God Condemns Two-Thirds of World to Hell

[Rhazdel]

I stand corrected.

 

[Andy6000]

Now why the bible would be the "truth". I mean, there is so many religions in this world, and many of them converge to the same points. Just because some random guy in the distant past wrote something doesn't means is necessarily true. And the fact our society still believing these ideas shows how primitive it is.
As long as mankind doesn't get rid of these beliefs, we won't be able to evolve more than we already did.

So are you saying that atheists are more evolved than everyone else?

Atheism is a religion just like any other. At least in terms of nagging you to adopt their beliefs. Not to mention, what would the world be like without religion? Do you realize how much of art and our society is influenced by religion? Not to mention that religion is [in my opinion, I wrote a research paper on this topic about a year ago] necesary to society. I mean, think about it. Look at the sun. If you didn't know science, what the fuck is that thing? Who put it there? Religion's a way to explain the unknown, which is where it finds its strongest base in today's society, because we won't ever know what happens to us after we die. I mean sure we can extrapolate and use logic, but there's no way to prove it, so it's unfounded theory that we don't go to heaven, just as it is that we do go to heaven.

Anyways, that's another topic.

There's lots of evidence of big floods, not much 'evidence-evidence' to any ships being found from those being Noah's, and especially not much evidence of divine work blablabla. There's great flood myths in like every not-new religion. That's almost proof enough that big floods happened.

I've got no opinion of the Exodus thing since I've never heard this argument before, but I can imagine an argument against that is probably just that whoever the leader of Egypt at the time was was pretty pissed at the Jews for leaving, and ordered it struck or something. And the lack of a dropoff in productivity could've been from an influx of slaves from somewhere else etc. etc. There's too much you can just assume for that one.

And that they insinuate a geo-centric universe was probably just the thoughts of the writers seeping in. Galileo tried proving it wrong, and the Cardinals got pissed, and I would assume you don't think Galileo is rotting in hell because of going against an insinuation? Well he's probably in hell anyways for something else, but you know whatever.

Oh and finally we come to the mankind thing. I like this one. There's still arguments against it like 'you can't prove it', but you know, I find those to be kind of weak. Almost as weak as the Flying Spagetti Monster standpoint, that his great noodly appendage reaches down to screw up scientists' findings whenever they try to measure dates, so he can amuse himself by messing up our view of the world.

Yeah.

 

[Grandor]

I believe the leader at the time of Exodus, was Ramses the II. I think their is proof that they was a max exodus. Some of the events in the Bible, I personally think are historically accurate, however their time periods are messed up. This should help a bit:

Historicity:

The time-span in this book, from the death of Joseph to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, covers about one hundred and forty-five years, on the supposition that one computes the four hundred and thirty years (12:40) from the time of the promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:17).

There have been several attempts to fix the date of the events in the book to a precise point on the Gregorian Calendar. These attempts generally rest on three considerations

* Who the unnamed pharaoh was
* The dates for non-biblical accounts of large numbers of semitic people leaving Egypt
* The date that archaeology implies Jericho was destroyed

Generally, fixing the identification of the Pharaoh is considered the key, and two dynasties are usually suggested:

* Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho. See Ramesses II.

* Thutmose III or Amenhotep II of the 18th Dynasty, around 1444 BCE, favoured by a large minority of mostly religious scholars, since it precedes the destruction of Jericho, although some doubt surrounds the archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus and Canaanite conquest dating. However it should be noted that Egypt still dominated Canaan during that period in history [1], making such a date less plausible. The carbon-dating tests at Jericho are also disputed regarding dating.

* Akhenaton of the 18th Dynasty, around 1340 BC. The link to Akhenaton is that, like Moses, this pharaoh was struggling to convert the people to monotheism. The brother of Akhenaton was named Tuth-Moses, and while it is often assumed that this Tuth-Moses died young Professor Cyril Aldred shows that he was the commander of the king's chariot forces. [9] The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius similarly records that Moses was an Egyptian prince and army commander (Antiquities 2:232, 2:241). [10]

* Many others have been suggested, such as Dudimose, the Hyksos expulsion, and others.

The Pharoah from Exodus is never directly named, therefore it's hard to figure out who he is. But if the dates are correct from the bible, the above suggestions seem plausible and the story for this seems about right.

 

[Grandor]

I believe the leader at the time of Exodus, was Ramses the II. I think their is proof that they was a max exodus. Some of the events in the Bible, I personally think are historically accurate, however their time periods are messed up. This should help a bit:

Historicity:

The time-span in this book, from the death of Joseph to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, covers about one hundred and forty-five years, on the supposition that one computes the four hundred and thirty years (12:40) from the time of the promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:17).

There have been several attempts to fix the date of the events in the book to a precise point on the Gregorian Calendar. These attempts generally rest on three considerations

* Who the unnamed pharaoh was
* The dates for non-biblical accounts of large numbers of semitic people leaving Egypt
* The date that archaeology implies Jericho was destroyed

Generally, fixing the identification of the Pharaoh is considered the key, and two dynasties are usually suggested:

* Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho. See Ramesses II.

* Thutmose III or Amenhotep II of the 18th Dynasty, around 1444 BCE, favoured by a large minority of mostly religious scholars, since it precedes the destruction of Jericho, although some doubt surrounds the archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus and Canaanite conquest dating. However it should be noted that Egypt still dominated Canaan during that period in history [1], making such a date less plausible. The carbon-dating tests at Jericho are also disputed regarding dating.

* Akhenaton of the 18th Dynasty, around 1340 BC. The link to Akhenaton is that, like Moses, this pharaoh was struggling to convert the people to monotheism. The brother of Akhenaton was named Tuth-Moses, and while it is often assumed that this Tuth-Moses died young Professor Cyril Aldred shows that he was the commander of the king's chariot forces. [9] The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius similarly records that Moses was an Egyptian prince and army commander (Antiquities 2:232, 2:241). [10]

* Many others have been suggested, such as Dudimose, the Hyksos expulsion, and others.

The Pharaoh from Exodus is never directly named, therefore it's hard to figure out who he is. But if the dates are correct from the bible, the above suggestions seem plausible and the story for this seems about right.

 

[Mr.Mo]

It's hard to argue which religion is the right one, and while christianity shares its roots with Islam, they do, indeed, follow another leader in a sense. Then again, because of their rejection of the new testament, they reject the fulfillment of prophecy that it entails. Muslims and Hindus don't really have religious experiances though, and the personal reasons for a Muslim to follow his religion and a christian to follow his are very different.

Christianity is the only religion that contains legitimately fulfilled prophecies. Not just one or two, either.

Actually, the reasons are different but they both claim to have same spiritual feelings. While one says "Jesus Christ my Lord save me!", the other one will say "Allah, the One and Only God, and the Merciful and All-Powerful, help me!". heh, Muslims praise Allah really long, although I know some Christians that do as well. The reasons for these feelings are different, from a Christian stand point it maybe the Holy Spirit's mercy, or Satan, where as in Muslim opinion, Allah's mercy and just(meaning no good deed will be ignored by anyone), Atheist opinion is delusion and imagination.

Also, the reasons are different in a sense that Muslims say Christians have "blind faith"(ie Trinity) where as Islam is "logical", but of course opinions will differ. I've join in inter-faith dialogs, opinions usually differ, specially on issues like the Trinity because it is left to interpretation(heh, 3 gods co-existing to be One God).

I don't know what kind of Muslims you have talked too but you got the wrong impression. I pray 5 times a day and try to follow the Quran(which is hard in USA :p), at least lately I have.

As for Christianity sharing roots with Islam, this statement is a 50/50. While we agree on somethings such Abraham, Noah, and so on, information regarding them is a bit different. For example, Isa(Jesus) is just a prophet of Allah, where as in the Christianity he is God, Son of God, God the Son. Another story that differs is Abraham's, Ishmael was the son that was going to be sacrificed(although Allah stopped Him). Prophets in Islam are not like the ones in the Bible either. They have to be born righteous, not turn later on, also they can't be "ordinary". Something that is definatly we agree on in practice "There is no god but Allah".

Still, as I said before -


If Christianity is wrong and God doesn't exist, then nobody goes to hell! Yay! Maybe I could die and go to Valhalla and be an Einharjar :D

I suppose Christianity is the ONLY religion in the world, therefor if it is wrong, then surely God does not exist. :yes:

On Topic:

It really depends on which Testament you believe the most, God in the OT condemns all non-Israelite(by birth). To convert in to Judaism you would have to marry a Jew(according to some Jews). Jews are the chosen people in the OT and it is said in various places in the OT that God chose Israelites over everyone else:

Spoiler

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.
13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy [a] them?the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites?as the LORD your God has commanded you.
18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God

My problem is, even the kids and infants have to be killed. Everything has to be killed. I never learned paganism from a kid, I don't think its fair for him to be killed.

1 Samuel 15:2-4

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim?two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.

Again, even the infants.

One place we can see that God of OT chooses Israel over everyone else:

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

There is a couple more I know but its getting too big. The reason that I know that God favored Jews because they were the children of Abraham(pbuh) but heh, He might have went a bit far on the deal.

Then again, we have the NT and the so-called Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, aka God the Son, Son of God, and Son of Man:

Spoiler

He makes a total overhaul and changes the whole system. Now, Christians must not hurt their neighbor(often interpreted as "all people"), and turn the other cheek. Also, Paul writes that salvation is only through Jesus, not the Father, but Jesus. This time, there is no "chosen people" but there is indeed a chosen religion.

As in believing Jesus is your savior, it does not give a free ticket to sin, not intentionally at least. Although good deeds are not required in the Bible but they are encouraged. Christians often say "With out works, there is no faith" meaning you are going against God, then how can you have faith in Him. If I'm correct, you are not saved by good deeds in Christianity, its just a bonus for Christians. Non-Christians do not go into this category from what I understand.

In Islam, the concept is different a bit:

Spoiler

You have to believe in Allah/God(and put no other god beside Him), Muhammad(pbuh)as the last prophet and all the other Prophets God has sent, all the "true" revelations(meaning the revelations God has originally sent. In Islamic belief the remaining "pure" revelation is the Quran), the angels, and do good deeds and follow the laws set by Allah.

In Islam's point of view, we can't say 1/3 of the world is going to hell for 2 reasons, only Allah knows and Allah is just and fair.

In my opinion, people that were saintly people will be judged accordingly. The belief adds on to the concept of "ranks" in heaven. For example, it wouldn't be fair that a person who believes and does good deeds gets the same treatment as the person who just did good deeds(even though there are alot of elements to consider such as, Did the person ever hear about Islam? Did s/he have the chance to do any research?)

There are many reasons a person will not accept a belief, these reasons also would effect the judgment.

ps. In the Quran, Allah says He did favor the Jews(descendants of Abraham) until they "turned against Him and corrupted the religion and killed many prophets".

So in conclusion:

Jewish belief: Most of the world is condemned(I'm not 100% clear on this but from what I gather from the OT and from Jews that I know. Christians often interpret it differently because it kind of goes against the NT.)
Christian belief: You can say 1/3 i guess.
Muslim belief: Its not my place to say but we can be safe that the evil(set by standards of God) will most definatly be punished.

Note: I state nothing I wrote as fact. I have no place to state them as fact, no one does. I may have wrote some stuff as fact, but they are just information I gathered from debates, dialogs, the Bible, the Quran and the people I observe and talk to.

Oh and finally we come to the mankind thing. I like this one. There's still arguments against it like 'you can't prove it', but you know, I find those to be kind of weak. Almost as weak as the Flying Spagetti Monster standpoint, that his great noodly appendage reaches down to screw up scientists' findings whenever they try to measure dates, so he can amuse himself by messing up our view of the world.

I agree. Even though "God" can't be disproved, the religions that follow it can be. Who really believes the the first human is 6000 years old? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tishrei

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Mr Mo, Actually Abraham or Ibrahim is supposed to be the father of Arabs and jews isn't? And jews are the ones who betrayed God..
Anyway, I don't wanna go further in this discussion since there is this jew stuff.
But well, we talk about Satan, who betrayed God, his words were Non serviam or I refuse to serve you... but also if I remember that's what Jews said as well... supposedly.. anyway, there must be a reason why they've been persecuted from every place... or maybe not.
Honestly I think we give too much important to all these issues and all they do is to develop anger between different religions when in fact we all believe basically the same.

 

[Rhazdel]

And that they insinuate a geo-centric universe was probably just the thoughts of the writers seeping in. Galileo tried proving it wrong, and the Cardinals got pissed, and I would assume you don't think Galileo is rotting in hell because of going against an insinuation? Well he's probably in hell anyways for something else, but you know whatever.

Oh and finally we come to the mankind thing. I like this one. There's still arguments against it like 'you can't prove it', but you know, I find those to be kind of weak. Almost as weak as the Flying Spagetti Monster standpoint, that his great noodly appendage reaches down to screw up scientists' findings whenever they try to measure dates, so he can amuse himself by messing up our view of the world.

Yeah.

It doesn't matter why there are inconsistencies in the Bible, I was merely pointing out that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. ArctheMonkey was insinuating that because the Bible contains some historical fact, it must be the only valid religious text.

Right or wrong, no religion is perfect. If one was perfect, there would only be 1 religion in the world, because everyone would convert. That's just the nature of religion. I'm not trying to put the Bible down. I'm merely trying to point out an opposing viewpoint.

And the Bible isn't the only text with fufilled prophecies. Like I said, the Aztecs also have quite a few prophocies that were fulfilled. But, then again, the Aztecs also thought eating the heart of your enemies gave you their strength. I'm not exactly gonna jump on that bandwagon....

 

[arcthemonkey]

I was insinuating that because the bible is the only or the first document detailing certain "pre-historic" events, and has proven exceedingly reliable as a historical document, it's value is much more than that of a half-assed work of fiction.

@Mr. Mo - A "spiritual feeling" does not constitute a religious experiance. Religious experiances are usually cases of being "slain by the spirit" which, while not resulting in death, usually results in conversion. Others recount cases of bizarre, supernatural happenings such as a strong wind pushing someone back onto their feet as they were about to fall to their deaths, with onlookers remarking that is appeared as though they were lifted and gently set back down.

Allah is (that is, the God of Abraham, shared in many ways by Christians, Jews, and Muslims), by most accounts, and as far as my knowledge goes, an impersonal God who does not physically intercede on behalf of mankind. It is from this perspective that I claim that they do not have religeous experiances. Islam is more of a ritual faith than than the up-and-down personal faith of Christianity.

Also, Christians do not believe in salvation by works, rather, by the grace of God. We believe that works are a manifestation of ones faith, and that they should exist together, but that salvation in its simplest form is not based on works.

Now, Rhazdel, we can't discount the bible because of a single interpretation of geocentricity. I'm almost certain what you are talking about is contained in poetic language anyway. I would have you know that poetic imagery is quite a bit different from stated, prophetic fact. I should also point out that the authors may not have known the truth, and God didn't necessarily clue them in.

Also, while I'm leaving on a trip across state right now and can't provide a more detailed arguement, the fossil record is hardly perfect. I invite you to read up on the concept of polystrate fossils, and perhaps think to yourself why the fossil record is almost universally incomplete and out of order. I put very little credence in the fossil record. It's interesting, to be sure, but not nearly as conclusive as it's made out to be.

 

[Rhazdel]

I was insinuating that because the bible is the only or the first document detailing certain "pre-historic" events, and has proven exceedingly reliable as a historical document, it's value is much more than that of a half-assed work of fiction.

I think the Egyptians, Aztecs and Incas beat them to it. All have fulfilled prophecies pre-dating the Bible.

@Mr. Mo - A "spiritual feeling" does not constitute a religious experiance. Religious experiances are usually cases of being "slain by the spirit" which, while not resulting in death, usually results in conversion. Others recount cases of bizarre, supernatural happenings such as a strong wind pushing someone back onto their feet as they were about to fall to their deaths, with onlookers remarking that is appeared as though they were lifted and gently set back down.

How can you say that? Many native tribes throughout Africa believe that channelling mana into a terminally ill person can (and in some cases does) restore health. The patient often times admits to supernatural feelings. The list goes on. It is not a phenomenon limited to Christianity.

Allah is (that is, the God of Abraham, shared in many ways by Christians, Jews, and Muslims), by most accounts, and as far as my knowledge goes, an impersonal God who does not physically intercede on behalf of mankind. It is from this perspective that I claim that they do not have religeous experiances. Islam is more of a ritual faith than than the up-and-down personal faith of Christianity.

You may want to study other faiths before making assumptions.

Now, Rhazdel, we can't discount the bible because of a single interpretation of geocentricity. I'm almost certain what you are talking about is contained in poetic language anyway. I would have you know that poetic imagery is quite a bit different from stated, prophetic fact. I should also point out that the authors may not have known the truth, and God didn't necessarily clue them in.

I'm not saying we should discredit it. I'm only pointing out an opposing viewpoint. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are thousands of faiths outside of Christianity. To dismiss them entirely as false just because you don't believe in them does absolutely nothing for a debate. All you are doing is arguing an opinion as fact.

Also, while I'm leaving on a trip across state right now and can't provide a more detailed arguement, the fossil record is hardly perfect. I invite you to read up on the concept of polystrate fossils, and perhaps think to yourself why the fossil record is almost universally incomplete and out of order. I put very little credence in the fossil record. It's interesting, to be sure, but not nearly as conclusive as it's made out to be.

You don't only need to believe in fossil dating. Dinosaur fossils have been found at much lower levels of soil than human fossils. That means that the dinosaurs were there first.

We have preserved fossils (and even in some cases, actual bodies) of animals, but nowhere around them are there human-like remains.

No matter how you want to try dating them, it is almost universally agreed that, regardless of the methods, dinosaurs are placed at living millions of years before man.

EDIT: And what of polystrate fossils? Geologists have already answered the supposed problems of these.

 

[Grandor]

Mr Mo, Actually Abraham or Ibrahim is supposed to be the father of Arabs and jews isn't? And jews are the ones who betrayed God..
Anyway, I don't wanna go further in this discussion since there is this jew stuff.
But well, we talk about Satan, who betrayed God, his words were Non serviam or I refuse to serve you... but also if I remember that's what Jews said as well... supposedly.. anyway, there must be a reason why they've been persecuted from every place... or maybe not.
Honestly I think we give too much important to all these issues and all they do is to develop anger between different religions when in fact we all believe basically the same.

Not necessarily. Abraham is supposed to be the first Israelite. Therefore, he is father to the Isrealites. The jews descended from the Israelites.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Grandor, Muslims believe that Abraham was the father of Jews and Arabs.
Abraham actually was born in the ancient city of Ur, (Ancient Mesopotamia)
Therefore Arabs and Jews were supposed to be "brothers".

 

[Mike Portnoy]

The church made so much damages in the centuries... that's what we've come to... you MUST be christian to be saved... no i don't actually believe that was the first true christian belief, is much more easier that the church came up year by year telling this, to manipulate politics and people.
Actually, the objective of the church, for centuries, was just to gather money. I think fortunately it's not anymore like that.

 

[Andy6000]

I was insinuating that because the bible is the only or the first document detailing certain "pre-historic" events, and has proven exceedingly reliable as a historical document, it's value is much more than that of a half-assed work of fiction.

Also, while I'm leaving on a trip across state right now and can't provide a more detailed arguement, the fossil record is hardly perfect. I invite you to read up on the concept of polystrate fossils, and perhaps think to yourself why the fossil record is almost universally incomplete and out of order. I put very little credence in the fossil record. It's interesting, to be sure, but not nearly as conclusive as it's made out to be.

This is like the same logic used in reverse by the same person in the same post. 'you can't call the bible down for messing up one point' followed by 'fossil evidence is hardly reliable since they've screwed up some stuff'.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Arcthemonkey, the Q'uran, assuming you gave yourself the time to at least study a bit of it in order to say the bible is the only book telling the truth.
So the Q'uran, gives very detailed information about the beginning of times or creation. Also, some Sumerian texts did the same. Now assuming that the bible is the only one it's kind of ridiculous. Also, the bible was very much based in the Mesopotamian beliefs. And then Islam was supposed to be an amelioration of the ancient religions.
And before you people shout at me lol, no, I'm not Muslim, but I believe if you want to argue about something you must know both sides.

 

[Dirtie]

Not necessarily. Abraham is supposed to be the first Israelite. Therefore, he is father to the Isrealites. The jews descended from the Israelites.

And here I was thinking Israel's (Jacob) sons were the first Israelites

I didn't think there was a distinction between Israelites and Jews? (in modern times yes, but not in those days)

 

[Grandor]

They were. Abraham, Issac and Jacob are referred throughout the Bible as the fathers of the Israelites. And I'm not sure if their was a distinction made, but I know one thing that after a certain period of time. When the Babylonians conquered Israel, they were suddenly known as the jews. I may be wrong though. I haven't read the Bible in centuries.

 

[Mr.Mo]

@Mr. Mo - A "spiritual feeling" does not constitute a religious experiance. Religious experiances are usually cases of being "slain by the spirit" which, while not resulting in death, usually results in conversion. Others recount cases of bizarre, supernatural happenings such as a strong wind pushing someone back onto their feet as they were about to fall to their deaths, with onlookers remarking that is appeared as though they were lifted and gently set back down.

Never met a convert to Muslim have you? I know about 5 or more in a Dialog forum, 2 of them in Chat and Email. They all are grateful and always say "Allah has led them to Islam and from ignorance to knowledge". We have a concept similar to of "Born Again Christians" as well. This happens in some other Faiths as well(I think), not just Islam and Christianity. =

Allah is (that is, the God of Abraham, shared in many ways by Christians, Jews, and Muslims), by most accounts, and as far as my knowledge goes, an impersonal God who does not physically intercede on behalf of mankind. It is from this perspective that I claim that they do not have religeous experiances. Islam is more of a ritual faith than than the up-and-down personal faith of Christianity.

lol. Actually He(Allah) does. This is a very big claim, along side that we worship the Holy Temple in Mecca(we pray facing towards it for unity of the Umma, Muslim community). We pray 5 times a day and Allah, in the Quran or the Hadith, has told us that when we pray to Him, we should ask Him as well. We are encouraged actually. We don't only pray for forgiveness either, we do pray for material, or personal stuff.

Allah is personal, I'm not sure what you mean by impersonal. That makes no sense, thats like say "God doesn't love you!".

You never heard the Muslim saying "Allah is closer to you then your juggler veins"? Its a saying to indicate that Allah is there for you.

As for rituals, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean Holy Days such as The Day of Sacrifice and Ramadan(Month of Fasting)?

This here is a quick read and explains Islam and relationship with Allah.

Also, Christians do not believe in salvation by works, rather, by the grace of God. We believe that works are a manifestation of ones faith, and that they should exist together, but that salvation in its simplest form is not based on works.

heh.. Thats what I said, mine was just simpler and not confusing . I said in order to have faith, you need works because then people like Hitler would be accepted, would he not? or the Popes who ordered mass killings, even the priests who used the farmers for money.

Anyways, Its getting off topic ':| , I won't post anymore, just wanted to clarify a few things.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Ramadan is mostly an experience in which you get closer to your inner self.
Also you become more aware of things. My wife is Muslim, so I've been following up all these "things" you call "rituals".
Although in my case I don't feel the call of any religion at this moment, I feel like
most people should have a greater understanding of other religions.

 

[Hisuwashi]

I'm a Catholic myself but I don't agree fully with it. You could be a savage living on a southern pacific island and never have heard of God or Jesus..

But that's what everyone (who's religious) says about their own religions. I say my religion is true, and someone disagrees, and says theirs is =/ Well, there is only one sure way to find out :D

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

And that oen sure way to find out, is why some religious peopel actual do want the world to go to hell (figurativly speaking) and for people to die.