I need to be hairsplitting here. There HAVE been various versions of the Quran circulating after Muhammad'S death,. local leaders payed a caste of scripture interpreter - in other words: bribed them - to interpret it in a menaing that was "helpful" for the rulers'S interest. From this, a fragmation of the transcripts of Muhammad's preachings took place, while the original copies once should have been given to Muhammad'S wife which can be doubted and indeed is discussed). Not before the second or third Caliph, the man ordered that the final version of the Quran should be extracted from these versions.

Later, with the implementation of a dramatic change in written Arabic that according to linguists has fundamentally changed the meaning of at least one quarter, more likely one half, possibly even three quarters of the words in written Arabic, it became even more difficult.

The Quran today may be whatever it is, but one thing it is not: authentic. The Arabic language it now exists in, did not exist at Muhammad's time. Of course, saying so is seen as heresy, and I have just earned myself another death sentence, I fear. To decide what the Quran indeed means or oroiginally wants to say, one must comparew it to the general biography of Muhammad and copare it to the ddeds and actions of the man. The Quran is not the word of God, but the words of Muhammad, who used the founding of his religion to silence opposition and increase influence. And Muhammad was anything but a peace-loving man of modesty. He was a war leader, bandit and conquerer. And the Quran reflects that mindset. And here I just earned myself another death sentence...

It's long ago that I learned all this stuff, details are escaping my memory, I fear. But in general what I wrote above is the essence. I explained all that in much more detail in much longer posts several years ago :D

The superstitious mindset of true Muslims of course does not worry for these self-contradictions, these and several others. Its all miracle done by Allah. Simplistic answers from simplistic minds. The standard recipe for dealing with criticism, is to call critics infidels and heretics, and kill them if they cannot be made to submit to Islam. Like this woman now.

It's funny, I started posting videos on FB of the great debates, Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, Ehrman, etc. I was blasted by so many....Christians. They almost seemed shocked to find out many of these are held in divinity schools. Course, when you name the schools, of course they're liberal schools. I still remained shocked that people don't test what they believe against any source...

Boy, do I miss Hitchens, love or hate him, he was one of the best...

Nice explanation of Islam there Skybird.
One could also argue the same point about the Christian bible. From a Hebrew/Roman perspective of course. Texts dug out of some ancient tomb and Translated from the Greek language. Then selectively cherry picked by a bunch of old fossils who recognized the power it would afford them over the masses and proclaimed to be the words of God. Huh? What?
Convenient at the time.:hmmm:

There are a lot of claims. You just have to ask yourself if you worship God or worship a book written by men.

Then there is the matter of what God is supposed to protect. Soul, life property or something else.

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy). Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.

That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.

That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

The bible has verses that cover all of those.... or we can wrap it all up in one..."Whatever ye ask"

I think most Christians accept that the bible is the final and only revelation to man to know how to worship God. Myself, I don' like the idea that all loving just beings have such an ego that they demand you worship them. Sounds more man made to me..

I still debate some in Christian forums. Right now debating Noah's flood. It's amazing the logic people can come up with to believe in such lore.

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part. God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it. They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes. Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more.:-? Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.

I used to say I believe there is a God and go from there. I now say, if there is a God and then discuss it. Since it can't/hasn't been proven either way I think, to me anyway, that it's a reasonable stance. And if there is a God I think he wouldn't expect any more than that in light of the proof he has given for His existence. He may have reasons...

I agree. It does sound like what men want all the time. A far more likely thing that God would want is for man to try to understand his creation through logic and science and do his best to preserve, protect and improve it. Oh yea and that whole love thing to. :D

Is there some reason why your god would not rescue her or prevent her execution?

I'm glad all of you have it all figured out about how this poor ladies immediate problems of having faith in Jesus Christ as her Lord and savior is her real problem.

Most, but not all of you have debunked her faith and said in effect that she has no right to resist the Muslim/Islam practices of demanding she follow their god of Islam with the punishment of death for her sin against them.

Throwing rocks is all your doing ... All of you accept for maybe August would be let go if caught with a bible in their country.

because the promise of heaven is her reward ... Saints pray in heaven too you know :yep:

Actually I was talking about honesty and dishonesty in arguments. Not the same thing at all.

That's true of anyone. We can't survive without some kind of income, whether it be cash, credit or chickens. I can see the point of someone dedicated to "Serving the Lord" having that as his only work and being paid out of the generosity of the faithful. Jesus himself didn't have a job during his ministry, but relied on the help of his followers, including some women with money to spare. Does this make him a scammer? I don't see it that way, if the story is true at all.

Some will, yes, but certainly not all. In the past I was aquainted with several ministers who lived on what their followers gave, but were content to live minimally, using only what they needed and redistributing the rest. Billy Graham was well known for living modestly, setting up charitable organizations to use the rest to help people who needed it. As with anything in life, the bad ones make the headlines and people forget all the good ones. I've known some good ones in my time.

"Most"? I've never seen that. I'm sure it happens, but no church I attended back when ever did anything like that.

Yes, but again they made the headlines because of their bad ways. You don't read about the thousands who truly believe what they're doing.

That's what the Deists of the Enlightenment era believed. God made the universe and blessed us with a brain to go and find out about it for ourselves. Many Christians accused Thomas Paine of Atheism because of his book The Age Of Reason, not reading enough of it to find the part where he proudly proclaims his Deism.

Well, my problem with believing in God is that you would think he would give us a clear revelation so we could know him. For me...religion gives NONE, other than some elements of good philosophy. People talk of how fine tuned the universe is, but is it? For the most part man lives in pain and suffering. I would think if God exist, then he would've gave us a clear just revelation....to all man, instead of first just one tribe. The revelation we have now has caused mankind more misery than anything, much to helpless children.

Maybe we were seeded by aliens, maybe there is God, maybe not. The best I can do is be sincere in trying and try to love others, but sadly that isn't enough for any of the religions...I also deplore the element of human sacrifice, something man did since his beginning to please the gods...Is Christ really different? Why should I be condemned by the actions of Adam and Eve and Christ condemned for my actions? The themes of religion are all the same, man is condemned for being human, fear, guilt, rewards, severe eternal punishments...

enough babbling...