment...A team of crackpot scientists attempt to see If the Quaran is as bad as the bible....
Make a great movie.
.

Look in one way we have to remember all these so called holy books were written in a different moment in our history we have evolved (Muslims will accept that more lol ) so we have to expect a much more brutal harsh world then.
The problem is when the followers of any religion refuse to move with the rest of everything.
Every religion will die when it refuses to be updated.
You all need an upgrade.
Or just don't take it all so literally eh?.

a reply to: reldra

On the contrary I think people do realize the similarities in the Books. However, it is the application that is significant. Also, be aware that Christians consider the OT a history book, and Christianity didn't come into effect until after Jesus was crucified and resurrected and Mulims don't recognize that. So, not really not so much "likeness" as you might like to think.