Of course not but my point is the vast majority. It would be like a christian not believing in christ to be the son of God. Belief in Hadith on the other hand is a wide spectrum.
My point is you are using the same sources that claim saliva healed people for your negative criticism. You can't pick and choose. Either we accept all the negative you talked about and miraculous healing or you reject it. They are the same source. So tell me, which side are you on?
Yeah, but I don't think it is entirely the same. Those Christians also believe that Bible is the word of those 4 people (and the other letters) about Jesus' teachings. Of course, there is the supernatural part here, God helps on keeping those words true, but I think that most recognize that Matthew and co. didn't even meet Jesus.
Evangelical Christians believe that God dictated the Bible through those human authors, so still the verbatim word of God.
Her age? Or the acceptance of child marriages at the time?
Not you. @2mufc0 gave a very abrupt dismissal of the link I posted there, as he takes issue with the person accepting the validity of Bukhari hadith. I'm interested in your thoughts there, as you seem to think the article was well written / researched.
i'm not a either or person. Both greek and roman and all kind of history is filled with supernatural elements on the field of battle, but it doesnt mean that battle did not take place. It's not really a case where either the source is 100% or 0% reliable.
I don't mean to offend my Christian friends here but always wanted to ask about mistakes in the Bible. There many arguments and counter arguments all over the net. However this Guardian article touches upon relatively simple things:
He seems to have studied far more than me so I would be interested in his opinions too. Either way I think the article pretty much covers both points (she was, she wasn't) and one thing is sure there is a difference of opinion. It's not as clear cut as you can't eat pork, end of discussion. I hold my point on her age but willing to keep listening. I liked the article though.
My sources for what exactly? What claim am I making for which you want a source?
I wouldn't worry about it... this is the thread for taking the piss out of religion, after all.
Well, obviously. As well as deliberately mistranslated and edited for a whole variety of purposes.
It's about probability and also taking into account that history is largely written by the victors. For example I don't doubt that the Battle of Badr actually took place and that amount of soldiers of each side seems to correspond with the density of population of Arabia at that time. It a question what is probable and how many sources are there on the topic. Some the letters I believe that Muhammed sent around the kingdoms outside Arabia where he invited them to the call Islam are actually historically preserved I believe. When it is said that muhammeds eye was wounded in battle and it fell out and he took in his hand and put in back in and became even stronger than his other eye, I consider it something probably said by either Muhammed himself or one of his most zealous disciples to make him look good and elevate in his claim to prophethood and divine athourity.
Sorry, what do you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
It is a blatant attempt to instigate followers not criticism, dialogue or debate. Overwhelming majority won't even react to it. Few will and then they are used to project a community as "intolerant".
Well who and what do you propose to use as sources when speaking about the life of Muhammed? Or should we just pretend that he did not exist at all then?
Here’s the long post I promised earlier. It’s longer than I planned (sorry about that) but hopefully it gives a sense of the structures of legal authority in pre-modern Islam, and the forces challenging that authority today:
He does exactly that starting at about 15:45
That's not what he says. He argues that good things are done by those who are religious and those who are not but that dogmatic belief, unchallengeable faith, both in religions and political positions can lead to people doing bad things because they know that they are right.
Thank you so much for this. I will digest it and respond soon.
But you'll no doubt have some religious apologist argue for the eye as proof of intelligent design.
First time I've seen Dawkins speak. He makes some good points of course, and he can articulate them well. But his criticism of religion comes across as too narrow and dogmatic as soon as more ambivalent issues are brought up. Or when religious convictions might get any credit for something desirable. Hasan is quite good at pointing out inconsistencies (and sometimes absurdities) resulting from that, and on a few occasions Dawkins starts to wriggle.
If I could dedicate a song to both it surely must be Shama Lama Ding Dong.
I tip my hat to you Sir.
Let's see what Luke says (3:23-3:38):
As can be plainly seen, Matthew and Luke heavily contradict each other. There are 27 generations between David and Joseph in Matthew, while there are 42 according to Luke. They actually disagree with each other on the father of Jesus' stepfather (Jacob vs Heli). There are not many names in common between Jesus and David (though it is identical between Abraham and David, possibly cause it comes from Torah).
It was the source of my confusion as well.
Me too.
I didn't say it made sense, I'm just telling you what Evangelicals believe.
Yeah, but it is nuts. How can they both read the Bible and think that? This is not a hidden 'mistake' it is like half a chapter.
The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
Well, that's certainly the writings of a deeply sane man.
Best retcon I have ever seen.
Welcome to the world of the American evangelical community. Try growing up in it!
