Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

brotherskeptapartFellow blogger Weighed in the Balance has undertaken the ambitious and highly risky task of writing a book which as he terms it “is a comparative analysis of the Bible and the Qur’an, and it assumes that both books are correct.  If God is the principal author of each book, as Christians and Muslims claim, then a comparative analysis should reveal harmony between the principal teachings of both.  This is what I have found.  Hence, Christians and Muslims have been kept apart by their religious leaders who have taught their adherents that God has rejected the other group.” The topic matter was thought to be so contentious that he originally penned his book using a pseudonym.

Phillip’s book is titled Brothers Kept Apart and can be purchased on Amazon.com at a reasonable price. Some members of the BU family have already demonstrated that they are students of the religions. Brother Phillips advises that the book represents 30 years of research and 7 years of critical review and he stands ready to defend his thesis.

It is no secret that the BU household has demonstrated a keen interest in the religions or what some people disparagingly refer to as dogmas. It is a fascinating subject and one which is shrouded in mystery, allegories, parables, fables and some theology  Religion has been used through the ages to edify and destroy man’s existence. Of interest to all through the ages has been the cooption of  religion to pit Islam versus Christianity, East versus West by geo-political motivated groups.

For a synopsis of the book the BU family is welcomed to visit Phillips’s blog. We look forward to a fascinating discussion and take the opportunity to wish him every success.

What he has attempted demonstrates courage of conviction, a characteristic in scarce supply.

.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1,124 responses to “The Bible And The Qur'an, Brothers Kept Apart”


  1. BT wrote:

    “all the available evidence points to some ‘Creator’ or designer ”

    really?

    all?

    Can you point to any?


  2. BT writes:

    “Your mission (should you accept it) is to work out the intent and plan of the farmer for his farm”

    and how should we do that?

    – make it up?
    – guess?
    – pick from different sets of ancient writings of those who claim to already know?

    which do you recommend?


  3. Bush Tea,
    I’m not being hasty, that’s why I asked.

    I’ll ask again:

    WHAT WAS YOUR BASIS FOR CHOOSING JESUS OVER ALL THE OTHER GODS?

    I doubt you have one, but I’m willing to listen.

    As far as All evidence pointing to a creator. Please name ONE example of such evidence.
    Thanks


  4. @ Not Saved & rohan

    I keep telling you folks than I am not like regular Christians, I could not care less if you believe or not.

    It is not therefore my intent to tell you what is the truth….

    …in any case, you two must at least know that what works for Bush Tea may well not work for you – it is your business to work out your own salvation as required for your situation.

    …for example, Bush Tea is a highly trained scientist. There are very few concepts that the Bushman cannot dissect.
    …so Not Saved, when I speak of the clear pointers to an overall designer it is against that backdrop.

    I have a friend who is just barely aware that water is wet, yet he is also convinced about an overall designer – based on the impact of the awesome night sky on him.

    …so Not Saved,
    If you need exotic proof that this experience that we call life on earth was engineered somewhere , then IMHO, you are not smart enough to work out something as complex a the creators intent anyway – so just resign yourself to being ‘not saved’. LOL

    …and rohan, if you are waiting for Bush Tea to tell you who is the REAL and only God, then you are barking up the wrong tree too…
    …if however either one of you HONESTLY decides to find answers for yourself… now THAT is a different ball game….


  5. BT writes:

    “you are not smart enough to work out something as complex a the creators intent ”

    —–

    funny, you sound like a regular christian to me.

    By the way, what is the difference between “proof” and “exotic proof”?

    As you are a scientist, when I asked for evidence you would know that did not mean I asked for proof.


  6. Rohan, NS,

    Let me say that it was myself and Bush Tea who asked David to start a thread which turned out to be the longest thread on this blog, over 1000 contributions.

    I was entitled, “The purpose of our Existence” and could probably be considered the first real challenge to christianity on this blog, so don’t let BT fool you. Check it at:
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/what-is-the-purpose-of-mans-existence/


  7. @ ROK

    man ROK, these are two bright articulate bloggers. You do not need to defend them from BT. LOL

    …and ROK, it is not the Bushman’s role to defend Christianity. Nor should it be the intent of any serious truth seeker.

    The greatest barrier to solving any complex problem comes from starting your quest with a convenient answer.

    What Christianity what?!?

    Bushman defends TRUTH, LOGIC and common sense.

    …..these two fellows are excellent candidates to find the truth …. if only they can overcome the distraction of their abhorrence of traditional Christianity.
    …while most Christians will never find the truth, unless they can overcome their commitment to the dogma of their faith…… what a pity.

    ….and NS, one needs to include ‘if statements’ in quotations for accuracy.

    Bush Tea said that ….IF you are unable to link the reality and complexity of life to a designer, THEN you probably are not smart enough to work out a Creator’s plan.

    …boolean algebra could also present a bit of a challenge in such circumstances.


  8. Bush Tea,
    Thanks for basically admitting that you had no basis for choosing your Jesus over all the other Gods. Like I thought, you went the way of the sheep and followed the shepherd that all your family and friends followed. If you were born in India you most probably be Hindu and we would be having a much different discussion right now.


  9. Bush Tea wrote:
    “IF you are unable to link the reality and complexity of LIFE to a designer, THEN you probably are not smart enough to work out a Creator’s plan.”
    ****
    Let me fix that for you Bush Tea:
    IF you are unable to link the reality and complexity of God to a designer, THEN you probably are not smart enough to work out the creature that made God’s plan.”

    See how that works?

    So something must have made God, a creature that would have to be infinitely more complex than the Universe to create it.

    Creationists have a huge problem believing that our universe and all its complexities could have come about without a designer.

    However, you have no problem believing that a God, who would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe he created could exist without a designer.

    IF COMPLEXITY IS PROOF OF DESIGN YOU WOULD END UP WITH AN INFINITE REGRESSION OF DESIGNERS.

    You would have figured this out if you applied logic to your thinking, but no one ever accused a Christian of being logical. Thanks for confirming this.

  10. Simple Enough Avatar
    Simple Enough

    I have been carefully watching and reading the comments on this thread, I’ve also gone back to previous threads on this topic of God, creation against evolution and so on, and what appears to me, is that there are two distinct kinds of people here, (I) those who make contributions based on good scientific evidence in support of Creation, and the God of the Bible, their arguments are reasonable, rational, and very logical, the other group of people, like Rok, Not Saved, Rohan, and even Bush Tea, are all over the place, not making any sense at all, jumping from one thing to another; whereas, those like GP, Zoe and MME, all present senseable arguments, that you can reason through and understand.

    It really is true, that “Ignorance, when voluntary, is criminal” also, that, “There is no more terrible sight, than ignorance in action” when you simply don’t know, say so, but to argue against sound evidence, as some of these people are doing, is something else.

    Do like Mark Twain who said, “I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did, I said I didn’t know.”


  11. “Those who make contributions based on good scientific evidence in support of Creation”
    ****
    SIMPLE ENOUGH, I’ll keep it simple enough.

    Name One example of good scientific evidence. Just one.

    Give me


  12. Simple Enough

    You could have made it simple enough by saying you support the arguments of the christians as opposed to the non christians because what you don’t understand is that Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word creation. Yes the world was created but not by the God of the bible. He was created just like us.

    If you really did follow the argument you would see that the problem is not creation vs evolution or big bang, but it is question of who is the Creator; which your god certainly is not.

    So your little contribution is not only biased but very deceptive and in true christian style. Where is the scientific evidence produced by the likes of GP and Zoe? They denied the scientific evidence in favour of the fairy tale.

    So you are the one that should be honest rather than try to come here with any side-winding summaries. Christians cannot even be honest, but all that happen to wunna is that wunna get so brainwashed you are blind to reality.

    Furthermore, where the bible is contradicts itself and scientific evidence, it is you who should do like Mark Twain. We already said that where there is no evidence we prefer to say that we don’t know. They on the other hand profess to know and don’t know. How could you be so topsy-turvy? You walk on your hands?


  13. @BT,

    Since it was already agreed by both parties that the IF conditional was true, the THEN statement followed logically.

    To leave out the “IF” part of the quote did not in any way whatsoever make my representation of your claim, misleading.


  14. A litte amusing recap…………

    Zoe claimed…..

    “there IS NOT a single true transitional evolutionary form that has yet been excavated ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD”

    I responded, citing my source NOVA about a recent important fossil find in 2004…….

    “Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form”

    A priceless response from Zoe followed…….

    “Just another vicious BIG LIE”

    Simple Enough commented………

    “Not Saved,………all over the place, not making any sense at all………..whereas, those like……. Zoe………….present senseable arguments”.

    Simply Put

    Enough Said.


  15. $100 OFFER!

    Okay, a long but interesting discussion.

    I have a friendly offer. I will forward by paypal (or other convenient means) $100 USD to anyone who can provide any scientific evidence for the existence of God.

    I post under my name both here and at Barbados Free Press. My reputation (as measely as it is) is more important to me than $100. So to get the money, simply:

    1) Post any evidence for the existence of God

    2) The “complexity of the earth does not qualify” because this no more proves God than it does Santa Claus. Also per earlier discussion, if complexity proved a creator, then the existence of that complex creator would require a creator, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Useless.

    3)Arguments AGAINST evolution are not arguments FOR God. Saying one thing doesn’t work, does not mean that another thing works. Makes no sense.

    So with those three simple caveats, $100 USD to anyone who can provide any evidence for the existence of God (Makes no difference which one).

    Thanks
    Rohan


  16. (with a little help from Euler)

    Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x;
    hence God exists,
    answer please!

    Rohan, $100 please

    (actually this famous anecdote between Euler and Diderot never happened but it is a great story anyway)


  17. @Rohan…

    My personal favourite proof that the Universe is infinitely complex, and thus, *everything* which is not impossible must be true, somewhere:

    Z = Z^2 + C, as iterated on the complex plane.

    Even within the rarefied domain of mathematics, we simple (stupid) humans find that we cannot *know*.

    Also, please note that chaos in mathematical systems came out of the attempts to predict weather. The Butterfly Effect…

    Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set for more details.

    @Rohan… I understand and respect what you’re trying to do. But we do not *know* (and can never know) that any particular god does, or does not, exist.

    We each, individually, takes a leap of faith. Even the agnostics.

    I personally believe that all gods exist, for those that believe in them. Actually, I believe that they all do.

    My issue is when any believer(s) of a particular set of god(s) try to tell others that only they are correct, and that everyone else is wrong.

    IMHO, *this* is the fundamental problem we, here and now, face.


  18. Sorry… Two errors in my above…

    Replace “takes a leap” with “take a leap”.

    Replace “agnostic” with “atheist”.


  19. “But we do not *know* (and can never know) that any particular god does, or does not, exist.”

    —–

    did anyone claim otherwise?


  20. semantics, Halsall, you always get lost in the semantics


  21. @NS: “you always get lost in the semantics”. Yeah, I know…

    I hope you, and the BU Family, will forgive me for this trait. I’m autistic. (Seriously.)

    This is one of the reasons I can read legal language so well. I notice things others don’t….


  22. modest too


  23. somewhat back on topic…

    Grenville,

    If the principal teachings are the same, and your thesis is accepted, then we should move towards some form of harmonised religious practice.

    In this case, what “christian traditions” will be lost?

    What “islamic traditions” will be imported to a christian society like ours?

    In essence what will the new harmonised religious practice look like?

    will it be identical to current christian tradition? or muslim tradition?

    if not, what changes can we expect?


  24. @NS et al… This is meant as humour…

    You might consider capitalizing the first word of each sentence, as is the accepted proper form.

    You’ve made three errors in your immediate above.

    (LOL…)


  25. If it is not capitalised then it was not the start of a new sentence.


  26. as is the case with this one……..


  27. Rohan, I don’t need your US$100.00, but, I do feel there is at least ‘one’ good scientific composite set of evidence that overwhelmingly support creation.

    The Fossil Record!


  28. Oh… Actually, I made a mistake…

    @NS… You made four (4) errors in capitalisation in your immediate above.

    (ROTFL… (FTR, I am laughing at myself.))


  29. @Zoe… Sigh…

    I asked you a while ago what was the last book by Stephen Jay Gould that you read.

    You never answered.

    Pray might you?


  30. @ Zoe
    “Rohan, I don’t need your US$100.00, but, I do feel there is at least ‘one’ good scientific composite set of evidence that overwhelmingly support creation.”

    You still don’t get it, do you. Please point out who on this blog or thread is disputing Creation?

    The point of contention is the source of the Creation, exactly who is the Creator? Is it your God of the bible? No!

    You don’t have any trademark in the word Creation. It is not exclusive to christianity as Jahwe is. You don’t have to be a christian to believe in the Creation but you have to be a christian to believe in jahwe.

    You cannot define me as I cannot define you. You can say who you are and i will say who I am.


  31. @NS: “If it is not capitalised then it was not the start of a new sentence.

    But… The start of a new paragraph (which you have done above) demands capitalization…

    @NS:” as is the case with this one……..

    And yet, one might reasonably assume, that if one starts an individual message “not capitalised” then perhaps the writer does not understand “proper form”.

    The proper form would be: “…[language]”.

    Just putting that out there, for pedantic consideration….

    (ROTFL.)


  32. Rohan, I don’t need your US$100.00, but, I do feel there is at least ‘one’ good scientific composite set of evidence that overwhelmingly support creation.

    The Fossil Record!
    ***

    How does the fossit record support creation? You’re joking right?

    Seriously man, is everything okay with your brain?


  33. “And yet, one might reasonably assume, that if one starts an individual message “not capitalised” then perhaps the writer does not understand “proper form”.”

    ———–

    no i dont

    teach me


  34. Hi David:

    The fertility rates appear to be consistent with the UN population data, with rates in the developed countries mentioned being significantly lower than those in countries with significant Muslim populations. I could not verify the immigration statistics by religion; however, that is only because I limited my data to the UN statistics. I do not have the time to investigate the national statistics presently.

    Why the big difference in fertility rates? Perhaps the obvious answer is the 1 Billion babies aborted over the past 30 years. The Qur’an forbids abortion, and many Muslims do not engage in the practice. Therefore, in Europe, the fertility rates for Muslims would likely be higher than the non-Muslim population.


  35. Hi Not Saved:

    You wrote: “If the principal teachings are the same, and your thesis is accepted, then we should move towards some form of harmonised religious practice.”

    I do not believe that a new harmonised religion is necessary. The diverse rituals in each tradition can be useful tools in transferring cultural values to successive generations. However, each side should ensure that none of their principal teachings violate their religious texts.


  36. Grenville,

    You throw out big claims but dodge like no other.

    You have stated the “traditions” of each religion are at odds.

    You have further stated that current practice of both religions “violates” the teachings of the texts.

    So it must logically follow that if the teachings are the same, and the adherents are to follow the teachings then practices MUST change.

    I refer to these revised practices which should now be the same as a “harmonised” religion

    What are these changes that must come?

    Are the “diverse rituals” to remain the same as “useful tools” to transfer “cultural values” or, are they to change to be consistent with the holy texts?

    Which is it?

    Who decides what stays (cultural values) and what goes (violations of the text)?


  37. NS

    Good observation. In terms of a solution the holy text takes precedence. In some cases you tweak the texts and in other cases you tweak the culture… but most certainly the text are holy and therefore the culture must be explained with the context of the holy texts; that s the next approach to the solution.

    Validation by explanation.


  38. Grenville,

    You claimed “infant baptism” was a christian practice not taught by the bible.

    Does this go (for violating the text) or does it stay (cultural value)?


  39. Deuteronomy 17

    17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

    —————

    Will anyone be at risk for being stoned by a christian (following the text) or will I be safe (cultural values) ?


  40. In many islamic countries one can be put to death because of apostasy.

    Assuming you can point out that this is in “violation” of qu’ranic teachings, will this “ritual” still continue in order to preserve “cultural values”?


  41. Dear Not Saved:

    The issue is not being dodged. There is no new harmonised religion required. As previously stated, each side simply needs to follow the teachings in their religious texts.

    Each side has traditions. Many of them are supported by their text, and many are not. Just because it is unsupported is not the problem. Many of these fall into the category of “diverse rituals”. The problem arises when one or more of these unsupported teachings actually conflict with the principal text.

    Therefore, those religious traditions that are in conflict with the religious text need to be re-examined and hopefully changed. Any religious leader who is willing to examine the issue honestly, as opposed to simply trying to defend their religious tradition, should already know which teachings are in conflict with the principal text.

    Regarding infant baptism; my suggestion is that it be honestly examined by Christian religious leaders.

    You quoted a passage from Deuteronomy. You need to carefully read the Bible in its entirety to avoid misinterpreting it. Jesus clearly explained “you have heard it said to those of old …” This is the Old Testament teaching. Jesus then continued “But I say unto you …” I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with Jesus’ requirements.


  42. “You quoted a passage from Deuteronomy. You need to carefully read the Bible in its entirety to avoid misinterpreting it.”

    ——-

    No actually I dont.

    Since I am well capable of deciding whether of not to stone anyone without the need to “read it carefully” lest I “misinterpret” it.

    ———

    “Therefore, those religious traditions that are in conflict with the religious text need to be re-examined and hopefully changed.”

    such gentle understatement.


  43. “You need to carefully read the Bible in its entirety to avoid misinterpreting it. ”

    —–

    Yes, I think that is the only thing is universally agreed by everyone.

    That the bible is in fact misinterpreted.


  44. “I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with Jesus’ requirements.”

    Perhaps………….

    From the book of Matthew……

    5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    ————–

    recommended?


  45. Romans.

    1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

    ——–

    Are gays, “worthy of death”?

    Or shall we continue to spare them? (cultural tradition)


  46. @ rohan /Not saved
    *************************************
    rohan said”
    So something must have made God, a creature that would have to be infinitely more complex than the Universe to create it.

    Creationists have a huge problem believing that our universe and all its complexities could have come about without a designer.

    However, you have no problem believing that a God, who would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe he created could exist without a designer.
    ************************************
    You two are hopeless (LOL)… and Grenville is not helping. ….neither will Bush Tea I suspect, however, for the benefit of interested readers, I will respond to another of your alleged strong point above which you seem to like to flaunt.

    One needs to understand the big picture here rohan, so follow me a bit….

    The word ‘create’ has a distinct time component. It suggest that at some point in time, something that at a previous point in time did not exist, is brought into existence.

    The components and design that constitutes our world would therefore have been ‘created’ at some time- if we agree that previous to that point in time it did not exist.

    Extrapolating your logic by suggesting that ‘something must have created God’ is flawed since (as I have explained previously) God is not constrained by time.

    Time is one of the main concepts that differentiate spiritual and physical realities. In the spiritual realm, there is no such thing as yesterday or tomorrow or 1000000 years ago etc.

    Time is a constraint that was designed to deliberately limit the scope of the project called ‘life on earth’.

    The idea of the ‘creation’ of God is therefore a quite ridiculous one, even if it seems logical from a ‘sheep perspective’.

    The ‘Creator’ just is!!!

    @ Not Saved, I suggest that you desist from reading the bible. You will not be able to make any sense of it – trust me.

    The scriptures that you quoted above were speaking about the kind of character that a human will need to have cultivated in order to be deemed worthy of ‘advancement’…

    It uses the language and realities of the period to make the points

    …to someone whose whole perspective is limited to the here and now, it will understandably seem like a whole lot of foolishness to be told for example, that the prize at stake is so worthwhile that it would make complete sense to cut off your very hand and burn it – if that hand could be the cause of your failing to complete the race…

    NS /rohan….take Bush Tea’s foolish advise fellows. Forget the whole thing. Eat, drink and be merry and try to enjoy the few months left on your farm


  47. Bush Tea, congratulations on reaching the highest level of brainwashing attainable.

    You have officially suspended all disbelief, rational thought, reasoning, and applied logic.

    Anything that you can’t explain, then automatically becomes: “Just is”!

    Congrats again.

  48. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Rohan / Not Saved,

    Do you believe in miracles?


  49. @Rohan
    Why are you so touchy?

    ‘Just is’ means the same as ‘independent of time’…… or no ‘beginning’ or ‘end’, because time does not apply in that dimension…

    …take it easy Rohan. Feel free to write the Bushman off as just another lunatic. Don’t let my rantings distract you from your convictions… or grazing…LOL


  50. Bush Tea wrote:

    “Extrapolating your logic by suggesting that ’something must have created God’ is flawed”

    —–

    but dear BT, this is YOUR logic not mine (nor I doubt Rohan)

    It is YOU that says, complexity, ergo design. I say no such thing !

    0000000000000000000

    “The idea of the ‘creation’ of God is therefore a quite ridiculous one”

    —-

    Yes I agree.

    Yet we have “created” thousands of them.

    ooooooooooooooooooooo

    “I suggest that you desist from reading the bible. You will not be able to make any sense of it – trust me.”

    ———

    I could not agree with you more.

    00000000000000

    “It uses the language and realities of the period to make the points”

    ———

    Yes it certainly does.

    Perhaps it was written by people of the period?

    0000000000000

    “…to someone whose whole perspective is limited to the here and now”

    —–

    a little christian condescension, so irresistible

    000000000000000000

    “Forget the whole thing. Eat, drink and be merry and try to enjoy the few months left on your farm”

    ———–

    Trust me BT, I am way ahead on this. It is the unbeliever who surely believes time on the farm is as good as it gets !

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading