ex-preacher

SOMMS, You're comparing apples and orangatans. You are comparing the Qu'ran to the resurrection. A better comparison would be to line up the alleged miracle of one source (Mohammed's ascent into heaven) with the alleged miracle of another source (Jesus' resurrection). Or you could compare the Bible to the Qu'ran. I think if you would apply the same type of reasoning to the Bible as you do to the Qu'ran, you would realize the inadequacy of your current beliefs.

BTW, when it comes to textual preservation, the Muslims have you beat. Scholars estimate that there are 100,000 textual variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. How many in the Qu'ran? According to one source: "Fidelity to those volumes of the Qu'ranic text has been so strict and so complete that no textual variants exist, nor can any copy be made, anywhere in the Muslim world, except in full and absolute conformity with those authenticated copies."

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ex,
Yep. This is NOT however apples and orangatans.
THE miracle of Islam IS the Quran. THE miracle of Christianity IS Jesus' resurrection. When asked for proof the Muslim goes to his desk and hands you a copy of the Quran and says 'See...this is a miracle.' The Christian will hand you the Bible and say 'See...this is a historical account of what happened.'

References? If this is a quote...what is the reference? If this isn't a quote...then it is simply blind assertion...mere heresay.


Most importantly Ex, what COULD HAVE happened 2000 years ago that would give you good reason to believe TODAY?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Malaclypse the Younger

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

This is a arbitrary distinction, chosen only to arrive at your predetermined conclusion.

You are blatantly contradicting yourself. Does the Quran constitute proof or a miracle itself?

Since you yourself are not a Muslim, nor have you demenstrated even a superficial grasp of Islamic theology, your speculations about what a muslim would or would not do are implausible.

Of course, by any objective, scientific standards of historicity, the bible itself has very little credibility and appears to contain quite a lot of fiction.

You yourself are prone to blind assertion (and ludicrously incredible assertions at that). Since this behavior has been pointed out numerous times (see above), it becomes increasingly difficult to draw the charitable inference of simple ignorance.

Probably nothing. Too many important facts are lost to time to draw any really surprising conclusions from the historical facts we have today.

It is unsurprising that christians would turn for "proof" to the most inexact science with the most ambiguous facts, the weakest of possible inferences, and the necessity of imposing an arbitrary context to draw those inferences from the facts.

lpetrich

Copying is one thing, but creating is another; Muslims claim that no human beings could possibly have created the Koran -- and that the original has existed for eternity in Heaven. There is even a challenge in the Koran to create a new chapter for it that is like the existing ones. And Muslims have never accepted that anyone has ever succeeded in that. Does that mean that that task is impossible?

Here are some <a href="http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/suralikeit/" target="_blank">example imitation Koran chapters</a>, complete with the controversy they had caused.

Like Moses breaking the original tablets of the Law?

That's totally absurd. Richard Carrier, in the Library section of this site, has compared the documentation of Jesus Christ to that of Julius Caesar, and finds the second JC to be MUCH better-documented than the first one: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html</a>

I've never seen that one before.

How is that any different from accepting the Bible as the "Word of God"?

I wonder if SOMMS is willing to tell us what errors he has found in that account. When I read it, I was appalled by Jesus Christ's cursing of a certain fig tree which had not borne fruit for him when he wanted to eat.

So the Koran is wrong because it rejects Calvinism? A lot of Christianity rejects that and at least implicitly implies that one can merit salvation.

Also, Islam is free from such theological knots as the Trinity and the Incarnation -- trying to make sense out of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is pretty much an impossibility.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Malaclypse,

So completely regardless of what actually happened 2000 years ago...you've decided to not believe.

Completely regardless of what the facts may or may not be...you've decided to not believe.

Ignoring fact to support your personal beliefs.


Sad.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Selective quotation... The last resort of the intellectually dishonest. And completely stupid given that my original comments appear in this very thread.

Do you have even a shred of integrity?

It is indeed.

HRG

No. The miracle of Islam is the revelation of the Qu'ran to Mohammed.
He'll say "That's a historical account of what happened: the dictation by Gabriel".
And both will have presented exactly the same thing: a claim that a miracle has happened, not the miracle itself.
&lt;snip&gt;
Easy.

1. The first 1000 digits of pi written on a papyrus which is dated to be 2000 years old.

2. Stars which are 2000 lightyears away and suddenly rearranged themselves 2000 years ago as to spell out the first sure of the Qu'ran.

Regards,
HRG.

HRG

Since most points have already been answered, I'll concentrate on:

Why ?
Why do yo call this return to God/Allah "forcing our way back" ? It would only be "forcing" if it happened against the will of God/Allah, right ?

The message of Allah in the Qu'ran simply says: "If you do those things, you'll return into my presence, and I'll won't stop you".

IOW, the most that you can say is that Islam doesn't make sense according to Christian theology. No kidding.

Regards,
HRG.

Pitshade

It wouldn't be something that happened 2000 years ago and then stopped! Jesus is said to have performed countless miracles and also to have given his followers powers over demons and what not. In Mark 16:17-18 Jesus said And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." While some claim that these verses are a later interpolation, they are in line with events mentioned by Paul in his letters.

These things do not however "accompany those who believe." Only the Pentacostals have had faith enough to test them, with sometimes disasterous results. When has the faith of a Christian been enough to move mountains? (Matt 17:20)

Paul wrote, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness" (Gal 5:22) These gifts aren't visisble in the church fathers that assembled the Bible, either RC or Protestant versions. They certainly weren't present during the Reformation or Counter-Reformation.

On the road to Damascus, Paul had a personal vision of God, telling him the 'true path.' Later he had a dream to show him that the dietary restrictions should be overturned. Straightening out Torquemada apparently wasn't worth God's time.

So to answer your question, "what COULD HAVE happened 2000 years ago that would give you good reason to believe TODAY?" I would have to answer, "Something that didn't also stop 2000 years ago."

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Pitshade ]</p>

ex-preacher

It's a quote by Ni'Mah Isma'il Nawwab from Aramco World May/June 2000, p. 27.

Please provide any counter-quotes which specify any textual variants in the Qu'ran.


<strong> My need for evidence is fairly similar to the need exhibited by Thomas and Paul. Each required first-hand proof even though they had access to all the items you claim are so convincing. Even an apostle like Thomas didn't believe on the basis of second-hand testimony. Why should I? Even Paul was unconvinced by everything he had heard and seen, until he received a personal visit. Am I required to have more "faith" than Thomas or Paul?