Well, we should be concerned about these differences for both authentic Christianity and Islam can't be of Almighty God. Truth requires consistency and God has a right to be believed when He reveals a definite Church, religion and doctrine.

Truth is consistent and Truth is in possession. If Islam/Qur'an has possession of the truth, then Catholicism/Holy BIble/Tradition does not and if Catholicism has possession of the truth, then Islam does not. 

Islam holds that GOd is transcendent in a way that precludes the kind of intimacy He shows with mankind in the Bible. Islam denies God the Father  and the word "love" is not there.

In his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope", the late Bl. Pope John Paul II wrote, "Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Qur'an, but he is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Mohammed. There is also mention of Mary, His virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology (doctrine of God) ibut also the anthropology (doctrine of man) of Islam is very distant from Christianity."

And I won't list the radical differences between the Holy Bible and the Qur'an other than to say Christians can't honor the Qur'an as Sacred Scripture or as authentic prophecy. No way.

There you see. Here is your miconception (as far as I'm concerned) - If I hold up my fingers and count them, they are five (I still got all of them). If I take two away, 3 remain. BAM - Mathematics

If you take your god and ... wait a second, you can't because he's just in your mind/heart/soul/whatever. You cannot compare science with religion. They are grounded in two completely different worlds. Science is to understand and describe processes and predict results from experience using deduction.

Religion is not bound by any rules and can contain whatever the believer chooses. There need not be ratio (though it helps to get a moral point across) but its to help people who have doubts (emotional, moral doubts) get comfort and a sense of direction. But since it contains whatever the believer decides it should contain the real amount of different religions would be almst 8 billion me thinks.

There is no Catholic Church in the new testament. It didn't even exist when Jesus lived!!!

Tell me, what do you think he meant? You do no allegories and methaphors, don't you? And reciting religious speakers telling stories about jesus mother when they weren't even at the event they are talking about - how much credibility have they? If I told you that the lord was impregnating my mother while still being a virgin but married for years and I was the son of god - would you believe?

If all in the bible (the official part you believe in) were true and your Lord Jesus would in fact return your church would be the very first to condemn him and brand him as heretic and blasphemer.

Good one!

Another: As Adam was wandering in paradise alone and becam lonely god came to him and told him "If you give me your heart I will form you a wife from it who is obedient and caring and fulfills every of your wishes" to which he replied "What do I get for a rib?"

These are no arguments and here we come to the fact that you have no mind of your own. I've dealt with you kind before and it always boils down to this: There comes a question that cannot be answered by you so you say "god made it so". That is neither an argument, nor proof of anything but only shows your inability to think for yourself. I will now part with this thread because once and for all you showed how useless it is to try to have a intelligent discussion with a religious zealot.

Thats the way. Believe in what is right for you. Keep your mind open. Never postulate your believings as facts. Your believe is a sum of your personal experience and therefore your own. You can share your experience but not your deducted believe because if you would tell all your experiences to someone else they might and will deduct a different believe from them.

So much time and effort for nothing....literally nothing.

You might as well discuss how Santa delivers all those packages in one evening.

Of course we can compare true science and true religion which both deal with truth, the former natural truth, the latter, supernatural truth. We know there is no contradiction between true science and true religion because God is the Author of both.  

An other way we can compare science and religion is that we operate on faith for both.

Gaining scientific knowledge depends on having faith on the authority of others. I pointed that out in my #130.

Gaining supernatural knowledge depends on having faith on the authority of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The so called opposition between religion (faith) and science that we hear about so much today, originates either in errors of scientists who put forth unprovable hypotheses as undoubted facts, or in mistakes of theologians who teach their private false opinions as as Gospel truths.

Lula; Nice to see you still have a sense of humor ... it helps me get through life easier. Science doesn't claim perfection (that is reserved just for you) because there is no such thing ... there cannot be. Do you see anyone closing down their respective sciences because they are 'perfect' hahaha? Science is self-correcting and continuously peer reviewed. But the RCC’s creation has never been peer reviewed (accepted) because the RCC does not believe they have any. Every attempt by the religious scholars who try to bend science to their purpose has failed miserably. You may believe there is a celestial 'North Korea' up in the sky and you are just waiting for retrieval ... but I am not obligated in the least to believe you or any fantasy you choose to believe without something factual to base such claims on. Here is another side of the RCC I dislike, hehehe.

Of course it was "peer reviewed" ......by Martin Luther and Mohammed.

Tobi  posts:

Depends on the religion and whose rules. 

God's religion of ancient Hebraic Judaism was certainly bound by rules.That was fulfilled by Christ who established authentic Christianity which is certainly bound by rules--- Almighty God's rules.

Well, true the actual words, "Catholic Church" aren't found in the New Testament, but was later called Catholic by St.Ignatius in 107, was indeed the same Church Christ established on the Apostle Simon whose name Christ changed to Peter in 33AD.  St. Peter is the CC's  first Pope of which Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th in a line of unbroken succession. This is actual history which secular history records. 

I think Jesus meant exactly what He said.

"I am an atheist and I am tired of all these theist games … the sciences speak for themselves and need not be defended … certainly not from supernatural accusations. It should be assumed that because I do not believe in god … I do not believe in the spawned religions that (first?) ‘followed’, their good books of death, destruction and domination or the good people the RCC has privately chosen to so anoint, hahaha. We can ‘go back’ and see our past, back a hundred million years ago quite handily … and we are still discovering new things about our past, physical things, provable things … real things … how could it be otherwise, hahaha."

"What kind of god would deceive his subjects with a complete mythological 'reality' that has deceived mankind at every turn throughout the ages at every new discovery and all throughout time on earth?  Mystical universe … mystical galaxy … mystical solar system … and mystical earth … and yet the rest of us know better. The RCC would have us believe our actual provable past is just a mysticism … and the mysticism they believe but cannot prove is actual the reality, go figure. This has got to be a good definition for insanity. You are going to have to prove something … before I allow you to send me to hell. Everyone has choices but only some of us make them for ourselves."

BT posts:

No, we've not actually seen anything about our past that is a hundred million years old. That is pure atheistic pseudo science evolutionary conjecture that you assert as fact.

The only part of our past that we can go back and see go back from 3500 to 10,000 years ago.

No, it's true science that would have us believe our actual provable past. The key words here are "actual provable", which separates true science from pseudo science.

Basic timeline will do it for me so take your 2,000 year old book and sit on it … maybe some of the crap will drain out. The basic timeline of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

• 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
• 3 billion years of photosynthesis,
• 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
• 1 billion years of multicellular life,
• 600 million years of simple animals,
• 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
• 550 million years of complex animals,
• 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
• 475 million years of land plants,
• 400 million years of insects and seeds,
• 360 million years of amphibians,
• 300 million years of reptiles,
• 200 million years of mammals,
• 150 million years of birds,
• 130 million years of flowers,
• 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
• 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
• 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
• 25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
• 13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.
• 2,000 years ago you guys tried to rewrite history, hahaha.

The true "science" of religion or in your case the RCC. Reality chech Lula!!!

The point I'd make is allowing for the "dark glass" of scripture and human influence, if God exists It is independent of our opinions as Seleuceia said.

What if the imperfectly recorded (as all language must be by nature) warnings of the bible are not to be read through the the filter of, "If God was me I would never say and do that" and instead are meant to point to His actual nature and reality.

What if the warnings of Hell and Heaven and the need for redemption are the result of an actual, fixed reality that we just aren't capable of fully perceiving as human beings?  How would you from "the other side" tell people something that they inherently could not fully understand?

I think you'd use words and people and anything you could find that they could relate to and imagine to get the picture across--even if it wasn't perfect--even if you knew they didn't understand "your language".

As to , "if God is real, then why doesn't He just ring my doorbell?" it might be the same isue, that what he is "unveiled" is more than we can comprehend or understand.

To me, Jesus and the bible that points to him are life preservers thrown into a stormy sea to give us a chance and they are the shouted encouragements of God to keep swimming and fighting and to listen for directions to help.

You can fold your arms and say, "Inconceivable--I reject that!" but based on what?  Is one way more plausible than the other when you cut to the core of it?

Tobi,

Sounds like your belief system is Relativism.

Where does truth fit in? or does it even matter?

Witness in oneself may easily be purely subjective persuasion and is no sure test of truth.

BT posts:

I've seen this.

Where's the empirical scientific proof that the earth and life on it are billions and millions of years old? There is none, so don't claim this as fact is all I'm saying.  This is what pseudo science claims as fact.  This timeline is purely speculative guessing on the part of scientists who for whatever reason (like keeping their job?) put it forth as fact instead of as an unproven hypothesis.

You're not only repeating  pseudo science as fact, you are also defending pseudo science as fact. 

BT,

I think discussion is useful and focusing on differences is where we most often learn. But resorting to showing lack of respect such as you have done here strips discussion of its usefulness.

If you continue, I'll not even read your posts, let alone respond.  

Lula, I am sorry, but I have lost my respect for you as an intellectual. All you know and can do is regurgitate RCCC and that leaves a lot to be desired for living life and communicating in the real world ... which you are want to just ignore. Thank You so much for this fake kindness but it would make all a bit happier. “Where's the empirical scientific proof that the earth and life on it are billions and millions of years old?” I am sure they have it all locked away so religious folk cannot find it … where else would they put it, hahaha. I hope you find what you are looking for though, good luck.

There is a whole host of evidence that consistently points to an age for the universe of around 14 billion years...you have cosmic background radiation, the age of old stars, etc....saying there is no empirical evidence is just plain wrong...the existence of evidence doesn't necessarily prove a theory but I don't see how you can argue against the existence of such evidence...

As for the earth, the geological study started by James Hutton and Charles Lyell has decades of evidence pointing to an age in the billions (though the initial estimates were in the hundred thousands or millions)...again, you don't have to believe the evidence but there is no doubt a lot of it with a certain degree of consistency...

Hi Boobz--fyi...I don't at all fit into any of the categories you described above (maybe the "not knowing everything" one--but just barely).  I understand the frustration.

My world's pretty real and non-imaginary too...most of the time...I think...maybe.

Well what's the alternative? Seems to me that people either have "faith" in a holy book or institution or person to tell you what god is, or you must decide for yourself what god must be based on your experiences and believes. In other words, you can either let your religion determine your beliefs, or use your beliefs to determine your religion. The former is usually one people adopt from birth or an early conversion experience, the later by people who genuinely think about and constantly re-examine the question of what god is.

Again I have no faith in anything otherworldly whatsoever, so it really doesn't concern me too much, but I can't help but think the world would be a better place if more people did the later.

I'm avoiding talking about the religious side of the equation because it isn't a place to start.  Some of your points are right I think--others have angles you might not know.

You do have to have faith--in any direction you choose to go.  At some point you decide, this is the way it is and just fall into step.  Hopefully, though, you keep re-examining when the situation merits.

Next time we talk (off forum)  I'll pass a few things your way from my personal experience that won't fit easily and simply into your worldview (though you might hammer them in).

If you have the luxury of never encountering something then it's easy to be unconcerned.  The real question is what do you do if you do encounter it?

I will add this personal note (which is my opinion of course):  If you claim an experience with a God who you feel you know "everything" about, who always agrees with you, is easily understood all the time, rarely if ever challenges you and never requires a major change in your understanding then I'd posit you haven't met an actual "God".

I do have faith, just in understanding, not the supernatural. A bit off topic, but at times I've wondered if the real difference between atheists and true believers is not faith, but rather the ability to understand and accept Chaos. It has nothing to do with intelligence, Copernicus and Einstein could never accept Chaos, and tried in vain to find orderly rules that governed everything to show that there was a rational god that created all of this. And maybe if they were omniscient they could. But so far they've failed, while the schools of quantum physics, psychology and others defined by statistics, the crude tool humans invented to understand Chaos, has surged ahead.

My "worldview" is already an extremely complicated merger of Stoic self reliance, Epicurean "enjoy life while it lasts", Hobsian pessimism of the individual and a perhaps unjustified Humanist optimism about human kind as a whole. And its adding new elements and occasionally reforming old ones all the time. I may not be able to claim religion has more contradictions much longer at this rate.

I've always wondered if the real difference between atheists and believers is the ability to understand and accept order you dirty, stinking Shadow!   Vorlons rule!

Maybe you just don't understand the supernatural.

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely.  Just as many conundrums in the self-contained life as in any other,  I had a pretty satisfactory worldview for quite some time and then some impolite things came along and beat it to a pulp and significantly complicated my own worldview--despite my vehement and well-thought-out protests.

On a more serious note: I am actually optimistic and excited by human potential as well.  I'm just aware we have a looming expiry date if we don't expand our thinking.