Why did you choose Christianity over Islam?

[SalamKhan]

His contention was that the crucifixion didn’t happen. By your own admission that statement is not necessarily true, so my rebuttal stands.

You attributed his position directly to the Prophet (S). When his position is just an interpretation. This is what I was responding to.

They’re are driven by an agenda, not an honest examination of the historical evidence

Everyone has a bias, they will claim your ‘honest examination’ is driven by your conviction of the Gospel accounts. And no, not all of them deny Jesus’ existence.

Protestants are not the Church Christ founded.

Neither is the Catholic Church.

What’s more, there are very few groups who deny the Resurrection.

Who said Protestants deny the resurrection? They deny that Thomas stuck his finger into Jesus’ wounds.

No, non-Muslim scholars have shown that there were a handful of instances where Muslim conquerors were welcomed. That’s a far cry from disproving the long, bloody history of Muslim conquest through the Holy Land.

Yeah, you actually haven’t seen that post of mine on the spread of Islam, even though you claimed you did. One of the books discusses how conversion to Islam didn’t correspond to Muslim conquests, in fact conversion rapidly rose three centuries after the conquests.

Since you seem to be unaware of them

Dude, I know about them. The sun at Fatima, stigmata, all of that stuff. I was obsessed with that stuff back when I was an ex-Muslim.

Everything I’ve said about him comes from his own biographies, and the work of historians.

As I’ve stated on the previous thread:

In fact, the scholars actually distrusted the early biographers in general, not just Ibn Ishaq. Most of the time the early biographers just collected information without testing it, as admitted by the historian al Tabari.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You attributed his position directly to the Prophet (S). When his position is just an interpretation. This is what I was responding to.

Valid point, though I was under the impression that Mohammad himself denied the Crucifixion.

Neither is the Catholic Church.

I would just love to see you try to prove that. I could use a good laugh.

Who said Protestants deny the resurrection? They deny that Thomas stuck his finger into Jesus’ wounds.

Ultimately a matter of semantics. Even if Thomas didn’t put his finger in the wound, that doesn’t change that the wound was observed.

Yeah, you actually haven’t seen that post of mine on the spread of Islam, even though you claimed you did. One of the books discusses how conversion to Islam didn’t correspond to Muslim conquests, in fact conversion rapidly rose three centuries after the conquests.

Yeah nope, I saw it, and I’ve seen plenty else that says the opposite. It’s a he-said she-said situation. I still see substantially more historical evidence that shows the spread of Islam to be violent, and so that is what I will continue to believe.

I was obsessed with that stuff back when I was an ex-Muslim.

Then how could you possibly say that our accounts of miracles are just word of mouth and ancient history. There is literally photographic and scientific evidence. Compare that to the 0 miracles in Islam, and there’s a pretty big gulf.

In fact, the scholars actually distrusted the early biographers in general, not just Ibn Ishaq. Most of the time the early biographers just collected information without testing it, as admitted by the historian al Tabari.

And, as I retorted, the fact that they don’t accept it doesn’t actually mean it didn’t happen. I’m not sure how I can say that any clearer. What’s more, none of the points I made that was in response to actually have any bearing on my argument. They were just additional evidence.

 

[SalamKhan]

I would just love to see you try to prove that. I could use a good laugh.

Pffft. Don’t need to, Protestant & Orthodox patristic scholars have done enough work on that.

Then how could you possibly say that our accounts of miracles are just word of mouth and ancient history.

I’m talking about the miracles of the Bible, which is ultimately what matters the most.

Besides, people aren’t gonna take the prophecies of La Salette over Vatican II, are they? Pope John XXIII actually disparagingly referred to the seers of Fatima as ‘prophets of doom’. And you’re asking me how can I dismiss them, when many Catholics dismiss them anyway on account of their messages?

Compare that to the 0 miracles in Islam, and there’s a pretty big gulf.

Many Muslim mystics claim to have performed miracles all the time.. Again, your knowledge is miniscule.

And, as I retorted, the fact that they don’t accept it doesn’t actually mean it didn’t happen.

Then the fact that you accept the Gospels, doesn’t make them true either.

 

[EZweber]

But I do trust the Qur’an over the Gospels regardless.

Why? I’m talking about the events in the life of Christ. Why would you trust a source written so many centuries later over one that is contemporary?

 

[SalamKhan]

Why? I’m talking about the events in the life of Christ. Why would you trust a source written so many centuries later over one that is contemporary?

1. I trust that the Qur’an is the divine word of God.
2. The Gospels aren’t contemporary anyway, but written one or two generations after Jesus’ crucifixion.
3. Modern scholarship casts doubt on whether the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.

To be honest, I don’t care much for their (the Prophets) lives as I do for their teachings.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m talking about the miracles of the Bible, which is ultimately what matters the most.

Actually, it’s really not. If there is evidence of a continuous line of miracles still occurring in the world today, more than just subjective experiences and so-called sooth-saying like your Karamts, then that is a very strong indicator of the presence of God. There is documented, verifiable evidence that the law of nature are being broken a Lourdes, impossible healings and other such things. To simply dismiss that as unimportant is the height of prideful arrogance and a willful obtuseness towards God working in the world today.

Also, calling them “prophets of doom” is not disparaging them. They literally foretold the second world war. That is a prophecy of doom and destruction.

Then the fact that you accept the Gospels, doesn’t make them true either.

Never said it did. However, there is substantial, extra-biblical evidence for the historicity; far more than any other historical work, which gives them credence. At the end of the day though, you are correct, it is a matter of faith. I’ve never really tried to claim otherwise.

 

[SalamKhan]

If there is evidence of a continuous line of miracles still occurring in the world today

I don’t care. Family members tell me about supernatural happenings to them all the time. One family member’s child who has cerebral palsy (still does) couldn’t walk, but now can walk after going to pilgrimage in Makkah. Inspiring stories, but ultimately don’t make a difference to my worldviews anymore. Ask the Protestants or Orthodox Christians why they don’t accept your miracles either, and stop bothering Muslims about miracles. Most Muslims believe that Dajjal will perform signs and wonders, but if it leads away from Tawhid, the miracles mean nothing.

Also, calling them “prophets of doom” is not disparaging them.

“We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand.”

Source- Library : Opening Address To the Council | Catholic Culture

They literally foretold the second world war.

That prophecy was released after WWII had already begun. Just like how the third secret was released after the attempted assasination of Pope John Paul II already happened.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t care. Family members tell me about supernatural happenings to them all the time. One family member’s child who has cerebral palsy (still does) couldn’t walk, but now can walk after going to pilgrimage in Makkah. Inspiring stories, but ultimately don’t make a difference to my worldviews anymore. Ask the Protestants or Orthodox Christians why they don’t accept your miracles either, and stop bothering Muslims about miracles. Most Muslims believe that Dajjal will perform signs and wonders, but if it leads away from Tawhid, the miracles mean nothing.

Well, enjoy your ignorance, I guess. It is sad that you would deny such bountiful evidence of God’s love and work in the world simply because it doesn’t align with what you’ve accepted as your faith, but whatever, it’s ultimately your loss, not mine.

“We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand.”

Yup, and he was proven to be wrong. Big deal. No one really wants to admit that their world is headed towards violence and destruction.

That prophecy was released after WWII already happened. Just like how the third secret was released after the attempted assasination of Pope John Paul II already happened.

Released yes, but the third secret was written down in 1957, well before the assassination attempt. As for whether or not you believe the first two, I don’t really care. You are unwilling to consider the possibility that they are true, and so you assume they lied. It is impossible for me to provide evidence to the contrary, so I won’t bother trying.

 

[CatholicSooner]

1. I trust that the Qur’an is the divine word of God.

Why do you believe this?

 

[SalamKhan]

There is documented, verifiable evidence that the law of nature are being broken a Lourdes, impossible healings and other such things.

When I was an ex-Muslim, I said that to an atheist, and he just asked me whether amputees had been healed.

Well, enjoy your ignorance, I guess. It is sad that you would deny such bountiful evidence of God’s love and work in the world simply because it doesn’t align with what you’ve accepted as your faith, but whatever, it’s ultimately your loss, not mine.

People of many different religions claim to have miracles. At least the miracles of Orthodox Christians aren’t as sombre or gruesome as yours i.e. stigmata. No wonder they claim yours to be demonic in origin. God is beautiful, but many of your miracles seem to have association with doom & gloom.

Released yes, but the third secret was written down in 1957, well before the assassination attempt.

So what is the third secret? The assasination attempt? Or a great apostasy as claimed by Traditionalist circles?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

When I was an ex-Muslim, I said that to an atheist, and he just asked me whether amputees had been healed.

I’m not aware of an amputee healing at Lourdes, but there is a history of them.

https://churchpop.com/2016/01/12/god-cured-amputee-the-astonishing-miracle-of-calanda/

Here is a list of verified medical healing from Lourdes:
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

God is beautiful, but many of your miracles seem to have association with doom & gloom.

You see is as gross, we see it as beautiful. Stigmatics literally embrace the wounds of our lord and savior, and take on his suffering for the healing of the world. I understand why someone on the outside would see that as macabre, but to us it is beautiful.

So what is the third secret? The assasination attempt? Or a great apostasy as claimed by Traditionalist circles?

I personally see it as foretelling a great martyrdom to come, which seems to be happening nowadays.

 

[SalamKhan]

I’m not aware of an amputee healing at Lourdes, but there is a history of them.

When God Cured an Amputee: The Astonishing Miracle of Calanda |

That’s quite some time ago. There are Hadiths where the Prophet (S) healed amputees.

Here is a list of verified medical healing from Lourdes:
Miracle Hunter: Lourdes - List of Approved Miracles

I actually showed that to the atheist many years ago…

I understand why someone on the outside would see that as macabre, but to us it is beautiful.

Perspective! Now, you’re finally beginning to understand. If you could just stop attacking us on matters of sex…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If you could just stop attacking us on matters of sex…

Are you seriously comparing being a stigmatic to extreme sexual license and immorality? You actually see these things as comparable. You actually see using slaves for sex as a morally neutral thing to do, that it can somehow be justified since that was just the culture of the time?

Western culture right now embraces all manner of sexual immorality. Does that mean it’s suddenly okay just because it’s a cultural norm? By your own logic, we should be accepting fornication and homosexuality.

I will continue to attack Mohammad on matters of sexual immorality because he was a sexual deviant who abused a child, and used enslaved women to fulfill his lustful passions.

 

[EZweber]

The Gospels aren’t contemporary anyway, but written one or two generations after Jesus’ crucifixion.

Even skeptical scholars admit that the Gospels were written within a century of the life of Christ. The earliest was written within 40 years at the latest.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

For the third & final time, it was permitted in the OT, not just practiced. You can’t pull the wool over my eyes.

I want you to direct me to the passage in the OT that says it’s okay to have sex with slaves. You’ve made that claim, and you have consistently failed to provide any evidence for it.

Even more so, whether or not it was permitted isn’t really my issue. My issue is that you claim Mohammad is the perfect person, while in his life he engaged in practices which violate the ten commandments. That is my problem here. Your saying he’s a messenger for God while he ignore’s God’s laws.

As for a nun having a vision, she didn’t go out and have sex with a multitude of men on account of it, she just had a vision, reportedly. Mohammad’s the one who used his vision as an excuse for all manner of debauchery.

There are a number of saints who have engaged in self-flagellation, though the practice has been discouraged in more recent times. Still, under proper supervision is can be a spiritually beneficial practice. Some people do take it too far though,.

As for the image, yes, it is a beautiful thing, even if the visual of it is unsettling.

 

[SalamKhan]

I want you to direct me to the passage in the OT that says it’s okay to have sex with slaves. You’ve made that claim, and you have consistently failed to provide any evidence for it.

Exodus 21:7-8, Number 31:18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (this is about marriage, but rose by any other name as you said), Judges 21:12-14 (same with this one). The patriarchs & Israelite kings also had concubines, & Judges 19:10 shows it wasn’t just the right of the patriarchs & kings.

My issue is that you claim Mohammad is the perfect person, while in his life he engaged in practices which violate the ten commandments.

The Sabbath is but a ceremonnial law. Read Ibn Tufail’s ‘Hayy Ibn Yaqthan’, since you’re such a heavy proponent of moral absolutism.

 

[Chaldean]

• The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split.

This event never happened. For a moon to split, the whole world should have witnessed it. It would have been recorded by historians or witnesses would have written about such an event in this magnitude. Also, Nasa scientists denied that the moon was ever split in half.

Splitting of the Moon - Wikipedia

• Yet whenever they see a miracle, they turn away, and say, “Continuous magic.” Al-Qamar(54)

I don’t see a miracle here. Only the Quran claiming that Muhammad’s miracles were doubted.

Glory to Him who journeyed His servant by night, from the Sacred Mosque, to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him of Our wonders. He is the Listener, the Beholder. Al-Isra(17)

Not a single witness. Muhammad woke up claiming to have been taken to the Al Aqsa mosque.

When you said to the believers, “Is it not enough for you that your Lord has reinforced you with three thousand angels, sent down?”

This is a myth. Why will they need three thousand angels to beat 1000 pagans from Quraish. One angel could have beat all of Quraish. It just does not make sense.

If you do not help him, God has already helped him, when those who disbelieved expelled him, and he was the second of two in the cave. He said to his friend, “Do not worry, God is with us.” And God made His tranquility descend upon him, and supported him with forces you did not see, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the Word of God is the Highest. God is Mighty and Wise. At-Tawbah(9)

This is the story of the spider making a web at the cave’ entrance to fool the pagans. This story was taken from Felix of Nola. Please do some research on Felix of Nola and you will see the similarities.

The Prophet told something in confidence to one of his wives. But when she disclosed it, and God made it known to him; he communicated part of it, and he avoided another part. Then, when he informed her of it, she said, “Who informed you of this?” He said, “The All-Knowing, the All-Informed, informed me.” At-Tahrim(66)

No evidence. I don’t see a miracle here. Muhammad claimed it to be true through the Quran but no witnesses.

Is it a wonder to the people that We inspired a man from among them: “Warn mankind, and give good news to those who believe that they are on a sound footing with their Lord”? The disbelievers said, “This is a manifest sorcerer.” Yunus (10)

I honestly don’t see a miracle here.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Exodus 21:7-8, Number 31:18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (this is about marriage, but rose by any other name as you said), Judges 21:12-14 (same with this one). The Israelite kings also had concubines, & Judges 19:10 shows it wasn’t just the right of kings.

Yeah, I’ve already covered this. Marriage is not the same thing as slavery. The women were free to divorce their husbands, and could continue to live in Jewish society. They were not slaves. This is not a rose by any other name situation, these are categorically different things. That you cannot see the distinction is, honestly, frightening.

As for the kings and Levite, having concubines, there’s a reason most of them are viewed as bad kings. That they didn’t live up to God’s law doesn’t make the law any less applicable, it just means they failed in this area. As Christ said “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Concubinage and polygamy fall under the same header. They were sins which occurred because the Jewish people’s hearts were too hard to embrace the fullness of God’s will. With the coming of Christ these allowances were done away with, and we are now expected to live the fullness of the Truth.

There’s also the fact, as already stated, that something’s presence in the OT does not equate to an endorsement of that thing. The OT is the history of the Jewish people, both the good and the bad. By your rational, murder is also okay, since David did that.

The Sabbath is but a ceremonnial law. Read Ibn Tufail’s ‘Hayy Ibn Yaqthan’, since you’re such a heavy proponent of moral absolutism.

Good job dodging the actual point of my post.

As for the Sabbath, we still honor it, we’ve just moved our observance to Sunday because that is the day of Christ’s resurrection.

 

[SalamKhan]

Yeah, I’ve already covered this. Marriage is not the same thing as slavery.

Exodus 21:7-8 & Numbers 31:18 is about slaves, not marriage. The other two were about marriage.

This is not a rose by any other name situation, these are categorically different things. That you cannot see the distinction is, honestly, frightening.

LOL, I was mocking you. Because you said that in the other thread.

As for the kings and Levite, having concubines, there’s a reason most of them are viewed as bad kings.

The case of the Levite proves it was permitted, since if it was adultery, he would’ve been stoned to death. The patirarchs practiced it too, and remember that according to the NT, Abraham was justified by his works. The kings were crtiticised openly in the OT, but having concubines was not stated to be the reason why.

As Christ said “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Concubinage and polygamy fall under the same header. They were sins which occurred because the Jewish people’s hearts were too hard to embrace the fullness of God’s will.

So sins were permitted according to God’s law. Your moral absolutism is completely thrown out of the window.

There’s also the fact, as already stated, that something’s presence in the OT does not equate to an endorsement of that thing.

You were the one who originally used the OT laws as a point against Muslims & the Prophet Muhammad (S), but now you’ve been downplaying it at every turn.

By your rational, murder is also okay, since David did that.

Rabbinic commentators maintain that David did not commit adultery or murder, what David did was actually lawful according to the Torah. I suggest you look it up.

Good job dodging the actual point of my post.

Was your point that Prophet Muhammad was a murderer & adulterer? I’ve been addressing the latter, I’ve already addressed the former:

Also, because I wasn’t sure who you were even talking about when referring to the assassinated poet (way to be ambiguous), I decided to look it up. The Jewish poet in question didn’t just attack the Prophet, he also attacked Muslim women and incited retaliation against Muslims for their victory at the battle of Badr, all while he was bound to the constitution of Madina; that is called sedition. So obviously you do ignore context.

Please read Ibn Tufail’s ‘Hayy Ibn Yaqdhan’, Mr. Moral absolutist…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Was your point that Prophet Muhammad was a murderer & adulterer? I’ve been addressing the latter, I’ve already addressed the former:

No, you’ve claimed the histories are wrong based on the fact that they came from Jews. You’ve also repeatedly tried to justify sex with slaves, as if they don’t count as human enough for it be adultery. You haven’t actually accomplished your goal of refuting it, you just think you have because God told him it was okay™.

And, again, writing poems, even defamatory poems, is not justification for having someone killed. That you think it is once again displays the completely disgusting extent to which Mohammedans will go to hold onto the delusion that their prophet was anything more than… I wrote out a whole thing, but in reading it I’m about 100% positive it will get me into trouble, so I’ll just leave it there.

There is another post before this, but apparently I have to wait for it to be approved. I kind of doubt it will be, but whatever. I’m done wasting my time arguing with you, as I trust you are with me.