Why did you choose Christianity over Islam?

[JSAD]

The Quran has many historical and scientific inaccuracies (which is a big deal because muhammed never performed any miracle , but muslims assert the quran is a miracle)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Because Jesus is the son of God, who performed miracles and rose form the Dead.

Mohammad was merely a man, who performed no miracles or signs from God. He was an evil man, in my estimation, but even if he were not, he taught against Jesus, and so I can place no stock in him.

 

[SalamKhan]

Alright, I guess Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani strikes me in the same way Aquinas does for you

I’m actually not that familiar with al Shahrastani yet, but being an Ismaili Shiah who espouses the idea of an unknowable & ineffable God, I presume there are things I will disagree with him on. However, I do agree with this concept of inimitability. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) also discusses a similar concept of inimitability and more:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SalamKhan]

I’m not convinced, but I accept the metaphysical possibility of what he is discussing: perfect, superhuman speech. Perhaps there is a contact point here with the concept of the Logos — the Divine Word.

It should be noted that speech is prior and superior to writing, and ideas are prior and superior to speech. Consider reading a book written by a genius, on maths, science, politics, etc. the words written in that book do not capture the totality of the author’s speech, and the words uttered by the author would not capture the totality of his/her ideas.

Now consider the writing & recitation of the Qur’an by Muslims. The Qur’an is considered a literary masterpiece, by Muslims & non-Muslims alike. It is eloquent & unique, and it teaches a whole range of religious ideas beautifully & succinctly. Our recitation & writing of the Qur’an would not capture the speech of the one who originally uttered these words, namely the Prophet Muhammad (S), and the words he uttered would not capture the totality of the truths that were revealed to him. In this way, the Qur’an is inimitable.

 

[SalamKhan]

How about a miracle I presume we both have faith in: the Resurrection. Why is this rational but the Incarnation is not?

I actually don’t believe in a purely physical resurrection.

“We have decreed among you Death; We shall not be outstripped; that We may exchange the likes of you, and make you to grow again in a fashion you know not.”- Qur’an 56:60-61

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for the taking the time to reproduce these pages. Averroes is making a lot of assertions without demonstration; in fact he says such demonstration is impossible on the last page. Contrast this with the approach of Aquinas, who first tries to “steel man” the arguments against his own, and then replies to them, both with reference to doctrine and with rational demonstrations. At least the one method tries to convince someone without simply telling them what they think is true and claiming demonstration is impossible. One approach appeals more to reason than the other.

Averroes’ contention that the Quran is superior to the Bible is an example of this simple assertiveness. Why is it superior? It seems to me that much of the content of the Quran is in fact derived from the Bible. Many books, poems, psalms, aphorisms and letters in the Bible are considered literary masterpieces by believers and freethinkers alike.

Everything asserted as the inimitability of the Quran can likewise be asserted about the Bible; and since the Bible was produced earlier, we can rationally infer that the similarity in content was copied from the earlier work, and therefore, the Quran itself is a form of imitation. This would complicate any claim that it is an inimitable source.

 

[SalamKhan]

He’s an interesting writer, no doubt, but al-Shahrastani

This is Ibn Rushd (Averroes), not al Shahrastani. I did mention this.

Why is it superior?

It is more succinct in teaching humanity about God, and its religious laws are more suitable for human happiness in preparation for the hereafter.

Everything asserted as the inimitability of the Quran can likewise be asserted about the Bible

Many books of the Bible were supposedly written by Prophets, so it shouldn’t be surprising.

This would complicate any claim that it is an inimitable source.

Keep reading my replies.

 

[Neithan]

This is Ibn Rushd (Averroes), not al Shahrastani. I did mention this.

Sorry, you did, I’ll correct my post.

Keep reading my replies.

The Quran as written does not entirely capture the revelation that produced it, is how I understood your meaning.

 

[SalamKhan]

No worries. Also, Ibn Rushd said it is impossible for all of the Bible to have changed, he did not say it is impossible to demonstrate the superiority of one religious law over the other.

 

[Neithan]

he did not say it is impossible to demonstrate the superiority of one religious law over the other.

OK, he says it would take many volumes that would not suffice for such a demonstration, and he does not attempt it, at least not here. It’s simply an asserted opinion.

 

[SalamKhan]

The Quran as written does not entirely capture the revelation that produced it, is how I understood your meaning.

The Qur’an as literary masterpiece containing religious laws for the sake of God
|
|
sign of
|
|
perfect speech & wisdom in an illiterate man
|
|
sign of
|
|
superior intellect & knowledge of the unseen
|
|
sign of
|
|
Divine Revelation from God

 

[SalamKhan]

OK, he says it would take many volumes that would not suffice for such a demonstration, and he does not attempt it, at least not here. It’s simply an asserted opinion.

He discusses how the Qur’an teaches humanity about God in the rest of the book. Take your time to compare how the Qur’an teaches humanity about God to the Bible. He does not discuss obligatory religious practices, such as prayer and fasting, but you can take your time to compare them to the obligatory religious practices set up by previous Prophets.

 

[jochoa]

I chose Catholicism because it answers the question, “Why and how did God create mankind,” better than any other personally known religion.
See CCC#355 for the why.
As for the HOW, I realized that from a combination of Catholicism’s Doctrines, Creeds, and Holy Scripture.

Some of the BACKSTORY
As Creator of everything, the greatest creation is other beings equal in capability AND morality to the Creator, AKA Eternally True Friends (See CCC#355: “…in his friendship.”)
Well, in order to create this creation, God must exist as three distinct persons, of whom each are fully the Creator of everything (See #34), and one action of the second person of the Holy Trinity is to fully become human (See #71-78)

Thanks for asking the question! May you have a blessed day!

 

[mhmtas63]

The Quran has many historical and scientific inaccuracies (which is a big deal because muhammed never performed any miracle , but muslims assert the quran is a miracle)

Muhammad performed for about thousand miracles.

 

[mhmtas63]

Because Jesus is the son of God, who performed miracles and rose form the Dead.

Mohammad was merely a man, who performed no miracles or signs from God. He was an evil man, in my estimation, but even if he were not, he taught against Jesus, and so I can place no stock in him.

Muhammad never taught against Jesus. Muhammad corrected mistakes(misinterpretations) about Jesus. For instance :

Both Bible and Qur’an say same thing but Christians say against them:

12:29 Jesus said in answer, The first is, Give ear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; Mark.

1. They disbelieve those who say, “God is the Messiah the son of Mary.” But the Messiah himself said, “O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever associates others with God, God has forbidden him Paradise, and his dwelling is the Fire. The wrongdoers have no saviors.” Al-Maidah(5)

 

[mhmtas63]

Well, in order to create this creation, God must exist as three distinct persons, of whom each are fully the Creator of everything (See #34), and one action of the second person of the Holy Trinity is to fully become human (See #71-78)

Holy Spirit is God’s action but not personality of God. God did not become man but create. That seems more logical(actual).

 

[jochoa]

Holy Spirit is God’s action but not personality of God. God did not become man but create. That seems more logical(actual).

Since you and I disagree on who God is and what are logical actions of God, let’s see if we can find some common ground. What do you say is God’s greatest creation, and why do you say it is God’s greatest creation?

I say God’s greatest creation is other beings equal in capability and morality to himself, aka eternally true friends. The reason this is God’s greatest creation is because logically, before God creates anything. God is the only thing to exist, therefore, God is also the greatest thing to exist, which makes the creation of more beings equal in capability and morality to God the greatest creation possible.

 

[mhmtas63]

I chose Catholicism because it answers the question, “Why and how did God create mankind,” better than any other personally known religion.
See CCC#355 for the why.
As for the HOW, I realized that from a combination of Catholicism’s Doctrines, Creeds, and Holy Scripture.

Some of the BACKSTORY
As Creator of everything, the greatest creation is other beings equal in capability AND morality to the Creator, AKA Eternally True Friends (See CCC#355: “…in his friendship.”)
Well, in order to create this creation, God must exist as three distinct persons, of whom each are fully the Creator of everything (See #34), and one action of the second person of the Holy Trinity is to fully become human (See #71-78)

Thanks for asking the question! May you have a blessed day!

Except doctrines there are same revelations and perhaps more in Qur’an. Qur’an do not reject Christian revelation(because revelation is from God)

 

[Niblo]

I reject Islam because Muhammad contradicted the Qur’an. The Qur’an says that there is no compulsion in religion, but Muhammad said that anyone who apostatizes must be killed.

Although the Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it authorise an earthly punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) reserves for Himself the right to judge such behaviour; and to do so on the Day of Judgement.

Some would have us believe that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) required the death sentence for apostasy. They argue that a number of aḥādīth support their claim; the best known is this:

‘Ibn Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari).

I opine that the Prophet said no such thing; and that this ḥādīth – and others like it – was fabricated to support corrupt rulers and governments; and is now being employed for that very purpose.

Here are my reasons:

The Qur’an was revealed throughout the Prophet’s life. At no time was he given permission to judge, or to execute, apostates. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was given no authority to enforce belief; no authority to kill a person simply for changing his religion. Given the restrictions placed upon him by his Lord, it is unthinkable that he would assume authority for himself – that he would usurp the Exalted’s role as sole judge in this matter. This is why I discount all aḥādīth that suggest the contrary (and by the way, I am not a Qur’anist!). My argument is supported by the fact that the Prophet did not order the death of a single person for apostasy alone.

Apostasy laws have no basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah. This is why clerics who espouse such extremist beliefs show continued reluctance to debate Muslim scholars and intellectuals on this issue.

The Qur’an upholds Freedom of Conscience in the clearest of terms. It is the duplicity – and political insecurity – of extremist clerics, and of the corrupt governments they support, that provides excuse for oppressive regimes to punish dissent.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Muhammad never taught against Jesus. Muhammad corrected mistakes(misinterpretations) about Jesus.

Mohammad was taught by heretics, and the heresies they taught him have long been denounced by the Church.

You’re never going to be able to convince me that a warlord who lived some five hundred(ish) years after Christ knew Him better than the people who followed Him.

That is why I will always consider Mohammad to be an evil anti-Christ.