Is Islam true; how do I know it is not

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicMan17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Islam does not acknowledge the Divinity of Christ nor the Divine Maternity of Our Lady.
Jesus is the Son of God and Mary is more than a pious woman - She is the Ever-Virgin Mother of the Son of God.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
The Bible is inerrant
Click to expand...
I don’t see how that is possible given that there are contradictions in the Bible.
I.
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
God appeared to Abraham Gen 18: 1
God spoke to Moses Exodus 33: 11.
But
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
1John 4: 12, 1Timothy 6: 16.
II.
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does He tempt any man.” — James 1:13

“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
III.
After discovering the empty tomb, the women told the disciples (Luke 24: 9 and Matthew 28: 8.
But according to Mark 16: 8 they did not tell anyone about it.
 
No religion can be proven true or false. Believing in a religion requires faith. But the Trinity is a convincing sign that the Bible is in fact of divine origin. No human being would invent the idea of the Trinity because it is incomprehensible; the human mind cannot fully understand it. This suggests that the idea is of divine rather than human origin. But venturing into subjective territory, I love the Catholic faith. I love it because it is not just a set of rules, it is a life centered around the Eucharist. The idea that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son, who died for our sins; and that this Paschal Mystery is repeated and represented at every Mass, is just so beautiful to me. That is something no other religion has to offer. Hope this helps 🙂
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Margaret_Ann:
The Bible is inerrant
Click to expand...
I don’t see how that is possible given that there are contradictions in the Bible.
I.
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
God appeared to Abraham Gen 18: 1
God spoke to Moses Exodus 33: 11.
But
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
1John 4: 12, 1Timothy 6: 16.
Click to expand...
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/visiblegod.php
II.
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does He tempt any man.” — James 1:13

“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
Click to expand...
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godtempt.php
III.
After discovering the empty tomb, the women told the disciples (Luke 24: 9 and Matthew 28: 8.
But according to Mark 16: 8 they did not tell anyone about it.
Click to expand...
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php
 
I must ask where you got this misunderstanding of the faith? Who taught you this?
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
JSRG:
OK I. seeing God means different things.
And II. there is a difference between tempt and test.
40.png
JSRG:
Dan Barker Easter Challenge answered
Click to expand...
III. Not sure whether the women told the disciples or told no one?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I probably should have cited more specifically where that part was answered, as it’s about halfway down the page… or just quoted it myself, as it’s a relatively simple answer:

“The major issue here is Mark’s “they told no one” – obviously not permanent (for the story is here being told) and if anything a rhetorical device meant to encourage the reader to NOT remain silent and instead spread the word.”
 
Last edited:
CatholicMan17 said:
How do I know Catholicism is the Truth and not Islam? It is very clear the gospels are inaccurate. Right now Catholicism seems false to me. …
Click to expand...
Faith is a gift from God. Hebrews 11
1 Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony.
Click to expand...
1 Cor. 15
10 But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
11 For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed.
12 Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.
14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.
16 For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
17 And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished.
Click to expand...
 
JSRG said:
if anything a rhetorical device
Click to expand...
Well, that seems like a way to get around the question.
I guess you can say the same thing about white horses in heaven. It is not an error but only a rhetorical device.
VanitasVanitatum said:
That book uses symbols.
Click to expand...
OK, the Bible remains inerrant even though it says that there are white horses in heaven and there really are no white horses in heaven.
 
Take Islam out of the equation, and simply apply certain principles to any belief system. It must have both faith and reason. Lacking one or the other, it is at the minimum in a perpetual state of imbalance. At worst, it justifies the worsrt aspects of human behavior. Murder, even genocide. Every crime imaginable.

By way of analogy, faith and reason are the unchanging laws of physics as applied to belief. They have an anchor. Solidarity, stability and solidity. Cohesiveness and compassion.

There are only two religions/belief systems on earth which are not man-made. They are related, with one teaching that it is the fulfillment of the other.
 
AlNg said:
Today Catholics are tolerant of other faiths. However, in the past, was it not true that non-believers (heretics) were put on the rack and tortured and made to confess and that if they did not repent of their non-belief they were handed over to the state to be burned alive at the stake?
Click to expand...
The point of my original post was a compare/contrast of the teachings of Christ vs Mohammed, not the actions of their followers. So yes, people have done some truly horrible things in Christ’s name, but that is a reflection of them, not the founder.
AlNg said:
Is it charitable to put a person on the rack and stretch him out and then burn him alive?
Click to expand...
Is it charitable to fly airplanes into buildings, to burn people alive in cages, to behead people on a beach, to rape non-believers? Only one of the two I was referring to gave the go ahead to do these things, both by word and example. Hint: his name starts with an M…
 
melonhead said:
Is it charitable… to behead people on a beach,…
Click to expand...
It is not but OTOH chopping off your head for heresy is a lot quicker and a lot less painful than being burned alive at the stake for heresy. With burning at the stake, many of the victims had to suffer for six hours in agony as the burning started at noon and then the heretic died at 6 PM. Six hours of being burned alive is quite painful, whereas if they chop off your head, you die right away,. It is estimated that there were thousands of heretics who were executed by burning at the stake. It was also quite humiliating as this was a public spectacle.
 
Last edited:
Stoning is pretty brutal as well. It can take hours, sometimes days, for the person to die. Let’s agree that killing people for reasons aside from just war and self defense is wrong.

Back to my original point: which founder of the two faiths gave the ok to kill people for not following his teachings, both by word and example? No hint this time…
 
CatholicMan17 said:
Yes, I did read websites. I read multiple and have talked to catholics and Muslims multiple times on different sites but it always ends the same. The Muslims are kind and explain things WITH THE BIBLE (and I read the whole chapter later) and logic. The Catholics on the other hand use easily disproven arguments and half truths. They then personally attack me and try to say I’m evil and possessed for reading the Quran in thr first place. If the bible is the word of God I should be able to have read most of the bible and the whole Quran and consider both and not be convinced the bible is a collection of archaic texts and the Qur’an is one immaculate text
Click to expand...
The Christian equivalent of Islam’s Qur’an is not the Bible itself (though the Bible is inerrant), but Christ. This is because, if you are to study the history of Islam’s development, you would find out that, in what was considered to be orthodox Islam, the words of the Qur’an that was passed down from God to Jibril and to Muhammed were not created.

To be fair to the Muslims, this is akin to the Eastern Orthodox Essence-Energy distinction. But, at least in Sunni Islam, there is an accepted distinction in God. If you are to study the early Church Fathers such as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others, you would discover that the Trinity is simply the standardized formulation of what was known in the early Church:

• There is only one God who is the source of all created and uncreated (this will later be known as God the Father).

• But even this one God must have His Word and His Spirit, uncreated and without beginning nor end, but still having God as Their one source (just as the brightness of a light has its source in the light’s origin point; yet if the light is without beginning, then both the light’s origin point and its brightness are eternal).

• Both the Word and Spirit differ from God the Father because both have Their origin from Him.

• It would be nonsense for God and these Two to be considered three gods because:
  • unlike polytheism, all Three have one mind and one will (unlike two human persons and unlike two angelic persons).
  • their differences from one another is in how they exist (ie the Father begets the Word and spirates the Spirit, the Word (Son) is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
And you still have to deal with the problem of history: Christ died on the Cross and the consensus of even secular historians is, to me, conceding too much to the Christian argument for the Resurrection as compared to both Judaism and Islam. Mohammed did not surpass this miracle.
 
Last edited:
melonhead said:
Is it charitable to fly airplanes into buildings, to burn people alive in cages, to behead people on a beach, to rape non-believers? Only one of the two I was referring to gave the go ahead to do these things, both by word and example. Hint: his name starts with an M…
Click to expand...
Where in the Qur’an does it say that it’s ok to murder anyone; to burn anyone alive; or to rape anyone?
 
melonhead said:
Back to my original point: which founder of the two faiths gave the ok to kill people for not following his teachings,
Click to expand...
Again, where in the Qur’an does it say that it’s ok to kill anyone for not following it’s teachings?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top