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: [quote who=" reply="156" id="3057981"]Religion is not bound by any rules and can contain whatever the believer chooses. [/quote]

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?