Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
God, the Book and Religious Perspectives (Fixed)
Boozbaz
Member Posts: 1,918
So, I'm sittin' here readin' forums and I come across this:
Alright,
so I'm reading that and thinking that Arthos has some good logical ways
of looking at things. As I progressed down the thread, I came across
Tenzen's post, with quotes from the bible to back up his point.
Well this is a answer jesus answered so we know this as fact
Luke 18:15-17
[15]
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When
the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. [16] But Jesus called the
children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do
not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. [17]
I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God
like a little child will never enter it."
Mark 9:33-37
33They
came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were
you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the
way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down,
Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must
be the very last, and the servant of all."
36He took a little
child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to
them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name
welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one
who sent me."
and theres are tons more where jesus bringing up
babies and childrens as a examples we sould all follow in order to get
into gates of heaven
He even says in Mark 9:42
“If
anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it
would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck
and to be thrown into the sea
Hang on, almost to the point.
I hopped on in there and posted this.
So does anyone else think
that some people take the Bible too technically? Do such people keep in
mind that the book was not written by God? The Bible was written by
people long ago, therefore the information it contains (which still
inspired by the holy one) is stained with the original sin - the sin of
being born a human.
With that in mind, quoting the bible is
similar to quoting Wikipedia. The authors were inspired by God, but
even so, they should not be merrited perfect accuracy in their depictions
of what is Divine. Right and wrong isn't elementary folks. One mans
terrorist is another mans hero. Are some bible-thumpers ignoring this in their continued effort to see things in a black and white
fasion? Do not interpret the bible in a mechanical way.
Throughout
history, our most respected thinkers have tried to simplify things. An
example of this would be when Aristotle came up with the 4 elements:
Water, Air, Fire and Earth. This made perfect sense during his time,
but nowadays we can simply boil water and observe the fact that there
really isn't a distinct borderline between these "elements". I think
the same is true for our bible - written SO long ago, yet has hardly
changed. We are in a paradigm, and the Bible thumpers have us
locked behind a veil of superstition.
Don't get me wrong, I
understand that the authors of the Bible had good intentions, but if
God were to speak to us today, I'm sure he'd have a more modernized way
of explaining things.
The Bible has been the #1 selling
book for I don't even know how long, and there is good reason for that.
I just wish people would keep in mind that the book was written by human
beings and that their perspective of God, Right and Wrong etc, is oversimplified, like Aristotles 4 elements.
06-17-2006, 11:22 AM | ||||
| ||||
Sinners Deserve Death. Quote:
1. The Bible says it and the Bible is the written Word of God. 2. It is logically correct. 1. Sin = Transgression of the Law. 2. Transgression of the Law = Separation from God. 3. Separation from God = Death. For God is life. Anyone who sins essentially hates God. Anyone who hates God cannot be in the same room with Him. God’s presence would kill us. |
Alright,
so I'm reading that and thinking that Arthos has some good logical ways
of looking at things. As I progressed down the thread, I came across
Tenzen's post, with quotes from the bible to back up his point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthros The book assumes children go to Heaven if they die right away. How do we know this? How do we know at judgment, should they be there, and why not, how do you know those children will accept God and not reject Him? |
Well this is a answer jesus answered so we know this as fact
Luke 18:15-17
[15]
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When
the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. [16] But Jesus called the
children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do
not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. [17]
I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God
like a little child will never enter it."
Mark 9:33-37
33They
came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were
you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the
way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down,
Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must
be the very last, and the servant of all."
36He took a little
child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to
them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name
welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one
who sent me."
and theres are tons more where jesus bringing up
babies and childrens as a examples we sould all follow in order to get
into gates of heaven
He even says in Mark 9:42
“If
anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it
would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck
and to be thrown into the sea
Hang on, almost to the point.
I hopped on in there and posted this.
Today, 10:26 PM | ||||
| ||||
Here's a little quote from "What the !*#@ do we know?" Quote:
__________________ |
So does anyone else think
that some people take the Bible too technically? Do such people keep in
mind that the book was not written by God? The Bible was written by
people long ago, therefore the information it contains (which still
inspired by the holy one) is stained with the original sin - the sin of
being born a human.
With that in mind, quoting the bible is
similar to quoting Wikipedia. The authors were inspired by God, but
even so, they should not be merrited perfect accuracy in their depictions
of what is Divine. Right and wrong isn't elementary folks. One mans
terrorist is another mans hero. Are some bible-thumpers ignoring this in their continued effort to see things in a black and white
fasion? Do not interpret the bible in a mechanical way.
Throughout
history, our most respected thinkers have tried to simplify things. An
example of this would be when Aristotle came up with the 4 elements:
Water, Air, Fire and Earth. This made perfect sense during his time,
but nowadays we can simply boil water and observe the fact that there
really isn't a distinct borderline between these "elements". I think
the same is true for our bible - written SO long ago, yet has hardly
changed. We are in a paradigm, and the Bible thumpers have us
locked behind a veil of superstition.
Don't get me wrong, I
understand that the authors of the Bible had good intentions, but if
God were to speak to us today, I'm sure he'd have a more modernized way
of explaining things.
The Bible has been the #1 selling
book for I don't even know how long, and there is good reason for that.
I just wish people would keep in mind that the book was written by human
beings and that their perspective of God, Right and Wrong etc, is oversimplified, like Aristotles 4 elements.
"God
must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and indeed the
greatness of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable
to emulate nature in its absolute splendour. How can any man or woman
sin against such a greatness of mind? How can any one little carbon
unit on earth in the backwaters of indeed the Milky Way, the boondocks,
betray God Almighty? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the
height of control of those who create God in their own image."
must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and indeed the
greatness of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable
to emulate nature in its absolute splendour. How can any man or woman
sin against such a greatness of mind? How can any one little carbon
unit on earth in the backwaters of indeed the Milky Way, the boondocks,
betray God Almighty? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the
height of control of those who create God in their own image."
Comments
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
besides, it is in the teachings of christianity that says being born a human is a Sin
I think that it is in the teachings of Christianity that says that the one who is born is born into a sinful nature. The person does not actually sin until they sin. Those who sin must accept Christ as their Savior to exist eternally with God. Sadly, however, someone who is born with a sinful nature inevitably sins. Those who keep the whole of God's laws forever are not sinful but righteous. The only way someone can exist with God is if they are found to be righteous as God is. There was a sacrifice made on our part (God's only begotten Son) - presented originally only to God's chosen people it seems - but later for the rest of the world. This is a gift. Witholding it does not make God an unjust God. By this gift, if we receive it, we are again made righteous in God's eyes.
because the bible has changed actually
I'm aware of typos and improper use of words over the years in different translations of Bibles. The principles behind Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - or at least the principles behind Islam and Christianity - differ. But I was wondering what principles in the Bible - in Judao-Christian thought - have changed that need Islam to correct them if this is what you are saying?
I just wish people would keep in mind that the book was written by human beings and that their perspective of God, Right and Wrong etc, is oversimplified
Human beings did write the books and other documents of the Bible, but God, himself, did personally 'author' some parts of the Bible (not to mention greatly influence the rest of it of course). The Ten Commandments would be one easy part to see. When I read the Bible, I don't trust every word that comes out of every character's mouth in it except if it comes from God's mouth.
so the only book that stands true to it's form, never have been altered by man for 1400 years, is the Qur'an
Not even altered through translation? Then again what is the Quran? What is Scripture? If I took the book of Genesis and rewrote it, saying, "In the beginning Zeus created the heavens and the earth," would it still be the book of Genesis? Or would it be something different now? If Scripture has been altered from its original form, then is it still Scripture? And if the Quran has been altered from its original form, is it still the Quran? Maybe what really matters are the main principles and teachings in these documents that - if altered - are not valid representations or copies of the former.
First, God cannot write things we understand
The Ten Commandments are pretty well self-explanatory, but then again people still argue over some of its meaning.
PS. On the nature of being born sinful or with sinful tendencies, I should also add this... Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. - 1 John 3:15 Given that mindset, then I'd have to say that sin is not restricted to physical acts. One who is born with sinful tendencies is inevitably sinful. We are born into sin. This can be seen by its elimination as we get older. It's called maturity.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
The main character becomes involved in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (I think... I'll have to reread). In any case, at some point all three teachers of those faiths confront Pi about it, arguing among themselves over which religion Pi really believed.
His response was, "I just want to love God."
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
you're post were inspirational and educational, but at my own fault for wall-of-texting, you missed the point I was trying to drive home.
Arthos and that other guy were quoted as examples of the extreme mindset of taking the Bible with absolute certainty.
"What the bleep do we know?" was quoted as an example of a much broader, more encompassing view of God, Right and Wrong. Also as food for thought.
Finally, I made my own argument, best summarized with:
Don't get me wrong, I
understand that the authors of the Bible had good intentions, but if
God were to speak to us today, I'm sure he'd have a more modernized way
of explaining things.
and some people take the old-school Bible too far. What's up with that?
I'll begin my reply with whay is the Qur'an.
The Qur'an is an arabic words, and it means Recitation, the first verse in the Qur'an that was revealed to the prophet mohammad was this, "Recite in the name of your Lord".
find any place in the bible where it says this? "Proclaim in the name of your Lord" not sure which bible is this in but it's there.
So it's clear, the same God who sent Jesus to the Jews, is the same God who sent Mohammad to the whole world.
The Qur'an still exists in the original Language, and what you said is true, once it is translated, it's no longer the Qur'an, same goes for the bible, and this is a big issue actually, because every single bible has been translated, because Jesus ( which is not his real name ) was Aramaic, and the original bible is Aramaic, and the current bible is english, so it's no longer the same old bible.
But the Qur'an is Arabic, and is still Arabic, but people translate it with the best they can, because Arabic contains many words that has no meaning in english, so we call it the translation of the Qur'an, but the best way to translate the Qur'an is to translate the explanation and the interpretation of the verses.
So it's clear, the differences between the bible and the Qur'an, the Qur'an has never been changed, and still remains in the old Arabic language, and actually, we still have the first Qur'an that was written 1400 years ago.
but the original bible has been lost, and only the translation remains, and many things has changed in bible when the christians went to Rome, and Paul has a bible, and he said "I am dead to the commandments, and the commandments are dead to me", is this realy bible to you? a human being saying something personall and people take it as a word of God? how can you accept this?
Well, I've been away from internet for a while, but I'm finally back. Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but here it goes... <insert corny death knight voice> "I'm alive."
find any place in the bible where it says this? "Proclaim in the name of your Lord"
Pretty sure there is a place in the English Bible that says that somewhere. Certainly sounds familiar.
So it's clear, the same God who sent Jesus to the Jews, is the same God who sent Mohammad to the whole world.
Hmm... How does that one line make the God the Christians/Jews worship the same as the god/God the Muslims worship? I would personally love to find out that 'Allah' is the same God I worship, but I've not studied Islam much so I'd have to say that the jury is still out on that one.
and the original bible is Aramaic
Mm... I don't think there is an 'original Bible' unless your talking about when all the books, letters, and documents were finally compiled to make the Bible that we have today.
the original bible is Aramaic, and the current bible is english, so it's no longer the same old bible.
Since the Scriptures were written over many thousands of years, I'm fairly sure that there was no one language that they were written in. I'm not as concerned with the original translation of the completely compiled Bible as I am with the original translation of each of the individual documents composing the Bible. Each must be researched separately. Their language must be known and the historical context/culture of the period in which they were written must be known in order to understand them. That's why I started studying Hebrew - to better understand them (even if it's only modern Hebrew - it's a start).
actually, we still have the first Qur'an that was written 1400 years ago
Pretty remarkable. I'd like to see the documents of the Bible which are about 4000+ years old in the original text, but all we have to go on is translations which may change some words, but the doctrine is still there and that's what matters to me. Especially the doctrine surrounding Christ. Now if some religion comes along and calls him simply a 'prophet' when everything I've been taught from the Old Testament to the New conflicts with this, then I would like to know what their reasoning behind this is.
and many things has changed in bible when the christians went to Rome
What things and when?
Paul has a bible, and he said "I am dead to the commandments, and the commandments are dead to me", is this realy bible to you?
Sounds like Galatians 2:19. Here's a link to a commentary on it (but I'll clip out the passage in which he talks mainly about it and I may summarize what I gather from it):
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=7&source=1&seq=i.55.2.3
The points of agreement and disagreement that Paul sets forth in response to the crisis in Antioch (and Galatia) are founded upon his own personal confession of faith in Christ (vv. 19-20). His faith in Christ involved both a death and a new life. When Paul says Through the law I died to the law, he is not speaking of physical death. In his vocabulary, to die to something means to have no further relation to it (see Rom 6:2, 10-11). So to die to the law means, in this context, to cease to be under the supervision of the law.
Paul's death to the law was accomplished through the law (v. 19). The phrase through the law is taken by some interpreters as a reference to Paul's own subjective experience under the law. The law led him to discover his inability to keep the law and its inability to make him righteous. Thus it was through the law that Paul was finally led to abandon the law as the means to righteousness and to seek salvation in Christ. But this interpretation is not warranted by the immediate context. Paul does not say in this context that he died to the law because of his terrible sense of guilt and frustration under the law. Instead he declares that his death was accomplished by identification with the cross of Christ--I have been crucified with Christ (v. 20). When we interpret through the law in light of this declaration, I have been crucified with Christ, then we can see that death to the law through the law is accomplished by identification with the death of Christ. Paul explains in the next chapter that the law pronounced a curse on Christ as he hung on the cross (3:13). In this sense Christ died through the law. By crucifixion with Christ, believers also die because of the curse of the law on the one who hangs on the cross--and so, in this sense, they also die through the law. The perfect tense of the verb have been crucified points to the permanent condition of Christians in relation to the law: we remain dead and fully punished. Therefore the law can no longer condemn us.
The result of dying to the law is a new kind of life, not a life of moral license, but a life for God--that I might live for God (v. 19). This new kind of life is not ego-centered but Christ-centered: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (v. 20). This new life of faith is motivated and guided by the sacrificial love of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (v. 20). Participating by faith in the death of Christ (I have been crucified with Christ) and the resurrection life of Christ (Christ lives in me) is the only way to live for God. But attempting to attain righteousness through the law sets aside the grace of God and negates the value of Christ's death (v. 21).
What do I think this means? Paul says that he recognized his inability to become righteous by keeping the law because he couldn't keep it. He saw the law and found that he had broken it already. So he gave up trying to become righteous by the law and accepted Christ as his savior in order to be made righteous.
a human being saying something personall and people take it as a word of God? how can you accept this?
As I said, I don't accept everything that every character in the Bible says as truth unless it be God or his close messengers which effectively speak with his mouth. If the doctrine which they teach aligns with or sheds light on the doctrines that God had already taught and it all makes sense to me, then I usually accept it.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Any of you Bible scholars want to tell me why God killed his grandchildren? I'm not talking about Jesus. I'm talking about Jesus' brother's sons. I'm talking about Jesus' nephews.
Genesis 6
2The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown
Then God destroys the Earth in a flood and kills his grandchildren and possibly great-grandchildren in the process.
because they're not his grandchildren, if they were, then he wouldn't do it.
besides God doesn't have any children to have any grandchildren, who's God's father? who's his grandfather?
God has no family my friend, it's just what others want you to believe.
There is as much evidence proving the Great Pumpkin exists as there is proving that God exists and talks to pedophile rag merchants.
I'm only asking the question about grandchildren within the framework of the Bible. My asking is the same as someone else asking "Do you think Melville's Ahab ever made it back to land?" Mellville's Ahab only exists in framework of the ficticious story "Moby Dick".
Janus, Jov, et al, only exists in the ficticious Greek mythology, for example.
so God having children or grandchildren for that matter is just a fiction :}
so don't bother with it.
It's talking about angels - Fallen ones at that; at least they became fallen when they rebelled.
Just get yourself a copy of the book of Enoch, explains it in good detail.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
What has religion ever contributed to humanity?
Sadly, physics, chemistry and mathematics (and derivatives thereof: i.e. biology, statistics) are what brought us to where we are today; never has scripture been used for any kind of technological/economical advancement.
Besides the written history/mythos, there is nothing to suggest the truth of any religion in the real world: So why do people, nowadays, accept what was written thousands of years ago when people were prone to accepting anything, because of a lack of formalization?
The lack of formal reasoning and proof in the bible (or anything else for that matter) is almost testimony to it's origins: If it had been written to convince man of the existence of a god, then why is everything in the bible a prescription? How is it any different from Dianetics? Why should you accept one religion and not another?
If there is a "god", why must it be a being? With the many fields of biology and physics, why couldn't it be conceptualized as something else: An algorithm, a chain-reaction, etc.
Why don't all people use the logical part of their brains to reason?
- People with good hearts are not necessarily good people, as the heart is only a muscle that circulates the blood through the body.
- "Miraculous" cures might be due to the fact that we don't even understand half of the complex chemistry within the human body yet.
- Why should there be an afterlife?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
that "book" is a peace of crap wrote as propergander back in the day before law and order. as its outdated it should be removed from mankinds libary never to be spoke of again when will people relise that mankind needs to move on from the darkages to solve its problems not read a book thats been read a like a trillion times before the answer is not there in that book or any other religious text
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
where I started to predict that the Emperor was the "bad guy" all
along. We've all seen that kind plot in star wars and other stuff. What if the same could be true for our own
God? I was just pondering this, and now realize: omg, I just sinned for questioning God! Time to repent!! Religoin/Spirituality is loosely related to things like Meditation, Natural Healers, Extra Sensory Perception, etc. Some of you may automatically think "well all that stuff isn't solid, like science" but keep in mind the Government has people working in these feilds for them, so even they don't brush it off as smoke and mirrors.
What's really peculiar though, is that all our wonderful acheivments like science, philosophy, Martial Arts etc are all continually getting changed and evolved as time goes by. Yet our stupid concept of God and right and wrong, has remained the same for thousands of years.
Supid is the right word there too, look it up.
The main reason why I personaly can not put faith in the bible is that it was written by man and anything writen by man is subject to interpritation or said persons prospective. I was actually pissed when I found out that Christopher Columbus was not the first person to discover america yet this is what was taught to me in school as a child.
Now I'm not saying that I think the bible is a lie but more that the events that it says happened actually did but may have been misinterpreted due to the lack of science and technology and more of a mystical belief system due to that age of mankind. For example what to us would have been a meteor shower, to a persom from lets say from 100 A.D. might be intepreted as the gods racing across the heavens. Even today we could explane how a virgin could give berth to a child.
From what I have researched on the subject, I am leaning more and more to believein the intelligent design theory. To put it bluntly I think we were genetically engineered from primates and what ever intellegence came to this planet. Science proves that there simply was not enough time for us to have naturally evolved from primates to our current form plus there is the "missing link" problem also with the theory of evolution.
Ibelieve that Jesus did exist but if he was the son of god then that would make him not totaly human for god he/she/itself is not of this earth thus making it alien to us. And god would be alien to us in every since of the word for we could not even begin to understand such a level of intelligence and those who say they do understand god or know what god intends for us are the biggest fools of all.
The Brave Do Not Fear The Grave
This is very similar to what I was saying at the end of the Original Post. I'm sure if God were around to "speak" with us today, he'd have a more modern way of explaining things.
See, there ya go! That's a really cool idea, and it rocks the fundamental christian beliefs of God right to the bone! That "rocked to the bone" shouldn't be the case, because Christianity should have been evolving for the past thousands of years.
OMG Please educate yourself: Every fossle record shows evolution is what bought man into being. No "alien" came to earth and "made" us. please read Charles Darwin orign of Species
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
Actually, every fossil found and is still being found proves that darwin was wrong, and every new study proves darwin is wrong, and every more research is done proves that there's a God.
the intelligent design theory says exactly this:
well, we believe in God, but our bosses don't want us to say that there's a God, but instead we called it intelligent design theory, although we believe it's true.
that's how me, and alot of other people read it from the mouths of these scientists.
realy, if you think there is evolution, then let me tell you something, there is evolution, but it is not how darwin described it, not even close.
it has been proven zillions of times that species don't evolve into other species, and another late study shows that the chimbanzie or whatever you wanna call it, has it's blood resamble the human blood by only 18% and it's the closest monkey to the human being.
It is amazing how wrong you are and how you follow whatever is fed to you.
First, in the current calendar you are speaking of, Sunday is the first day of the week, but, that is beside the point.
Where you are correct that Sunday is named after a sun god, you are incorrect to as when, or who provided the name. The Gregorian calendar, which is the current calendar used by most civilized countries today, adopted the days of the week from names already in place.
Following are where the names were obtained:
Sunday - Apollo. Apollo was an ancient Greek god, not Roman. If you know anything of history, Greek society predates the Roman empire by many, many, many years.
Monday - Selene. Ancient Greek Goddess of the moon.
Tuesday - You were way off on Tuesday. Tuesday has nothing to do with Zeus. Tuesday is the day of Ares, ancient Greek God of War.
Wednesday - A day attributed to Odin, the chief Norse (Scandinavian) god.
Thursday - Thor is not a Roman god. He is the Norse god of Thunder and is attributed to the beliief of Zeus.
Friday - Derived from Germanic" Frigga", who was Odin's wife.
Saturday - Loki the Norse god of tricks and chaos.
These will vary depending on which society you look at.
And to post an argument against your belief that just because the Qu'ran has never been changed means it is a religious book, ponder this.
The Iliad, writen by Homer nearly 2800 years ago has remained unchanged in its original greek language. Does that mean it is a religious book and is true?? No. The Bible, which you seem to understand as a single book, remains unchanged in its native language. The bible is a series of canonized manuscripts all placed in a single book. Some are over 4000 years old. And they are still in existence. Does that make them true? No.
You say the Qu'ran is only changed through translation. This is true as is the Bible. So, this does mean that the Qu'ran has indeed changed. You said yourself it does not mean the same thing in any other language other than Arabic. You can go to any book store here in the US and find the Qu'ran available in many different languages.
What does this mean for you? Well, you have said previously that the Qu'ran cannot be changed because allah (notice the lowercase because allah is a god, not God) will not allow it. Well, I guess he failed.
Now, answer me this. Why is islam the only major religion with the most intolerent people? You view non-muslims as infidels. This is not to say that christians or other religious are not intolerant, but they do not go around cutting people's heads off for others not believing in their religion.
And yes, you will come back with the answer that "not all muslims are like that". I beg to differ. I fail to see any muslim group denouncing the beheadings of civilians, military and workers of not only the US, but also every other country and also their fellow muslims. I fail to see any muslim groups standing up and saying "we do not agree with these islamo-facists". I fail to see the "peace" of islam.
What do muslims do when someone makes a cartoon (a very funny one I might add) portraying mohamed? They blow shit up, threaten to kill people and set buildings on fire. What do other religions do? They condemn the act, but cause no harm.
And in closing, I find it completely hilarious that you mention the finding of the giant skeleton. This was in the National Inquirer and was announced as a hoax.
Finally, mohamed was born in roughly 570CE (Common Era) and did not start plagarising the Qu'ran until roughly 611CE, 600 years after the New Testament was written and 4600 years after the first writings of the manuscripts creating the Old Testament. The Qu'ran mostly plagarized the Christian Bible and made up the rest. Mohamed is said to be illiterate. Many find that very difficult considering he was from a tribe of traders and part of that job was keeping records. Even if he was illiterate, big deal, his wife knew how to read and write. He could recite his story to her and she could record it.
It's not that hard to make up a religion. Just check the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his bible. Well, to continue on...
Muslims have been violent from the start. Mohamed was kicked out of Mecca because no one there wanted to hear his rantings. What did he do? He found a bunch of dolts who worshipped idols, converted them, created an army and headed to Mecca and killed helpless men, women and children who refused to convert. And this is how it remains today.
What evolution actually says is that we share a common ancestor as the apes. Not that we evolved from apes.
One other thing, there is an age of reason author (I can't remember his name right now, but I will find out for you. I remember he was German) who is quoted as saying that the Bible and other religious doctrine are ancient man's interpretations of religious experiences. In other words, it's their interpretations of what they were seeing based on their knowledge at the time. Basically what you were saying in your paragraph. So this age of reason philosopher backs you up. I will try to find the book that he is in. I hate my memory.