11–20 of 36 posts
Wasn't it decided by committee like all important decisions [0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
>If Jesus had not been declared God by his followers, his followers would've remained a sect within Judaism — a small Jewish sect, and if that was the case it would not have attracted a large number of gentiles. It's interesting he raises that point because in Islam Jesus is considered a prophet and explicitly not God and in doing so tries to establish the argument that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all the sam…
Islam maintains that it is the religion of all the messengers (read: Submission). Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were all Muslims (Submitters). On a side note, there exists at least one sect of Christianity that does not believe in Jesus as God.
It's interesting to note that Muhammad also taught that a lot of other historical figures were prophets too, e.g. Alexander the Great.
>If Jesus had not been declared God by his followers, his followers would've remained a sect within Judaism — a small Jewish sect, and if that was the case it would not have attracted a large number of gentiles. It's interesting he raises that point because in Islam Jesus is considered a prophet and explicitly not God and in doing so tries to establish the argument that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all the sam…
Islam maintains that it is the religion of all the messengers (read: Submission). Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were all Muslims (Submitters). On a side note, there exists at least one sect of Christianity that does not believe in Jesus as God.
If you question, for example, the diametrically opposite positions of Jesus and muhammad (one of these guys fought his followers to prevent them from defending his own life, the other massacred at least 10000 people, assembled armies and basically fought wars, and fought wars, and fought wars, until he died in a military encampment (google "Khaybar" for example), so they don't agree on much).
Here is an example that does not really need further explanation to illustrate that they were VERY different :
Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) who had committed
adultery. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits
adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and
their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought
it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse
pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was
at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and
there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about
both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting
her (the Jewess) with his body.
(incidentally can a muslim here answer me one question : who is the morally better person in the above story ? the prophet ? Or the Jew ? Because we all know the answer to that question)
Jesus made the exact same judgement, only the story differs a LOT :
Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat
down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the
act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”. They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against
him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said,
“All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”. Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. When the
accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd
with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”.
“No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
Of course, this is objectively comparing religions, and sadly, like any other objective comparison, one of them clearly emerges as superior. This will likely get downvoted. Is this racist ? I don't know, I don't understand how it could possibly be racist, but most people seem to think it is.
Please keep in mind that muslims don't really believe in this stuff. What they do believe in is their group, their family and the consequences of saying anything different. It is childish and naive to expect an adherent of a religion that is not based on rationality to respond to this in any coherent way to stuff like this, and they won't. Please note that islam is based on rhetoric and conquest, not on rational argument.
Also I'm not trying to attack islam here (even though I will admit I do not like islam at all). It's obvious that in a Christian country with laws based on canon law, obviously Christianity is going to match common morals and other religions are not going to match "everyday" morality. That happens in a lot of cases. I'm attempting to illustrate an objective difference. If I wanted to do attack it, I'd use very different verses, illustrating how and when "allah's revelations" were sent down, like pointing out that allah "sent down" the verses allowing the prophet more wives 5 seconds after muhammad commented on the beauty of a woman, after one of his companions pointed out he already had 4 wives.
Weird that JC in on HN. Completely odd premise to me. I wasn't aware people discounted the gospel of John when considering this. Here are some of basics as I understand them (as a christian): * OT prophecies refer to Jesus as "God with us" and "mighty God" [1][2] * He said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me ..." [3] * He said "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also." [3] * He said "I and th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Islam maintains that it is the religion of all the messengers (read: Submission). Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were all Muslims (Submitters). On a side note, there exists at least one sect of Christianity that does not believe in Jesus as God.
In Muhammad's time there were quite a few sects that denied Jesus was God. He would have been familiar with the concept before he started getting revelations. It's interesting to note that Muhammad also taught that a lot of other historical figures were prophets too, e.g. Alexander the Great.
Citation needed. This is a fallacy that has been spread unfortunately.
>If Jesus had not been declared God by his followers, his followers would've remained a sect within Judaism — a small Jewish sect, and if that was the case it would not have attracted a large number of gentiles. It's interesting he raises that point because in Islam Jesus is considered a prophet and explicitly not God and in doing so tries to establish the argument that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all the sam…
Islam is a really bad example, since it's an extremely late entry in the whole history of God, as such it is not a good basis to study the God concept at all. If you want to scientifically validate the existence of an eternal God it makes a lot of sense to go for the oldest sources, and the oldest sources are the pentateugh (the first 5 books of the bible). There is precious little evidence the quran as a book even e…
Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim.
> The older qurans aren't even in Arabic, they're kufic (which is a dialect of Arameic, and "just happens" to be the dialect a significant part of the bible is written in.
Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I ever hear such claim. Quran 12:2 and 39:28 are enough to disprove that. Not to mention all the manuscripts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Islam is a really bad example, since it's an extremely late entry in the whole history of God, as such it is not a good basis to study the God concept at all. If you want to scientifically validate the existence of an eternal God it makes a lot of sense to go for the oldest sources, and the oldest sources are the pentateugh (the first 5 books of the bible). There is precious little evidence the quran as a book even e…
> There is precious little evidence the quran as a book even existed before the 19th century... Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. > The older qurans aren't even in Arabic, they're kufic (which is a dialect of Arameic, and "just happens" to be the dialect a significant part of the bible is written…
My comment was written today, yet talks about things older than 2 centuries. How exactly does mentioning historical events prove the age (aside from maximum age ?).
> Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I ever hear such claim. Quran 12:2 and 39:28 are enough to disprove that. Not to mention all the manuscripts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic is a good basic introduction. Please note that obviously the quran itself is not a valid source on the origin of the quran, for obvious reasons.
Your arguments are about as solid as claiming Star Wars was written in a galaxy far, far away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Muhammad's time there were quite a few sects that denied Jesus was God. He would have been familiar with the concept before he started getting revelations. It's interesting to note that Muhammad also taught that a lot of other historical figures were prophets too, e.g. Alexander the Great.
> e.g. Alexander the Great. Citation needed. This is a fallacy that has been spread unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> e.g. Alexander the Great. Citation needed. This is a fallacy that has been spread unfortunately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Qura...
Furthermore, note that even what is mentioned on that page is speculation from certain Islamic scholars. There is absolutely no authentic Hadith (or even non-authentic as far as I know) that mentions Alexander by name. All that is mentioned in the Quran is the "Two-Horned One", which could be Cyrus as mentioned on the wikipedia page, or it could be someone else completely.
One last point, the person in question here was never declared to be a prophet in the Quran as you claimed, but just a righteous king and person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is precious little evidence the quran as a book even existed before the 19th century... Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. > The older qurans aren't even in Arabic, they're kufic (which is a dialect of Arameic, and "just happens" to be the dialect a significant part of the bible is written…
> Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. My comment was written today, yet talks about things older than 2 centuries. How exactly does mentioning historical events prove the age (aside from maximum age ?). > Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I…
The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. It would not be possible to achieve the same effect by translating from one language (Aramaic) to another (Arabic) as you are claiming. If you were to listen to recitation of the Quran that might deliver a clearer picture, even if you do not have a command over the language. I'm talking about how certain Ayat ("verses") sound (phonetically) -- this effect is hard to preserve across languages for a small body of text, let alone an entire book. (Example: http://tanzil.net/#100:1)