Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful. The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true. By saying it's imperfect, you are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.i'm not saying it makes sense, but thats what i have been toldYou're both correct.
to me either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is a liar
i cant see how his words could make him either
Islam goes with option 3: the Bible has been corrupted and is, therefore, inaccurate.
So?Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful.
Such as?The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true.
Which claims?By saying it's imperfect, you are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.
Yeah, you'd know.Islam collapses at the slightest examination.
The existence of God is an exclusively Jewish claim?Simple?: The Qu'ran rests on the claims of the Torah/Bible being true: El exists.
They're figures in parables used to illustrate Qur'anic teachings.His prophets are documented in the Jewish texts. Jesus exists.
The Qur'an's most basic claims have nothing to do with these figures - it's not a story book or a historical text, it's an all-encompassing code of ethics.The only sources are deemed untrustworthy. Therefore, the Qu'ran declares its most basic claims untrustworthy.
Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.
Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.
Thats an interesting point. Is He around to tell us? I mean if the scriptures are accurately telling us about Christ, then we must conclude that He is around somewhere alive and able to tell us.
The question is will us include all of society or just individual points of contact? Its interesting to ponder.
Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful. The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true. By saying it's imperfect, you are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.
Islam collapses at the slightest examination.
That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.
That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.
And I think it's wise to not just taking someones word for it. I think that's one of the things I've always liked Mormonism. Joseph wasnt going hey believe me because I said it. He was saying Hey This is what I saw, why dont you come experience the same things so you know for yourself.
And I agree that no religion holds all the answers. But I think if they are good for people they direct people in a way to find out the answers for themselves.
The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.
The existence of God is an exclusively Jewish claim?
Their historicity is irrelevant.
The Qur'an's most basic claims have nothing to do with these figures - it's not a story book or a historical text, it's an all-encompassing code of ethics.
The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.
Interesting... I have to ask though. If it's an unwritten rule how do you know about it?
[
Of course, your analysis is flawed here.
First, the Validity of the Qu'ran does not on the Bible being perfectly true.
Second, from a non-islamic view, no where in history has God ever said that that anything written about Him will be flawless/perfect
Funny. That means it's a fallible test and only a complete retard takes it as truth without supporting evidence. Now, you have argued that scriptures are no evidence and must be supported by pther sources or be deemed useless crap like any other single source one finds making wondrous claims withiout confirming evidence. Congratulations, you just debunked your own religion. In Christianity, the Bible does not claim perfection.
Yes, it is. Just like those who believed the Earth was flat after it was demonstrated to be 'round' and those who believe an unborn child is neither alive nor human.There is a reason people believe it, and it isnt because people are stupid.
The deity worshipped in most interpretations of Judaism and Christianity is, IMO, quite unlike ours. The Judeo-Christian God, a conception of Allah based on corrupted scripture, is essentially a human with superpowers; he's prone to the same petty emotions and ethnic prejudices that affect many of his followers. The claim that this conception of God is at all like the God of Islam is false, as is the claim that the Islamic religion is hinged upon the accuracy of Biblical accounts of this god's emotions and exploits.Those specific accounts and claims of the existence and actions of that specific deity are exclusive to the Abrahamic tradition and those accounts within the Torah of the actions and wishes of the Abrahamic god are exclusive to the Torah and the books which build upon it. Therefore, those religions rest upon the validity of the Torah as their basic foundation./ To declare the Torah unreliable begs the question of how one know3s the necessary claims are somehow reliable while the others are not and actually opens the door for Satanic deception
You knew exactly what I was saying, Kalam.
That isn't taught in Islam.Not when it teaches that the places of men (for instance one tribe to be 'beneath' and serve the other stems from actual events involving individual 'fathers of nations.
A relationship between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets was most likely suggested in the Qur'an to grant legitimacy to the religion in the eyes of Christians and Jews. As I've said, we humans have reached a point in our development where the legitimacy of an ethical system can be determined based on the benefits it brings to its adherents. So, once again, the historicity of the Jewish prophets is of little consequence to Islam today. The superiority of the Islamic way of life is evident to those who devote themselves to it because they derive happiness from it.Built upon claims of the existence of the Abrahamic god and acceptance of the Abrahamic prophets, of whom Muhammad is deemed a successor.
The deity worshipped in most interpretations of Judaism and Christianity is, IMO, quite unlike ours. The Judeo-Christian God, a conception of Allah based on corrupted scripture...
The same is true of most primitive religions, including the Abrahamic. If one follows history, animism became polythiesm. polytheism then led to ever-smaller pantheons as there was less need for Gods. Then, only a single god is believed to exist, followed by the emergence of meta-ethics and meta-physics before secularism, materialism, and positivism began to gain influence.is essentially a human with superpowers; he's prone to the same petty emotions and ethnic prejudices that affect many of his followers.
Christians make the same claim about the Jewish god, but the fact remains clear that they are ultimately the same. The progression is simple. Christianity and Islam are the natural progressions of Islam: one that holds the Messiah has arrived, and one that denies that Messiah and follows a new prophet.The claim that this conception of God is at all like the God of Islam is false,
Does the Qu'ran retract the story of Jacob and Essau as false? If it does not explicit deny this scripture, my point stands.That isn't taught in Islam.O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. - 49:13
Definitely, as they're all false. I, as an atheist can see that. You, as a non-Muslim in the strictest sense (much as modern neochristians are truly not Christians, as they do not follow the words attributed to Jesus) might alzsso see the falsehood of the book and be able to understand why it claims what it does. The point remains, however, that the Qu'ran as written, in its most basic form and as accepted by the majority of its most literal adherents, rests upon the validity of the Torah, as the Torah announces the god and prophets that the Qu'ran follows. Note that the Qu'ran even states that it build upon the Torah, and is intended to be interpreted as the natural progression is Judaism (it is, in effect, a Jewish sect more than a distinct religion) as El/YHWY sends Muhammad as hias next prophet, that those who have been misled and lost their way might know the will of God though his word has been defiled. Muhammad is no different from other Jewish prophets in this regard.A relationship between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets was most likely suggested in the Qur'an to grant legitimacy to the religion in the eyes of Christians and Jews.
That is a humanist (among a few other ultimately secular ideologies) perspective. The Qu'ran, just like the Torah, holds ultimately that that which is the Law of God is moral and just- not because God's law is just, but because that which is just is God's law. That is to say that God's law need not conform to any definition of righteousness, but that righteousness is defined as complying with God's will.As I've said, we humans have reached a point in our development where the legitimacy of an ethical system can be determined based on the benefits it brings to its adherents.
Not if 'Islam today' is to even remotely resemble the Islam of Muhammad and his disciples. What you are attempting is the same as the modern neochristians who attempt to ignore Old Testament law when jesus said to keep the law of the prophets and is quoted in the gospels as referring to it on a number of occasions. You're attempting to cherry pick and build a religion for yourself that complies with your own morals and standards because you are more upright and consider yourself more moral and reasonable than you ultimately know the scriptures to be- just like the modern 'christian' apologists. In attempting to distance 'modern Islam' from its roots, you are denying the very nature of islam itself in favor of your own beliefs and projecting your own standards upon the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Islam itself.So, once again, the historicity of the Jewish prophets is of little consequence to Islam today.
One could say the same of Buddhism, Toaism, Christianity, Judaism, or near any other faith or tradition. This doesn't demonstrate any 'superiority' but merely a personal usefulness to the individual.The superiority of the Islamic way of life is evident to those who devote themselves to it because they derive happiness from it.
There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...
Thus making most Jews and Christians mushrikeen whose worship is directed towards false conceptions of God. This difference is hugely significant.It claims the same god. it merely claims a different interpretation of perception thereof.
The difference between them and me being that my beliefs have a scriptural basis.It is just like the modern neochristians who hold a perception of God as loving and merciful that is totally unfounded when when looks at scripture.
Most of the prophets were claimed so that familiar parables could be used to reinforce moral teachings. Arguing that the god is the same is disingenuous at best.The god and prophets claimed, however, are the same.
Islam cannot accurately be lumped in with Judaism and Christianity in this regard.The same is true of most primitive religions, including the Abrahamic.
Secularism seems to be less of a philosophy in itself than a rejection of religious ethics. It isn't inherently superior to religion.If one follows history, animism became polythiesm. polytheism then led to ever-smaller pantheons as there was less need for Gods. Then, only a single god is believed to exist, followed by the emergence of meta-ethics and meta-physics before secularism,
The merits of which are...?materialism,
The rudiments of which had been explained by others long before Comte (who, interestingly enough, considered himself a prophet.)and positivism began to gain influence.
Christianity fully accepts the authenticity of the Torah; therefore, Biblically-conscious Christians worship the God of the OT. Muslims do not worship this conception of God because, unlike the NT, the Qur'an rejects the authenticity of the Torah in its present state and establishes itself as the sole ethical and religious authority for its adherents.Christians make the same claim about the Jewish god, but the fact remains clear that they are ultimately the same. The progression is simple.
That is overly simplistic. Christianity simply built on Judaism by tacking the Gospels, etc. onto the Torah. Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism that canonized the teachings of the Messiah and revered him over other prophets as the son of God. Islam does not built upon Judaism; it's a distinct system that merely saluted the Jews' monotheism by incorporating stories of their prophets into its teachings.Christianity and Islam are the natural progressions of Islam: one that holds the Messiah has arrived, and one that denies that Messiah and follows a new prophet.
Jacob is only mentioned passingly, and no reference is made to Esau. You are referring to the supposedly superior status of the tribes of Israel, which is rejected in the Qur'an.Does the Qu'ran retract the story of Jacob and Essau as false? If it does not explicit deny this scripture, my point stands.
We have seen the difference between neo-Christians and me - my positions are in accordance with the religion I profess, and I corroborate them with references to scripture.Definitely, as they're all false. I, as an atheist can see that. You, as a non-Muslim in the strictest sense (much as modern neochristians are truly not Christians, as they do not follow the words attributed to Jesus)
The Qur'an is not meant to be interpreted literally in all instances. Those who take all of its words at face value presumably do so in ignorance of the Qur'an's own explicit warnings against literalism.might alzsso see the falsehood of the book and be able to understand why it claims what it does. The point remains, however, that the Qu'ran as written, in its most basic form and as accepted by the majority of its most literal adherents, rests upon the validity of the Torah, as the Torah announces the god and prophets that the Qu'ran follows.
The Qur'an states that it is a retelling of previous revelations which are now unknowable, because they were replaced with the Torah and Bible in their present, corrupted forms. Hence "ut those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told" in the quoted scripture above. The "Torah" whose authenticity is affirmed by the Qur'an is clearly not the Torah as we now know it.Note that the Qu'ran even states that it build upon the Torah, and is intended to be interpreted as the natural progression is Judaism (it is, in effect, a Jewish sect more than a distinct religion) as El/YHWY sends Muhammad as hias next prophet, that those who have been misled and lost their way might know the will of God though his word has been defiled. Muhammad is no different from other Jewish prophets in this regard.
Not so. Unbelievers are enjoined to reflect and determine themselves whether Islam is authentic.That is a humanist (among a few other ultimately secular ideologies) perspective. The Qu'ran, just like the Torah, holds ultimately that that which is the Law of God is moral and just- not because God's law is just, but because that which is just is God's law.
That isn't the case at all. As I've explained, a Christian who follows the Bible must abide by the laws of the Old Testament if he's not to ignore half of his holy book and the commandments of the Messiah as recorded therein. How can Muslims be expected to abide by the Torah when Islam contends that Biblical teachings no longer exist in a true, uncorrupted form? They can't, and Islam does not expect them to. The unsuitability of all other religious doctrines was the reason for the advent of Islam.Not if 'Islam today' is to even remotely resemble the Islam of Muhammad and his disciples. What you are attempting is the same as the modern neochristians who attempt to ignore Old Testament law when jesus said to keep the law of the prophets and is quoted in the gospels as referring to it on a number of occasions. You're attempting to cherry pick and build a religion for yourself that complies with your own morals and standards because you are more upright and consider yourself more moral and reasonable than you ultimately know the scriptures to be- just like the modern 'christian' apologists.
That isn't what I'm doing at all. I favor a return of Islamic belief to its Qur'anic roots.In attempting to distance 'modern Islam' from its roots, you are denying the very nature of islam itself in favor of your own beliefs and projecting your own standards upon the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Islam itself.
The texts revered by Jews and Christians contain, if interpreted literally, indefensible savagery. The Qur'an is unlike the Bible.It is precisely because you do this- because you are better than Islam- that I can even tolerate you, much as i can only tolerate the existence of most modern neochrostians and reformist/ 'mainstream' Jews because they are better than their holy books and the roots of their faith.
Superiority is subjective. I believe that Islam is superior to other systems, you do not.One could say the same of Buddhism, Toaism, Christianity, Judaism, or near any other faith or tradition. This doesn't demonstrate any 'superiority' but merely a personal usefulness to the individual.
There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...
Thus making most Jews and Christians mushrikeen whose worship is directed towards false conceptions of God. This difference is hugely significant.
The difference between them and me being that my beliefs have a scriptural basis.
Most of the prophets were claimed so that familiar parables could be used to reinforce moral teachings. Arguing that the god is the same is disingenuous at best.
Islam cannot accurately be lumped in with Judaism and Christianity in this regard.
Secularism seems to be less of a philosophy in itself than a rejection of religious ethics. It isn't inherently superior to religion.
The merits of which are...?
.Christianity fully accepts the authenticity of the Torah; therefore, Biblically-conscious Christians worship the God of the OT. Muslims do not worship this conception of God because, unlike the NT, the Qur'an rejects the authenticity of the Torah in its present state and establishes itself as the sole ethical and religious authority for its adherents
That is overly simplistic. Christianity simply built on Judaism by tacking the Gospels, etc. onto the Torah.
Jacob is only mentioned passingly, and no reference is made to Esau. You are referring to the supposedly superior status of the tribes of Israel, which is rejected in the Qur'an.
And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations. And We revealed to Moses when his people asked him for water: Strike the rock with thy staff; so out flowed from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew its drinking-place. And We made the clouds to give shade over them and We sent to them manna and quails. Eat of the good things We have given you. And they did not do Us any harm, but they wronged themselves. ...We shall give more to the doers of good. But those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told, so We sent upon them a pestilence from heaven for their wrongdoing. - 7:160-162
We have seen the difference between neo-Christians and me - my positions are in accordance with the religion I profess, and I corroborate them with references to scripture.
The Qur'an is not meant to be interpreted literally in all instances. Those who take all of its words at face value presumably do so in ignorance of the Qur'an's own explicit warnings against literalism.
That isn't the case at all. As I've explained, a Christian who follows the Bible must abide by the laws of the Old Testament if he's not to ignore half of his holy book and the commandments of the Messiah as recorded therein.
Thereby making your earlier statement meaningless.Superiority is subjective....
