I can see why Christians (like me) can annoy non christians so easily. At least I know where Christians and Catholics have lawyered up. all one has to do is type errors in the Koran - to see that your clerics have lawyered up on the meaning of words. It would be hard to prove an error if you redefine words to cover mistakes. thats why they call it faith. I think you just have to know where your faith begins and your facts end.
Geez-O-Pete, what a bunch of dismal "scholarship" Mr. Walker has brought forth. Mr. Walker should read on to Isaiah 7:9, and be admonished by the verse, as Augustin interprets it " Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand ". You, of the no reason for faith persuasion, would do us dim eyed theists a favor, if you would do your own research to formulate your own arguments, and not rely on the various theoretical atheist web sites. I take each argument and do the rebuttal my self, which takes a lot of time. You guys are as bad as "Christians" who will not study on their own, but rely on paid clergy to tell them what and why they believe. While Mr. Walker admits to "difficulties" in rebutting Isaiah 53, he is rather gleeful in the apparent "ease" of dissecting Isaiah 7, and indeed seems almost giddy in claiming to use a commentary on Isaiah 7 by Thomas Paine. Mr. Walker postulates that the "virgin shall conceive" passage as actually being related too, and fulfilled by Isaiah 8:3 It is here that Mr. Walker falls flat on his understanding of the subject matter. Isaiah 8 is speaking of a second child, and the mother of the child is none other than the wife of the Prophet Isaiah himself, and as commanded by the Lord, Isaiah named the child Maher-shal'al-hash-baz. I would assume that a third grader could understand this meaning of the 8th chapter. So, I would suggest that Mr. Walker re-think his flippant remark that chapter 8 is a self fulfilling function of chapter 7. Pure hogwash, to put it politely. Finally, in a rather baffling blunder by Mr. Walker, he rather triumphantly states " .....Oh, but even Isaiah is not fool enough to carry us through to the finish of this story. Another chronicler, one who was not working in league with Isaiah (and perhaps was unaware of this "prophecy"), tells us what became of this upcoming battle. In II Chronicles 28:1, the chronicler tells us, about Ahaz: " Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord" Okay, so we have a different picture: Instead of the Lord giving the king signs as a trusted servant, here he is disobedient and about to be punished..." Mr. Walker expounds on his above referenced remarks to state that the punishment of Ahaz was the "exact reverse" of what Isaiah is said to have prophesied (!). If this statement was not so sad in its absurdity, it would be funny. Ahaz WAS disobedient in Chapter 7, versus 10-12 ! He was commanded by the Lord to ask for a sign, any sign that Ahaz desired, to prove that the Lord would keep the kingdom safe. Ahaz refused. Ahaz stated "I will not ask" when he was commanded " ask". Since Ahaz refused..The Lord Himself shall give you a sign........ 7:14. Isaiah 8 goes on to describe the judgement against the kingdom and Ahaz, which for some strange reason Mr. Walker fails to acknowledge. Is Isaiah a prophet ? Of course. Is Mr. Walker a competent exegete ?
The Quran, like the Bible, is a shill for gOd, the maker of "the universe". "The universe" is said to be "the universe", and nothing besides "the universe". Likewise, the gOds of the book-people are said to be "the" gOd, and "no other" gOd besides. The Bible and Quran assert there is "the universe" and claims there are "people" which can be divided into groups of male and female, believer and unbeliever. But there is something very "wrong" with this. There is no "the universe", and there are no "people". So these books are shills for "the emporer who has no clothes". Those who say the emporer has clothes are just shills produced by books of memes. Bottom line, the Bible and the Quran are spell books, binding and blinding magical minds to mundane persuits. Science is beginning to expose the farce for what it is...a farce. A cursory search of the www will begin to unearth some very inconvenient truths. Simply start your search by googling a word like "non-dualism", or, "universe not there". Follow the links. Here is a taste of what you may find: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=9052 http://www.kifa.org.uk/essay-5.htm http://www.bedegriffiths.com/wisdom/christianity-asian-nonduality.htm http://www.onewithlife.com/page1/page1.html http://world.std.com/~aditya/Individuality.htm This is just the tip of the iceberg. 2000 years ago, Jesus figured out the meaning of "advaita", and concluded that reality is non-dualistic, and therefore, there is no world. There is instead, Reality, which does not include "the world". This leads to questions like, "What is the world?". And by means of question and answer and insight and willingness, Jesus threaded the needle that leads back to the one and only Reality. And that is what I call "Christ". One could argue that despite a long tradition of insight, Jesus was the first to thread the needle and return fully to Reality. What "we" saw and witnessed were his "last days" in time, leaving a trail of light to follow out of a dark [confusing] labyrinth we lovingly call "the universe". But "we" did not understand. Note well: Jesus is no longer seen in "the universe". This is a sign for those who wish to understand. His teachings were not about staying and learning how to act in "the world". They were all about leaving what is ultimately not real, and does not exist. Christ!
many of vhehn's - previous arguments have also been contradicted by fact. He is running out of games. Soon he will start telling you the flood story is wrong because there was no worldwide flood Interestingly, many jewish scholars deny that the words they used in the bible mean worldwide. (which is why I was talking about lawyered up.) Its hard to pin down. Another favorite is he tries to pin on believer is that he thinks believers must argue the earth is only 5000 years old. I have never read anywhere in the bible that the earth is only 5000 years old.
I do not think that people are annoyed by christianity of Jesus. I think they are annoyed that the changes/removals/addition that churches have made in their description of what Jesus said. In addition, how could you know the truth if you did not read the sources? I read the sacred books of all three religions: christianity, judaism, and Quran (which is the only book in Islam to read so it takes comparatively less time). My rankings in terms of truths in the books are: 1. Quran 2. Five books of Moses. 3. Rest of books. The Quran is clearly a superior and amazingly precise book in terms of scientific facts, and laws. You have to read it to understand. Thomas Jefferson reads it multiple times, and used it in his defense of trials of americans by the british, and in his thinking about the US constition. Since the founding fathers (John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson) read it and had it in their libraries that are preserved to this day, don't you think that the Quran is worth reading? From what you wrote, I believe you have never read the Quran. Read the chapter about Mary amd Jesus (Chapter 19 if my memory does not fail me) to see the perception in the Quran of Mary and Jesus.
If my memory does not fail me, in the Quran it is stated that God will preserve the body of the pharaoh who drowned during the crossover, so that mankind will have the evidence of the event, and that mankind will find his body in future generations. Does anyone know if the body of that Pharaoh was found, and was the body preserved? This is an example of questions posed in the Quran, where science can test whether the Quran contains mistakes or not. Since the Quran invites you to prove it wrong, then it is scientific in its approach. In science when someone comes up with a theory, he asks the community to test whether the theory is wrong by testing predicions made in the theory. That is the approach used in the Quran. The writer (God himself) tells you that if you think this book is wrong, then prove that it is wrong, and you have predictions and statements in the text that you can use to prove it wrong. There is a lot of such predictions and statements so that the sample is large enough to make conclusions. This is why I find the Quran appealing, and I want to study it more in depth.
Guess what else. When a puddle dries up there is no longer any water. Who the fuck knew that?!??! Thanks for the enlightenment. In two sentences how do you know there is a god?
1. The probability that God (or higher intelligence) exists is higher than non existence (at least given out state of knowlege at this point in time). 2. Since we may be dealing with God who may reward and/or punish, it is safer to believe in God since if he does not exist we lose nothing, but if he exists we have a free insurance policy against hell, and free ticket to happy after life. 3. To "buy" the insurance policy, you need to follow a religion or religions. That is why you have to read the sacred books, and if you are not happy maybe even create your own to worship God. Since it costs only belief, then it is relatively risk-free. Conclusion: believing in god has a infinite reward/risk ratio. One would be dumb not to take the trade,independent of the probability of existence of God. Believing in god is a long term investment. You should now be able to see that one should calculate even in matters of religion, which is in contrast with what general people may think of religious people. They think that they are religious because they are weak. Review you thinking one more time my friend if you happen to worship an atheist. Your risk/reward with the atheist is lousy, plus we know that the atheistism is created by humans who we already know cannot save themselves because they are rotting in a grave, and will not be back (at least in our life time on earth).