Searching for proof of God/Islam - Tell me why I'm wrong

[Tumah]

I don't understand your comments.

It means you shouldn't point fingers when you're suffering from the same problem.

 

[serp777]

Are you referring to the letter that a a man wrote to his son about the Jews (not the Romans) killing one of their own?
Look, you've been living by this false doctrine called the NT, that only leads to hell. I'm just trying to help bring you back to Almighty G-d.

So, you like the old testament then? Are you going to go pick up a few slaves and then beat them according to guidelines in the OT?

 

[Tumah]

So, you like the old testament then? Are you going to go pick up a few slaves and then beat them according to guidelines in the OT?

Since I'm not commanded to own slaves or to beat them, no, I don't see why I'd randomly do that. Had I been, then I assume I would at least try to do it once in my life.

 

[rusra02]

Pre dating doesn't mean the Quran was not from God.

Krishna predates Christ and says even more astounding things and makes even greater claims than Jesus. Does that mean Jesus is not from God? One could also say that Krishna predates Christ and is therefore truer? look at what Krishna said in the Hindu Holy Book the Bhagavad Gita.

Around 300 BC we read words identical to Christ's except around 300 years earlier. Does that mean Krishna is greater because He spoke these words first????? Christ is not the only One to say He was unique. Krishna also claimed to be the beginning and the end and Lord as well.

Krishna

Bhagavad-Gita

I am the father and the mother of this universe,

I am the goal, the Comforter, the
Lord,

I am the beginning and the end and also the middle,

as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.

If pre dating is used as a pretext to determine truth then Krishna claimed to be Supreme Lord before Jesus even existed.

It is true mere age alone does not prove the Holy Scriptures are inspired by the true God. Still, I would expect the true God would provide guidance to mankind early in history.
Jesus did not make the claims you ascribe to him, previously having been ascribed to Krishna. Further, Jesus life and ministry prove his claim to be the Messiah, IMO. Krishna and other false gods cannot back up their vainglorious claims.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is true mere age alone does not prove the Holy Scriptures are inspired by the true God. Still, I would expect the true God would provide guidance to mankind early in history.
Jesus did not make the claims you ascribe to him, previously having been ascribed to Krishna. Further, Jesus life and ministry prove his claim to be the Messiah, IMO. Krishna and other false gods cannot back up their vainglorious claims.

There are things like I am the beginning and the end and the Father and I are one which both show up in both Faiths.

Krishna taught spiritual life and virtues like Christ. Both taught truth. Both therefore are true.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Muhammad was perfect like Jesus.

Far from it. Muhammad led military campaigns against the city-states of Arabia to force them to adopt his new religion and he had people who mocked him killed. Jesus, on the other hand, was a pacifist.

1.7 billion people today believe in Jesus because of Muhammad. Muhammad was the greatest Teacher of Christ humanity has ever known.

I think most people that Jesus was the greatest teacher of Jesus humanity has ever known.

All that Muhammad rejected were the false interpretations Christians have about the Bible and Jesus. There are over 3,000 sects of Christianity today with 3,000 different interpretations of the Bible which all contradict one another.

He actually rewrote Jesus' character, denying the Messianic aspects and relegating him to the role of a prophet.

Muhammad did no wrong

Aside from having a number of people murdered in cold blood and exterminating an entire tribe, among other things. And before anyone does the lazy option of dismissing this source out of hand as Islamophobic, look at the sources list on the right of the table. There are Quran verses there supporting the claims. There's also the fact he forced his beliefs on other cities and converted entire cities under threat of arms. Mecca and Ta'if being two notable examples.

but His followers, like Christians have committed many atrocities. So let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Jerusalem 1099 - praise given to Christ after the massacre of innocent women and even babies in Jerusalem . My case is that what the followers have done does not mean Christ or Muhammad are responsible.

Right. Let's look at what both Jesus & Muhammad did while they were both alive and compare the two.

 

[rusra02]

There are things like I am the beginning and the end and the Father and I are one which both show up in both Faiths.

Krishna taught spiritual life and virtues like Christ. Both taught truth. Both therefore are true.

If the quotes ascribed to Krishna by you are correct, these claims by Krishna are not true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Far from it. Muhammad led military campaigns against the city-states of Arabia to force them to adopt his new religion and he had people who mocked him killed. Jesus, on the other hand, was a pacifist.




I think most people that Jesus was the greatest teacher of Jesus humanity has ever known.




He actually rewrote Jesus' character, denying the Messianic aspects and relegating him to the role of a prophet.




Aside from having a number of people murdered in cold blood and exterminating an entire tribe, among other things. And before anyone does the lazy option of dismissing this source out of hand as Islamophobic, look at the sources list on the right of the table. There are Quran verses there supporting the claims. There's also the fact he forced his beliefs on other cities and converted entire cities under threat of arms. Mecca and Ta'if being two notable examples.


Right. Let's look at what both Jesus & Muhammad did while they were both alive and compare the two.

Thank you!

We say They were both sent by the same God to different people with different Missions. Christ was sent to the Jews and Muhammad to the Arabs. Both societies were in a state of ungodliness and corruption and in Muhammad's case savagery was the norm.

Christ primarily taught the individual while Muhammad's focus was community. Christ didn't bring a Book in His time but Muhammad brought the Quran over a 23 year period with laws and teachings and the first constitution for a religious based society.

Their Missions were complimentary not in competition with each other. Muhammad taught to accept Christ and all the prophets before as well as the new social teachings.

While Christ focused on love one another Muhammad focused on belief in One God as the Meccans worshipped 360 idols so Muhammad abolished idolatry which Christ was against too.

Christ taught the individual and said if you were smote on the left cheek to offer the right. But in His time families and women and children were not being persecuted.

Muhammad and Muslims were persecuted for 13 years after which, when Muhammad had enough followers He taught them self defense not offense was permissible but only if attacked first (see Quran Sura 2:190.) Muhammad's Faith was the first religion to teach freedom of religion and Muslims had to defend themselves or have their rights to freedom of religion, along with their religion destroyed. We would call it genocide today what the Meccans tried to do, Muhammad had no choice but to defend the innocent women and children. Christ was against injustice also.

Christ foretold another One to come after Him. Muhammad also foretold another One but Muslims have misunderstood this.

Christians rely on traditions and interpretations which has split them and Muslims also rely on Hadiths or sayings of Muhammad which are also traditions and have split them also.

But all Christians accept Christ and the Bible while Muslims accept the Old and New Testament and the Quran as well as Christ. Christians do not accept Muhammad but Muslims cannot be Muslims without accepting Christ.

This is only a very small summary. If we can cut through the man made dogmas we can accept both. I accept both Faiths but not the interpretations of their followers as this is where they've gone wrong.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

His grave is with us to this day.

I'm pretty sure, but correct me if I'm wrong, Jesus' tomb is on a tourism list. What does that prove?

5. Muhammad cannot raise the dead, nor can any Muslim or non-Muslim. No one raises the dead.

Know CPR?

Well, you can show me Mohammed's tomb. But you can't show me the remains of Jesus.

I can show you many tombs without bodies in them anymore. That means they're all gods?

It's a huge mistake to base the truth of Christ on an empty tomb because if one day they found it then Christians would all lose their Faith

They would claim it's a Satan-owned forgery. They have already got a response for such things.

My zeal for my savior is my bond.

I question that it is for your savior at all. Your main gripe is that Muhammad (in your eyes) claimed the apostles were lying. That has nothing to do with Jesus, but some normal guys. Islam has a point that Christianity didn't listen all that much to Jesus.

All Christians suffer for their faith and I am no better or different from those who have been put to death for their faith in Christ.

Everyone who has ever been martyred (and I loathe martyrdom for the self-righteous delusion that it really is) should be offended you think being disagreed with is the same as torture and death.

I already have the 4 testimonies in the New Testament.

Why do you need 4 testimonies? Why can't one do? Why not 12, since there were 12 apostles (officially, anyway)?

I am convinced the Bible is the only true written communication from God to mankind. The complete Bible predates the Quran by hundreds of years, and parts of the Bible were written about 2,000 years before the Quran.

The Bible quotes other books that were of God that we don't have, so we don't HAVE a "complete Bible" in the first place.

Further, Jesus life and ministry prove his claim to be the Messiah, IMO. Krishna and other false gods cannot back up their vainglorious claims.

You can prove Jesus walked on water and calmed a storm but not that Kid Krishna protected a village by lifting a mountain that even Jesus you should be able to do if you have a small amount of faith?

Jesus, on the other hand, was a pacifist.

Jesus chased out some tourists with a bullwhip. Had Jesus' ministry gone on longer ...

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is a great forum with awesome people and I learn from all of you and thank you all for being so patient with me. For me it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not or are religious or an atheist. You still remain my fellow human and that makes me feel privileged to be here sharing our understandings. Thanks for a great experience everyone! If you lived nearby I'd invite you all over for tea and cake.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm not a fan of cake, but I'll take the tea.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm not a fan of cake, but I'll take the tea.

You have so much wisdom. You make so much sense in what you say.

 

[Prestor John]

It means you shouldn't point fingers when you're suffering from the same problem.

Who said that I am?

 

[Prestor John]

Let me clarify some things.

I believe the Quran and Torah and Gospels are the Word of God.

I do not follow or believe the interpretations of the Torah the Jews have, the interpretation of the Gospels Christians may have or the interpretation of the Quran Muslim scholars may have.

I follow the Word of God alone and I see God and the Holy Spirit in Moses and the Torah, Jesus and the Gospels and Muhammad and the Quran.

The interpretations placed on these Holy Books by their followers mean absolutely nothing to me.

Then how would you interpret the Gospel? What is the "good news" to you?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then how would you interpret the Gospel? What is the "good news" to you?

The Bible forbids me to interpret the prophetic things.


Only the spiritual laws and teachings like loving one another unconditionally and being virtuous are open for me so I can learn to live a virtuous life.

 

[Prestor John]

The Bible forbids me to interpret the prophetic things.


Only the spiritual laws and teachings like loving one another unconditionally and being virtuous are open for me so I can learn to live a virtuous life.

That is what you believe the Gospel is?

More importantly, is that what Mohammad considers to be the Gospel? Loving one another unconditionally and virtuous living?

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is what you believe the Gospel is?

More importantly, is that what Mohammad considers to be the Gospel? Loving one another unconditionally and virtuous living?

Every Word of the Bible the Quran supports unconditionally.

It only does not support individual interpretations.

 

[Prestor John]

Every Word of the Bible the Quran supports unconditionally.

It only does not support individual interpretations.

Mohammad only believes in the Bible as long as it agrees with his beliefs?

 

[Arkannine21]

Well I question your reasoning for declaring that he can’t have been suffering some form of mental illness – I don’t think you can make such a definitive assertion on the basis of the limited evidence, especially as (presumably) a layman as far as mental health is concerned.

If he had experienced something, it’s perfectly possible that it wasn’t what he believe it to be – don’t underestimate the human mind’s ability to go to extreme lengths to rationalise our experiences and observations. It could have been a natural event he misinterpreted or intervention by some outside party that wouldn’t be identified as “supernatural” (aliens, time-travellers etc. – no more believable, just not “supernatural”). Again, my point is that you can’t make definitive declarations on this.

Which is why your conclusions strikes me as a reason to not follow Islam but to investigate this “supernatural” element independently of the Islamic beliefs build upon it.

After all, as someone else pointed out, there are various other religious beliefs and incidents that would meet similar criteria for yours. Maybe there is something out there but the only thing we know from these religious beliefs is that they’re not in any kind of agreement as to what it might be. If one person tells you it’s sunny but another tells you it’s raining, you don’t randomly pick one to trust. You look out of the window to see for yourself.

Hi Honest Joe,

Thanks again for the response, and apologies for my tardy reply.

1. I take your point that it's impossible to prove with 100% certainty that Muhammed didn't suffer from mental health issues, or that he genuinely believed in God, or that Muhammed even existed.

It's all a matter of where you set your threshold for belief. For example, it's also impossible to prove 100% that Barack Obama is real - even if you met him in real life, it might be your imagination playing tricks on you. But it would be kind of ridiculous, on the basis of the evidence, to conclude that.

The best option I could find to judge whether or not Muhammed was crazy was to look at the Qur'an & reports of his life, and see whether or not that matched up with the normal characteristics of a crazy person. My views on that are summarised in point 4 of the original post, and my conclusion was that it's very unlikely that his Qur'anic revelations were a result of mental health issues.

It would be great to hear your thoughts on whether or not point 4 of my original post successfully makes the case that Muhammed was very unlikely to be crazy. If not, I'd really (genuinely) appreciate your views on why it doesn't prove he wasn't crazy, with your alternative explanation.

2. I'd also really appreciate your views on whether or not you agree with the rationale behind my assertion that Muhammed genuinely believed in what he said (see point 3 of my original post). Is my tree of potential motives comprehensive? Do you think other motives were more likely?

3. I used the word 'supernatural' incorrectly - I guess what I really meant is 'external intervention'. It doesn't matter if you call them angels or aliens, the point is that Muhammed seems to have believed that he received the Qur'an from someone calling himself the angel Gabriel. By the way, angels would be aliens since they aren't from this planet.

4. I take your point on the human mind's ability to rationalise our observations. However, two points: a) this kind of 'supernatural' experience is normally a one-off type of event, not repeated many times over >20 years, and b) this is not a hallucination & therefore shouldn't be as well developed as what Muhammed claims to have seen (i.e. meeting Gabriel, physical contact, etc.)

5. On your point about other faiths meeting the same criteria, I'm assuming you are referring to the post about Mormonism. I still haven't had time to look at that and probably won't till the weekend. Will try to look into it then & respond here.

Finally, I'm not an expert in mental health, but I am a medical doctor by background. So I've seen my fair share of mental health problems. I know for certain that the average schizophrenic/manic/bipolar patient that walks in couldn't ever conceivably write something like a world-renowned holy book.

 

[Arkannine21]

1) Conditions are insufficient.


2) What is supernatural? Why is something supernatural rather than simply natural?

1. I do not see a need for a Qur'an.
2. I see a need for people to accept the finality of death.
3. Muhammad argues for an afterlife, despite the plain and obvious condition of death. This is something you should not take someone's word for no matter how much you want to believe it.
4. Muhammad makes promises that people should make sacrifices today and serve his god Allah today in exchange for things in an afterlife. This is a bad sign.
5. Muhammad cannot raise the dead, nor can any Muslim or non-Muslim. No one raises the dead.
6. People just die whether or not there is God. We are destined for death with the plain function of living and then dying. Our death is part of what we are. We do not like it, but we still die. Each of us has lost loved ones to the grave, and there they are.
7. There are billions of dead people, and their corpses have never come back to life. Despite all requests, wishes and hopes they remain dead.
8. People lie well. Muhammad is a person, therefore he has the ability to lie well.
9. People are all potential suckers. You are a person, and therefore you are a potential sucker.
10. Liars take advantage of suckers. Suckers let ourselves be taken advantage of. This happens. Accept it. That's why you shouldn't trust a man who makes promises about an afterlife in exchange for the right to tell you what to do with your life now.

Thanks for the reply. Interesting points.

Would be great to understand more about point 2, "I see a need for people to accept the finality of death". What is the reasoning behind this? My suspicion is that one of your underlying assumptions is that God does not exist. That makes it a circular argument.

Also, since you've quoted Sleepy, I'll also respond to that. See my previous post re: supernatural. Would be great to understand what you mean by 'conditions are insufficient.' The objective isn't to make a watertight logical case, since that's only actually possible with theoretical/philosophical arguments. The idea is to evaluate the likelihood of Islam being true. Would be great to get your assessment in that light.