Gabriel & the Qur’an: Archangel author or imposter?

mike1reynolds

This is a response to a request by Loyal to engage him in debate. He has asked me to make the opening statement, which he will respond to.

===============================================

Locutions, voices from unseen entities, should never be automatically trusted. However, all of Islam seems to be based on doing precisely that. Locutions are guilty until proven innocent. When hearing voices one can only arrive at the conclusion that it comes from good beings rather than evil entities after all the possibilities of evil have been exhaustively tested and ruled out. This is how it is done in the Christian sects that have ancient traditions for dealing with people who are experiencing locutions.

I have challenged many Muslims to give an account for how the entity that dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed was tested. I have even attempted to have a dialog with an Imam in a mosque, who engaged me at length, but was irrationally totally incapable of even addressing the subject of skepticism in Jibriel in order to make any kind of defense at all. Strangely, he had no trouble addressing skepticism in the character of Mohammed, and with every challenge I made to Jibriel’s identity he came back with a defense that dealt with Mohammed and not at all with Jibriel.

I think that he could see that he was not making a good case, and turning in profile seemed to speak from the heart, saying that he had been a Muslim all his life and it went against every fiber of his being to even consider doubting that the Qur’anic author was an archangel. There was a faint echo of helplessness in his voice because, what had seem like the virtue of faith to him before, at that moment was, I suspect, looking more like a weakness to him. Blind faith leads to unexamined questions, and Islam seems to have some big ones. It was so strange the way he had so many rebuttals ready for defending Mohammed, yet was utterly incapable of constructing any defense at all for the entity that dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed.

==============================================

The one thing that I find most disturbing in the attitudes of some Muslims is the widespread belief that everyone agrees with the Qur’an that both the Old Testament and the New Testament have been altered in the manner characterized by the Qur’an. Many Muslims seem to be completely unaware that no other religion, not even non-Judeo-Christian religions, agrees with any of the Qur’an’s completely baseless claims here. Not even atheistic scholars who are overtly antagonistic to Christianity agree with the Qur’an’s criticisms of the Bible. While atheists of course discount the Bible too, the same as Muslims, atheists do not agree that either the Old Testament or the New Testament went through any meaningful alterations of content, other than normal transcription errors.

==============================================

The Qur’an accuses Christianity of polytheism because of the Trinity. That is a cheap shot since not one in a thousand Christians have any real understanding of the Trinity. I can make an extensive defense of the Trinity, especially to Protestants who doubt it too, but I want to focus on a more aggressive counterargument at the moment. What is really going on here is that the Bible asserts that all human beings have the spark of divinity within them. “Ye are all gods!” is repeated twice in the Bible, first in Psalms then spoken by Jesus (Yeshua). Jesus says that we are all children of God and he is our elder brother. Demons lack this divine spark, so the subtle implication of denial of the Trinity is that the human race is a demonic species that has no divine spark.

Then the Qur’an turns around and asserts that there is no such thing as demons. (“There are none of us chickens in here!”) Angels are portrayed as impervious beings of light that cannot fall. The fall of the angels is one of the many Biblical lies, the Qur’an insists.

loyal

i'll reply in the coming weekend...i have got stupid physics coursework.

may God bless you.

ocalhoun

Well, what I expect (although I don't hold a rock-solid belief in it; I could be convinced otherwise, given the right arguments and evidence) is that the angel who appeared to Mohamed was Lucifer himself, starting his own religion to counter God's truth.

The way Islam treats other religions, as well as the fact that it is based off of the truth, but twisted to mean other things seem to point towards this.

If you were the devil, what would you do to try and subvert Christianity, given the fact that you are the most beautiful of angels, but at odds with God?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Then the Qur’an turns around and asserts that there is no such thing as demons.

That makes me worry that the 'father of lies' is behind the creation of Islam even more. That's just the kind of thing that he would want everyone to believe.

mike1reynolds

ocalhoun wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Then the Qur’an turns around and asserts that there is no such thing as demons.

That makes me worry that the 'father of lies' is behind the creation of Islam even more. That's just the kind of thing that he would want everyone to believe.

It is sort of like the way AIDS attacks the immune system by first destroying the body’s ability to recognize the presence of the virus. If evil can convince people that evil doesn’t even exist then evil has succeeded in creating easy victims for evil. This is done in a more direct way with Western man, who gives no credence to angels, God or demons, but it is also heavily built into Islam in a slightly different way.

The Qur’an is perpetually posing God as being totally undefeatable, as if God could win or loose anything. The ulterior motive of these statements is to encourage the Muslim reader to believe that he or she is impervious to evil and that only depraved people have moral lapses. Since in fact everyone has moral lapses, this further encourages less mature Muslims to see anyone they don’t like as morally depraved. The Qur’an goes on and on and on about how morally depraved this group and that group is, while hardly ever encouraging Muslims to examine their own character and actions.

So Muslims are just like Western man in the sense that, when looking at one’s own actions and character, both deny the relevance of evil as a spiritual force. It is only in dealing with other groups that Muslims dislike, where Muslims seriously contemplate real evil being at play.

The primary difference between the Qur’an and the Bible, the New Testament especially, is that the Bible goes on and on about the importance of selfless love, whereas the Qur’an never mentions it at all and instead goes on and on about how evil the majority of all non-Muslims are.

loyal

peace be upon you! I hope you are fine!

Quote:

Locutions, voices from unseen entities, should never be automatically trusted. However, all of Islam seems to be based on doing precisely that. Locutions are guilty until proven innocent. When hearing voices one can only arrive at the conclusion that it comes from good beings rather than evil entities after all the possibilities of evil have been exhaustively tested and ruled out. This is how it is done in the Christian sects that have ancient traditions for dealing with people who are experiencing locutions.

Okay. But we don't need to prove that Gabriel was a demon because if the Quran is true, then that means its claims of being given through a messenger angel named Gabriel is true.

Quote:

I have challenged many Muslims to give an account for how the entity that dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed was tested...

Basically, as usual in those days, Muhammed, peace and blessings upon him, was meditating or something similar in a cave. One time an angel appeared to him, and hugged him hard and told him to recite/read, Muhammed said he didn't know how to read, so the angel grabbed him hard again and said "recite/read!" and he said he didn't know how to, so the angel grabbed him hard again and told him to recite/read, Muhammed, peace and blessings upon him, began to read.
Not hundred percent trustworthy sources also add: he was terrified and ran out side, and saw a huge figure/presence/something in the sky and a voice said "I am the angel Gabriel" and the angel also said something else...but i can't remember lol...

Quote:

It was so strange the way he...was utterly incapable of constructing any defense at all for the entity that dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed.

It's not a common argument used so Muslims don't argue against it often.

==============================================

Quote:

The one thing that I find most disturbing in the attitudes of some Muslims is the widespread belief that everyone agrees with the Qur’an that both the Old Testament and the New Testament have been altered in the manner characterized by the Qur’an. Many Muslims seem to be completely unaware that no other religion, not even non-Judeo-Christian religions, agrees with any of the Qur’an’s completely baseless claims here. Not even atheistic scholars who are overtly antagonistic to Christianity agree with the Qur’an’s criticisms of the Bible. While atheists of course discount the Bible too, the same as Muslims, atheists do not agree that either the Old Testament or the New Testament went through any meaningful alterations of content, other than normal transcription errors.

You're very much mistaken. Even Bible scholars admit the Bible is corrupted. There are two ways of understanding the claim by the Qur'an. First of all, Muslims believe that all/most of the Old Testament was revealed. The Old Testament contains mistakes, and so on. God does not make mistakes. So how could a Book revealed by God have a mistake in it? Because someone changed it. And the Quran claims it.
The second view, is looking at things and concluding corruption:
E.g. read this quote which fully proves that Abraham almost sacrificed Ishmael not Isaac. The Jewish scribes/people/leaders/some people changed it and tried to make Ishmael look less. Whatever the motive, it's obvious the text has been tampered with.

Quote:

Both Ishmael and Isaac Were Blessed

M. Why did Ishmael and his mother Hagar leave Sarah?

m. After Isaac was weaned, his mother Sarah saw Ishmael mocking him. After that, she didn't want Ishmael to be heir with her son Isaac: Genesis 21:8-10: "And the child grew, and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham: 'Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."'

M. Isaac was about two years old when he was weaned. Ishmael was then sixteen years old, because Abraham was eighty six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael and one hundred years old when Isaac was born, according to Genesis 16:16: "And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram" and Genesis 21:5: "And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him." Genesis 21:8-10 thus contradicts Genesis 21:14-21, where Ishmael was portrayed as a baby put on the shoulder of his mother, called "lad" and "child," when both left Sarah: "And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child ...'Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in shine hand ..."' This is the profile of a baby, not of a teenager. So Ishmael and his mother Hagar left Sarah long before Isaac was born. According to the Islamic version, Abraham took Ishmael and Hagar and made a new settlement in Makkah, called Paran in the Bible (Genesis 21:21), because of a divine instruction given to Abraham as a part of God's plan. Hagar ran seven times between two hills, Safa and Marwa, looking for water. This is the origin of one of the rituals that is performed during the pilgrimage to Makkah. The well of water mentioned in Genesis 21:19 is still present and is known as called Zamzam. Both Abraham and Ishmael later built the Ka'bah in Makkah. The spot where Abraham used to perform prayers near the Ka'bah is still present and is known as the Maqam Ibrahim, i.e., the Station of Abraham. During the pilgrimage, pilgrims in Makkah and Muslims all over the world commemorate the offering of Abraham and Ishmael by slaughtering cattle.

m. But the Bible mentions that Isaac was to be sacrificed.

M. The Islamic version states that the covenant between God, Abraham, and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed. On the very same day, Abraham, Ishmael, and all the men of Abraham's household were circumcised. At that time, Isaac had not even born: Genesis 17:24-27: "And Abraham was ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

A year later, Isaac was born and circumcised when he was eight days old: Genesis 21:4-5: "And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him." So when the covenant was made and sealed (circumcision and sacrifice) Abraham was ninety nine and Ishmael was thirteen. Isaac was born a year later, when Abraham was one hundred years old.

The descendants of Ishmael, Prophet Muhammad including all Muslims, remain faithful until today to this covenant of circumcision. In their five daily prayers, Muslims include the praise of Abraham and his descendants with the praise of Muhammad and his descendants.

m. But in Genesis 22 it is mentioned that Isaac was to be sacrificed.

M. I know, but you will see the contradiction there. It is mentioned "shine only son Isaac." Shouldn't it be "shine only son Ishmael," when Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac had not even been born? When Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons. Because of chauvinism, the name of Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22. But God has preserved the word "only" to show us what it should have been.

The words "I will multiply thy seed" in Genesis 22:17 was applied earlier to Ishmael in Genesis 16:10. Was not the whole of Genesis 22 applicable to Ishmael then? "I will make him a great nation" has been repeated twice for Ishmael in Genesis 17:20 and Genesis 21:18, and never applied to Isaac at all.

m. The Jews and Christians maintain that Isaac was superior to Ishmael.

M. They can say that if they want to, but the Bible does not support this claim: Genesis 15:4: "And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him [Abraham], saying: 'This [Eliezer of Damascus] shall not be shine heir, but he that shall come forth out of shine own bowels shall be shine heir."' So Ishmael was also Abraham's heir.

Genesis 16:10: "And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. "'

Genesis 17:20: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."

Genesis 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."

Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."

Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hash, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hash: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose Muhammad as the seal of the prophets.

m. But Christians and Jews claim that Ishmael was an illegitimate son.

M. That is what they say, but not what the Bible states. How could such a great prophet as Abraham have an illegal wife and a son out of wedlock!

Genesis 16:3: "... and [Sarah] gave her [Hager] to her husband Abram to be his wife." If the marriage was legal, how could their offspring be illegal? Is a marriage between two foreigners, a Chaldean and an Egyptian, not more legal than a marriage between a man with a daughter of his father? Whether it was a lie of Abraham or not, it is stated in Genesis 20:12: "And yet indeed she [Sarah] is my sister, she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

The name Ishmael was also chosen by Allah Himself: Genesis 16:11: "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction."' Ishmael means "God hears." Where in the Bible is it written that Ishmael was an illegitimate son?

m. Nowhere.

M. Long before both Ishmael and Isaac were born, Allah made a covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15:18: "... saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." Doesn't the greater part of Arabia lie between the Nile and the Euphrates, where all the descendants of Ishmael settled at a later date?

m. Do you mean that no land was promised to Isaac and his descendants?

M. We Muslims don't deny that Isaac was also blessed. See Genesis 17:8: "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed [Isaac] after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Do you see also the difference that Abraham was called "a stranger" in Canaan but not in the land between the Nile and the Euphrates? As a Chaldean, he was more Arab than Jew.

m. But the covenant was made with Isaac, according to Genesis 17:21: "But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this time in the next year."

M. Does this exclude Ishmael? Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

m. Nowhere.

source: http://www.cambridgemuslims.info/Islam/CMD.htm#Both%20Ishmael%20and%20Isaac%20Were%20Blessed

i'll provide more links next time.

EDIT: http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/paul_contradicted_himself.htm
http://www.guidetosalvation.com/Website/paul_admits_to_deceit.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_docs.htm
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch2.3.html

Non-Muslim links/articles/sources:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html (sceptic)
http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html (jehovah's witnesses)
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch2.1.html (scholars saying bible is corrupt)

==============================================

Quote:

The Qur’an accuses Christianity of polytheism because of the Trinity. That is a cheap shot since not one in a thousand Christians have any real understanding of the Trinity. I can make an extensive defense of the Trinity, especially to Protestants who doubt it too,

The trinity is an illogical problem. It a) makes no sense b) is not properly supported by the Bible, and verses refute it c) contradicts itself.

The trinity is a made up doctrine: http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html#Nicea (it's a CHRISTIAN link).

The trinity contradicts itself:

Quote:

Contradictions The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a nonbiblical doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of Scripture. Moreover, the doctrine contains a number of internal contradictions. Of course, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God. Below we have compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible.

1. Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Father's agent in conception - a process they compare to artificial insemination!
2. How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).

3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?

4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).

5. Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:3 Cool

.

6. Similarly, what about other verses of Scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? (John 8:42; 14:28; I Corinthians 11:3).

7. Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?

8. How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of the begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6).

9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).

10. Did "God the Son" surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could he still be God?

11. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the Son have an ending? (I Corinthians 15:24-2 Cool

.

12. If in answer to questions 3 through 11 we say only the human Son of God was limited in knowledge, was limited in power, and died, then how can we speak of "God the Son"? Are there two Sons?

13. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father (John 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60).

14. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three but emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6).

15. Are there three Spirits in a Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian (John 14:17, 23; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 3:14-17). Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).

16. There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8,18, 4: Cool

. Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?

17. If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:1 Cool

.

18. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter.

19. Given Matthew 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism? (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; I Corinthians 1:13).

20. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11).

21. If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10).

22. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? (John 14:26; 15:26).

23. Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32).

24. Did the trinity make the Old and New covenants? We know the LORD (Jehovah) did (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13). If Jehovah is a trinity then Father, Son, and Spirit all had to die to make the new covenant effective (Hebrews 9:16-17).

25. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?

26. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?

source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity_contra.htm

As you can see it's not a cheap shot. The Quran is exposing that the trinity has problems by bringing it up. Ultimately the trinity is a paganish doctrine. (Funny how Constantine was a pagan (see creation of trinity) and actually converted on his deathbed to christianity). The trinity is basically according to christian scholars "three persons in one substance". Here they are admitting it's three different people. All they are doing to try and get rid of this obvious pagan statement is adding "of one substance" which is completely illogical (see above links).

Quote:

but I want to focus on a more aggressive counterargument at the moment. What is really going on here is that the Bible asserts that all human beings have the spark of divinity within them. “Ye are all gods!” is repeated twice in the Bible, first in Psalms then spoken by Jesus (Yeshua). Jesus says that we are all children of God and he is our elder brother. Demons lack this divine spark, so the subtle implication of denial of the Trinity is that the human race is a demonic species that has no divine spark.

The spark of divinity? You need to do more research. The word "gods" is "elohim". So when Psalms/Jesus is saying "you are gods", they are saying "you are elohim". Now, we have to look at Elohim. You are saying this is the Bible saying humans have a divine spark, and you say demons do not. Your argument comes from the fact that people are called gods.
Well actually false gods and idols, let alone demons!, are called Elohim too. Read:

Quote:

Equally striking is the fact that the same term, elohim, is used of the individual false gods of Israel's surrounding nations. Elohim is used of Dagon, the god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jud. 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33); of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the god(dess) of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33); of Milcom, another god of the Ammorites (1 Kings 11:33). In Smith's Bible Dictionary (NISBE) no plurality in any one of these gods is even hinted at. Additionally, in Ezra's prayer in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by Israel in the wilderness.

Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as elohim.

source: http://www.restorationrecords.com/articles/elohim_&_echad.html

So according to your argument, even these idols and false gods (whom YHWH tells us not to worship and destroys people over this issue) have a divine spark. Obviously that is wrong.

Quote:

Then the Qur’an turns around and asserts that there is no such thing as demons. (“There are none of us chickens in here!”) Angels are portrayed as impervious beings of light that cannot fall. The fall of the angels is one of the many Biblical lies, the Qur’an insists.

You don't have complete knowledge about this issue. Islam turns around and says angels are beings of light that cannot fall. But instead demons in Islam come from another race called the Jinn (english word for that is genies, but please don't associate walt disney's "Aladdin"'s genie with Jinn). Satan is the father of Jinn like Adam is the father of humans. These Jinns are being tested along with humans. They have free will too. The bad Jinn are devils. i have to go. i'll speak more later. bye. may God bless you.

mike1reynolds

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Locutions, voices from unseen entities, should never be automatically trusted. However, all of Islam seems to be based on doing precisely that. Locutions are guilty until proven innocent.

Okay. But we don't need to prove that Gabriel was a demon because if the Quran is true, then that means its claims of being given through a messenger angel named Gabriel is true.

Huh? You need to prove that the entity was in fact Gabriel and not an imposter. You need to prove that the entity was not a demon. Why on Earth would you feel like I was demanding that you prove it was a demon? BTW, that is not my job either, all I have to do is cast a reasonable shadow of doubt because the burden of proof is on you. You must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohammed’s locutions came from a real angel or logically it should be rejected.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

I have challenged many Muslims to give an account for how the entity that dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed was tested...

Basically, as usual in those days, Muhammed, peace and blessings upon him, was meditating or something similar in a cave. One time an angel appeared to him, and hugged him hard and told him to recite/read, Muhammed said he didn't know how to read, so the angel grabbed him hard again and said "recite/read!" and he said he didn't know how to, so the angel grabbed him hard again and told him to recite/read, Muhammed, peace and blessings upon him, began to read.
Not hundred percent trustworthy sources also add: he was terrified and ran out side, and saw a huge figure/presence/something in the sky and a voice said "I am the angel Gabriel" and the angel also said something else...but i can't remember lol...

This narrative does not include a single test. The only “test” that took place was from Mohammed’s elderly Christian cousin who was not a priest and not qualified to conduct a trial of spirit locutions. It was not even conducted as a trial, he came to his conclusion in an extremely casual manner.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

It was so strange the way he...was utterly incapable of constructing any defense at all for the entity that dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed.

It's not a common argument used so Muslims don't argue against it often.

That is because this is a terrible selling point and so Muslims never mention it. If Muslims talked about this subject on a regular basis hardly any non-Muslim in the world would take Islam seriously anymore.

However, if this entity were in fact an angel then your religion would have asked itself this question very pointedly at the beginning without having to wait hundreds or thousands of years for someone of another religion to point out this obvious issue. Only evil entities demand blind faith, real angels insist on being tested in an extensive manner.

mike1reynolds

loyal wrote:

Quote:

The one thing that I find most disturbing in the attitudes of some Muslims is the widespread belief that everyone agrees with the Qur’an that both the Old Testament and the New Testament have been altered in the manner characterized by the Qur’an. Many Muslims seem to be completely unaware that no other religion, not even non-Judeo-Christian religions, agrees with any of the Qur’an’s completely baseless claims here. Not even atheistic scholars who are overtly antagonistic to Christianity agree with the Qur’an’s criticisms of the Bible. While atheists of course discount the Bible too, the same as Muslims, atheists do not agree that either the Old Testament or the New Testament went through any meaningful alterations of content, other than normal transcription errors.

You're very much mistaken. Even Bible scholars admit the Bible is corrupted.

References please. What do you mean by corrupted? Even atheistic academic scholars deny there are any significant distortions of content over time, and certainly no main stream Christian theologians even remotely suggest the Bible is distorted, so your claim sounds brainwashed. Only someone who desperately wanted to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary could so blithely make such a baseless assertion about Christian theologians.

loyal wrote:

There are two ways of understanding the claim by the Qur'an. First of all, Muslims believe that all/most of the Old Testament was revealed. The Old Testament contains mistakes, and so on.

What mistakes? Atheists come up with long lists of supposed contradictions in the Bible, all of which are contrived distortions or pure trivia. The Qur’an on the other hand is profoundly morally flawed.

loyal wrote:

God does not make mistakes. So how could a Book revealed by God have a mistake in it? Because someone changed it.

That is paper thin logic that is nothing but pure conjecture. Do you have any CONCRETE evidence of alterations?

loyal wrote:

And the Quran claims it.
The second view, is looking at things and concluding corruption:
E.g. read this quote which fully proves that Abraham almost sacrificed Ishmael not Isaac. The Jewish scribes/people/leaders/some people changed it and tried to make Ishmael look less. Whatever the motive, it's obvious the text has been tampered with.

How is it even remotely obvious? The only evidence you have provided is baseless conjecture and the fact that the Qur’an says so. That is anything but obvious, in fact quite the reverse is what is obviously true and accepted by all objective independent observers, even if they are hostile to Christianity and have every reason to be critical.

Do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence to backup your false conjecture? It is not as though there is not a vast body of scholarly work done on all of the archeological data and the slight variations between different transcriptions of the extremely numerous ancient copies of various books in the Bible. But you can’t draw on this huge body of research, the only scholarly endeavor that addresses your false conjecture, because absolutely none of it supports your wildly false assertion here.

mike1reynolds

loyal wrote:

Quote:

The Qur’an accuses Christianity of polytheism because of the Trinity. That is a cheap shot since not one in a thousand Christians have any real understanding of the Trinity. I can make an extensive defense of the Trinity, especially to Protestants who doubt it too,

The trinity is an illogical problem. It a) makes no sense b) is not properly supported by the Bible, and verses refute it c) contradicts itself.

The Trinitarian nature of God permeates the Bible. Just as we have body, spirit and soul, and we are made in the image of God, God also has three parts in precisely the same manner that we do as beings of body, spirit and soul.

loyal wrote:

The trinity is a made up doctrine: http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html#Nicea (it's a CHRISTIAN link).

No, that is not a Christian link. Thunder Ministries? What denomination of Christianity is that? These people hate Jews and Catholics and reject the Apostles creed, so they are about as Christian as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but even those two groups sound level headed compare to this lunatic fringe hate group.

It reflects badly on you that you would stoop to using the arguments of religious bigots like this. This is nothing more than a hate group that preaches religious bigotry. That is precisely my criticism of Islam as well, so you have only served to make my point here.

Loyal wrote:

As you can see it's not a cheap shot. The Quran is exposing that the trinity has problems by bringing it up. Ultimately the trinity is a paganish doctrine. (Funny how Constantine was a pagan (see creation of trinity) and actually converted on his deathbed to christianity). The trinity is basically according to christian scholars "three persons in one substance". Here they are admitting it's three different people. All they are doing to try and get rid of this obvious pagan statement is adding "of one substance" which is completely illogical (see above links).

Body, spirit and soul are three separate parts of ourselves that can act very independently from one another, and certainly the body/mind can be very misinformed as compared to the spirit, much less the soul.

It is a cheap shot because it is a very advanced way of thinking about God for which not one in a thousand Christians can properly defend. When properly understood it is not hard at all to defend, but even as early as the 4th century ecumenical councils their understanding of this extremely rarified issue had already been in a sharp nose dive for generations.

I don’t have that problem, I understand it well enough to make it clear and simple even to a child. The Qur'an was based on betting that hardly anyone will bump into someone like me who can explain the Trinity clearly and concisely.

mike1reynolds

loyal wrote:

The spark of divinity? You need to do more research. The word "gods" is "elohim". So when Psalms/Jesus is saying "you are gods", they are saying "you are elohim". Now, we have to look at Elohim. You are saying this is the Bible saying humans have a divine spark, and you say demons do not. Your argument comes from the fact that people are called gods.
Well actually false gods and idols, let alone demons!, are called Elohim too.

How is that any different from the English language where the word God refers both to the Holy Father as well as to the evil gods? The only difference is that Hebrew doesn’t have upper case and lower case letters.

loyal wrote:

You don't have complete knowledge about this issue. Islam turns around and says angels are beings of light that cannot fall. But instead demons in Islam come from another race called the Jinn (english word for that is genies, but please don't associate walt disney's "Aladdin"'s genie with Jinn). Satan is the father of Jinn like Adam is the father of humans. These Jinns are being tested along with humans. They have free will too. The bad Jinn are devils.

This presents demons as lesser entities that are nothing to worry about. Same difference, “there are none of us chickens in here!”. It’s trying to lull people into not even considering the impact of demons. They are just jinn, not fallen angels. What do you think would be a more formidable opponent, an evil jinn, or a fallen angel?

It is an attempt to lull Muslims into a false sense of security and look outwards at others only for demons, not inward.

loyal

i'll reply in the weekend.

may God bless you.

ocalhoun

loyal wrote:

peace be upon you! I hope you are fine!

Okay. But we don't need to prove that Gabriel was a demon because if the Quran is true, then that means its claims of being given through a messenger angel named Gabriel is true.

So, our two options are either:
both the messenger and message are true
-or-
neither the messenger nor the message are true

IF the Qur'an was proven to be true, then it's messenger would be proven to be true as well, but since when have you proven that the Qur'an is true?

loyal wrote:

It's not a common argument used so Muslims don't argue against it often.

That's no excuse for not being able to argue against it.

loyal

mike1reynolds wrote:

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Locutions, voices from unseen entities, should never be automatically trusted. However, all of Islam seems to be based on doing precisely that. Locutions are guilty until proven innocent.

Okay. But we don't need to prove that Gabriel was a demon because if the Quran is true, then that means its claims of being given through a messenger angel named Gabriel is true.

Huh? You need to prove that the entity was in fact Gabriel and not an imposter. You need to prove that the entity was not a demon. Why on Earth would you feel like I was demanding that you prove it was a demon? BTW, that is not my job either, all I have to do is cast a reasonable shadow of doubt because the burden of proof is on you. You must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohammed’s locutions came from a real angel or logically it should be rejected.

I don't think you understood what i meant. I mean that if i prove the Quran true, then that means the Quran's claims of being delivered by Gabriel are true as well. Agree?
So i'm gonna have to try and prove the Quran true...Funny how debates focusing on one aspect in religion end up including most of the religion...

Quote:

This narrative does not include a single test. The only “test” that took place was from Mohammed’s elderly Christian cousin who was not a priest and not qualified to conduct a trial of spirit locutions. It was not even conducted as a trial, he came to his conclusion in an extremely casual manner.

What do you mean a test? How could he have tested Gabriel? By taking a feather (assuming angels have physical literal wings) and studying it under the microscope? When a man says he is visited by an angel we can either conclude he is
-lying
or
-telling the truth
or
-had mental problems

Now Muhammed, peace and blessings upon, was known as Al-Amin because he never lied. That's a pretty good start for saying he's honest. Okay let's say he WAS lying. What was his motive? Money? He was quite poor during his life. What else could have been a motive?

Maybe he was mental? Some christians and a few others have suggested epilepsy. "Possibly his convulsions were epileptic seizures; they were sometimes accompanied by a sound reported by him as like the ringing of a bell, a frequent occurrence in epileptic fits. But we hear of no tongue- biting, no loss of prehensile strength, such as usually occurs in epilepsy; nor does Mohammed's history show that degeneration of brain power which epilepsy generally brings; on the contrary, he advanced in clarity of thought and in confident leadership and power until his sixtieth year.25 The evidence is inconclusive; at least it has not sufficed to convince any orthodox Mohammedan."

Quote:

That is because this is a terrible selling point and so Muslims never mention it. If Muslims talked about this subject on a regular basis hardly any non-Muslim in the world would take Islam seriously any more.

I doubt that. Lots of people take Islam seriously. The fact is it's growing quite fast, obviously means that the people who are converting to Islam, believe this. He did not need to construct a defense that Gabriel was the angel he spoke to. This is because a) the people believed and Islam says that angels are purely good. they do not have free will. they cannot fall (unlike christianity says). so if he was speaking truly, the angel is not a demon. it's an angel. a being that is purely good. b) they called him Al-Amin 'the truthworthy', why would they doubt him if he hasn't lied to them? c) it's interesting to note that none of his enemies accused him of faking the revelations.

Quote:

However, if this entity were in fact an angel then your religion would have asked itself this question very pointedly at the beginning without having to wait hundreds or thousands of years for someone of another religion to point out this obvious issue. Only evil entities demand blind faith, real angels insist on being tested in an extensive manner.

No-one doubted Muhammed, peace and blessings be upon him. Why would they? You automatically assume just because we live in an age of modern technology and little spirituality, that any angel must be a demon. People back then automatically assumed that as long as he wasn't lying, he was telling the truth. and no-one accused him of lying.

You said only evil entities demand blind faith. Well that's obviously wrong. My physics teacher demands me to believe blindly in what she teaches. She isn't an evil entity as far as i am aware. Also Islam does not teach blind faith. On the contrary because of 17:36 in the Quran, Muslims grew advanced in science.

Glorious Qur'an [17:36]: You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I (GOD) have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

Quote:

References please.

I've given you an example/link of Ishmael and Isaac in the Bible. You've just completely ignored it. That's an excellent example of corruption. Read it and respond.

Quote:

What do you mean by corrupted?

As in the text has been altered.

Quote:

Even atheistic academic scholars deny there are any significant distortions of content over time

I notice you used "significant". Do you admit that atheistic scholars say the Bible has small distortions?

Read this link: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/realbible.html

Also:

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly
immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it
was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

Thomas Jefferson

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (All references not listed here, can be
found in Christianity Betrayed)

Albert Schweitzer

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had
to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on
the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially
relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

Wil Durant (Philosopher)

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of
Christ."
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."

Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton)

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

George Bernard Shaw

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its
legs again in the name of Jesus."

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar)

"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and
the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian
tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter
opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with
horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the
imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree,
as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in
spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is
not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale
inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher)

"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." (Paraphrased. Looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus" in order to retrieve the exact quote.)

Carl Jung (Psychologist)

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World
Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991).

Quote:

and certainly no main stream Christian theologians even remotely suggest the Bible is distorted, so your claim sounds brainwashed. Only someone who desperately wanted to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary could so blithely make such a baseless assertion about Christian theologians.

Check again. Modern Bible scholars have already said that the Comma Johanneum is false, and other verses have several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16, and others still having a large degree of doubt under textual criticism such as John 21.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum It is fully proven false by Bible scholars.

Quote:

loyal wrote:
There are two ways of understanding the claim by the Qur'an. First of all, Muslims believe that all/most of the Old Testament was revealed. The Old Testament contains mistakes, and so on.

What mistakes? Atheists come up with long lists of supposed contradictions in the Bible, all of which are contrived distortions or pure trivia. The Qur’an on the other hand is profoundly morally flawed.

Supposed? Oh come on! The amount of contradictions in the Bible is undeniable! http://www.islamhope.co.nr/articles/corrupted3.html
Just do some research anywhere and you'll see huge amounts of Bible contradictions. Yes i know that some Bible contradictions are actually supposed but quite alot of them are real problems.

Quote:

loyal wrote:
God does not make mistakes. So how could a Book revealed by God have a mistake in it? Because someone changed it.

That is paper thin logic that is nothing but pure conjecture. Do you have any CONCRETE evidence of alterations?

Conjecture? It's a logical argument. If a Book that was truly revealed by God contains a mistake in, it is because someone changed it. Why would God reveal a Book with mistakes in? It's like saying a scientist published a book promoting a false theory...

Quote:

How is it even remotely obvious? The only evidence you have provided is baseless conjecture and the fact that the Qur’an says so. That is anything but obvious, in fact quite the reverse is what is obviously true and accepted by all objective independent observers, even if they are hostile to Christianity and have every reason to be critical.

I have provided several links which you seem to have ignored. You will have to refute huge chunks of the links before you can say "The only evidence you have provided is baseless conjecture and the fact that the Qur’an says so".

Quote:

Do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence to backup your false conjecture? It is not as though there is not a vast body of scholarly work done on all of the archeological data and the slight variations between different transcriptions of the extremely numerous ancient copies of various books in the Bible. But you can’t draw on this huge body of research, the only scholarly endeavor that addresses your false conjecture, because absolutely none of it supports your wildly false assertion here.

See response to when you said this before. By the way, stop saying no-one has ever claimed the Bible is corrupt. Many many many people lots of them non-muslims have claimed it. Saying noone has except muslims is pure ignorance or refusal to accept basic facts.

The illustrious Irenaeus, considered the Shepherd of Hennas to be inspired, but rejected Hebrews, Jude, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John. Clement of Alexandria included the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas in his Bible. Tertullian — best remembered for his dictum, Certum est, quia impossibile est ("I believe it because it's impossible") — threw out all the New Testament books except the four gospels, Acts, thirteen "Pauline" epistles, Revelation, and 1 John.
These fameous early church fathers didn't accept parts of the modern New Testament!

Quote:

The trinity is an illogical problem. It a) makes no sense b) is not properly supported by the Bible, and verses refute it c) contradicts itself.

The Trinitarian nature of God permeates the Bible. Just as we have body, spirit and soul, and we are made in the image of God, God also has three parts in precisely the same manner that we do as beings of body, spirit and soul.

You've ignored what i've said. Once again i repeat:
The trinity is an illogical problem. It a) makes no sense b) is not properly supported by the Bible, and verses refute it c) contradicts itself.

Please refute each of those clauses. Where does the Bible say there is a trinity clearly? Where does Jesus call himself a god?

The trinity is self-contradictory. How can God be all-powerful and weak at the same time? It's self-contradictory! It's like claiming i am the best in my school at chess and also one of the worst. Which am i? The worst or the best? Which is God all-powerful or weak? If God is weak, He is no longer God. God is supposed to be infinite according to theologians. Yet the trinity says He is a weakling!

Quote:

loyal wrote:
The trinity is a made up doctrine: http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html#Nicea (it's a CHRISTIAN link).

No, that is not a Christian link.

Yes it is. They are Christians. But it is beside the point. The point is history itself shows that the trinity is made up. So scholars know that the trinity was created in church councils:

1) Nicea 325CE
2) Constantinople 381CE
3) Chalcedon 451CE

Do your research.

Quote:

What denomination of Christianity is that?

I think they are Unitarian i think. Unitarians reject the trinity but are still christians.

Quote:

These people hate Jews and Catholics

You are going to have to back that up with quotes.

Quote:

and reject the Apostles creed

There is such a thing as a Unitarian christian.

Quote:

It reflects badly on you that you would stoop to using the arguments of religious bigots like this. This is nothing more than a hate group that preaches religious bigotry.

I did not "stoop" to using arguments of thunder ministries. I simply wanted a detailed account of the council of Nicea and things leading upto it. This is because the council of Nicea is where the trinity was born. And thunder ministries has an accurate and detailed version so i quoted that link to you. When i quote a link to you, i am only quoting that page. Not the whole site.

Quote:

It is a cheap shot because it is a very advanced way of thinking about God for which not one in a thousand Christians can properly defend. When properly understood it is not hard at all to defend, but even as early as the 4th century ecumenical councils their understanding of this extremely rarified issue had already been in a sharp nose dive for generations.

The trinity is illogical and thus cannot be understood. You are going to have to explain it clearly and refute all of these criticisms i said earlier for example:

3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?

Please refute the whole list or most of it.

Quote:

I don’t have that problem, I understand it well enough to make it clear and simple even to a child. The Qur'an was based on betting that hardly anyone will bump into someone like me who can explain the Trinity clearly and concisely.

The Quran came from an illiterate man in the middle of the desert. I doubt the man understood the trinity, nor cared about it. Muhammed, peace and blessings upon him, met lots of Jews instead of lots of christians. I am sure he didn't know much about Christian beliefs.

I really doubt you can explain the trinity. Explain the major contradictions between it. How can God be all-powerful and weak at the same time? it's impossible! it's like claiming God could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.

Quote:

loyal wrote:
The spark of divinity? You need to do more research. The word "gods" is "elohim". So when Psalms/Jesus is saying "you are gods", they are saying "you are elohim". Now, we have to look at Elohim. You are saying this is the Bible saying humans have a divine spark, and you say demons do not. Your argument comes from the fact that people are called gods.
Well actually false gods and idols, let alone demons!, are called Elohim too.

How is that any different from the English language where the word God refers both to the Holy Father as well as to the evil gods? The only difference is that Hebrew doesn’t have upper case and lower case letters.

You're missing the point. You say that because the subject was called Elohim, it has a divine spark. Does this mean that these false gods have a divine spark?

Quote:

loyal wrote:
You don't have complete knowledge about this issue. Islam turns around and says angels are beings of light that cannot fall. But instead demons in Islam come from another race called the Jinn (english word for that is genies, but please don't associate walt disney's "Aladdin"'s genie with Jinn). Satan is the father of Jinn like Adam is the father of humans. These Jinns are being tested along with humans. They have free will too. The bad Jinn are devils.

This presents demons as lesser entities that are nothing to worry about.

No it's not. It's just saying that demons are a different race to angels. Remember some Jinn worship God. The ones that don't, are the demons. There are no "good" demons.

Quote:

Same difference, “there are none of us chickens in here!”. It’s trying to lull people into not even considering the impact of demons. They are just jinn, not fallen angels. What do you think would be a more formidable opponent, an evil jinn, or a fallen angel?

both would be formidable. but the angel wouldn't be that bad. anything that has once been good will always retain that goodness no matter how small, the goodness has shrunk.
Demons' impact is emphasised in the Quran. They influence and lead people into lies, mischief, and materalism. As far as i am concerned that's pretty bad.

i didn't check my post for typos or proof read it so i might have written some stuff i wasn't thinking. sometimes i do that.
may God bless you.

mike1reynolds

Loyal, you have not answered the question a single time. In every case you have circumvented the primary question and addressed some completely different issue that I had not addressed and did not ever intend to address. Please just answer the actual question and stop trying to anticipate all sorts of other supporting arguments for my primary argument. Your prolepsis is entirely inaccurate, none of your anticipations of my arguments accurately reflect how I would actually argue, so please do not try to jump ahead and attempt to make up my argument for me. In this case it elucidates how you think, which is stereotypically Muslim, so I don’t mind here, but this sort of thing could get old quick if persisted in at length.

loyal wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Locutions, voices from unseen entities, should never be automatically trusted. However, all of Islam seems to be based on doing precisely that. Locutions are guilty until proven innocent.

Okay. But we don't need to prove that Gabriel was a demon because if the Quran is true, then that means its claims of being given through a messenger angel named Gabriel is true.

Huh? You need to prove that the entity was in fact Gabriel and not an imposter. You need to prove that the entity was not a demon. Why on Earth would you feel like I was demanding that you prove it was a demon? BTW, that is not my job either, all I have to do is cast a reasonable shadow of doubt because the burden of proof is on you. You must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohammed’s locutions came from a real angel or logically it should be rejected.

I don't think you understood what i meant. I mean that if i prove the Quran true, then that means the Quran's claims of being delivered by Gabriel are true as well. Agree?
So i'm gonna have to try and prove the Quran true...Funny how debates focusing on one aspect in religion end up including most of the religion...

If that is the best evidence that can be presented then conversely, if I can prove that the Qur’an is lying, which shouldn’t be that hard to do since it is on a whole array of moral issues, then I have proven that the Qur’an was dictated by an arch-demon and not an archangel.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

This narrative does not include a single test. The only “test” that took place was from Mohammed’s elderly Christian cousin who was not a priest and not qualified to conduct a trial of spirit locutions. It was not even conducted as a trial, he came to his conclusion in an extremely casual manner.

What do you mean a test? How could he have tested Gabriel? By taking a feather (assuming angels have physical literal wings) and studying it under the microscope?

The most famous examples of trials of locutions come from the lives of Joan of Arc and St. Teresa of Avila. Are you familiar with them? Joan was being tried by clergy loyal to the British crown who were under enormous political pressures to find any way to convict her, and yet they were unable to convict her locutions as demonic. Instead they convicted her of wearing men’s clothing as the primary charge of witchcraft. It was so absurd that one of the British crown’s own advisors bewailed from an tower overlooking the sight of her burning, “God save us all, we are putting a saint to death!” A priest on the scene defied all ecclesiastical authority there by fashioning a makeshift cross and throwing it to her. It is only because of this priest’s act of overt defiance that she became eligible for sainthood, so that was no small act.

The point is that the ancient Orthodox Christian procedures for testing these spirits are so precise, rigorous, scientific, and incorruptible, that even with judges and jurors who were doing everything in their power to pervert the system, it still could not be manipulated into producing a convincing false conviction.

loyal wrote:

When a man says he is visited by an angel we can either conclude he is
-lying
or
-telling the truth
or
-had mental problems

You left out MY supposition, which is that he was a deeply sincere man who was DECIEVED by a demon.

Quote:

That is because this is a terrible selling point and so Muslims never mention it. If Muslims talked about this subject on a regular basis hardly any non-Muslim in the world would take Islam seriously any more.

loyal wrote:

I doubt that. Lots of people take Islam seriously. The fact is it's growing quite fast, obviously means that the people who are converting to Islam, believe this.

False, Islam is growing primary through uncontrolled birth rates. Backwards countries like Mexico, India and China have curbed their population growth rates, the population bomb has been averted. Only the Islamic nations continue to grow at those rates, every other nation on the planet has come into the modern world. This is not exactly something to be proud of.

loyal wrote:

He did not need to construct a defense that Gabriel was the angel he spoke to.

Only if he didn’t care whether it was an angel or a demon. If he did, then in order to be certain, he would have had to test the entity.

Dude, snap out of it! Give this some *REAL* thought, what would you do if you started hearing VOICES that said that they were angels?? Would you just say, OK! This must really be voices from angels, and not ask a single mother-loving question about it?

loyal wrote:

This is because a) the people believed and Islam says that angels are purely good. they do not have free will. they cannot fall (unlike christianity says). so if he was speaking truly, the angel is not a demon. it's an angel. a being that is purely good.

You just beg the whole question. This point isn’t evidence of anything, you are simply restating that the question falls as to whether the Qur’an was dictated by an a true angel or jinn. So then: WHY DO YOU ASSUME ANGEL AND NOT JINN?

loyal wrote:

b) they called him Al-Amin 'the truthworthy', why would they doubt him if he hasn't lied to them?

I argue that Mohammed was a dupe, so how does being trust worthy defend against the possibility of his being a dupe? This doesn’t even address the issue.

loyal wrote:

c) it's interesting to note that none of his enemies accused him of faking the revelations.

Are demonic revelations fake? Of course not, they are real lies being revealed by a real demon.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

However, if this entity were in fact an angel then your religion would have asked itself this question very pointedly at the beginning without having to wait hundreds or thousands of years for someone of another religion to point out this obvious issue. Only evil entities demand blind faith, real angels insist on being tested in an extensive manner.

No-one doubted Muhammed, peace and blessings be upon him. Why would they?

The way that you keep changing the subject from the entity to Mohammed gives the impression that you are brain washed by your religion. Why is it seemingly so impossible for Muslims to keep their focus on my actual argument here without perpetually turning it into something else entirely that has nothing to do with my argument?

loyal wrote:

You automatically assume just because we live in an age of modern technology and little spirituality, that any angel must be a demon. People back then automatically assumed that as long as he wasn't lying, he was telling the truth. and no-one accused him of lying.

So if you hear voices from an entity that claims to be an angel, or knew someone that was, you would recommend to that person to automatically accept everything those voices were saying to them??? Get real dude, that is not even remotely what you would do.

loyal wrote:

You said only evil entities demand blind faith. Well that's obviously wrong. My physics teacher demands me to believe blindly in what she teaches. She isn't an evil entity as far as i am aware. Also Islam does not teach blind faith. On the contrary because of 17:36 in the Quran, Muslims grew advanced in science.

Nonsense, science is overthrown by new evidence. That is the very opposite of blind faith. If you read my arguments against atheists here, you’ll see that I use science against their arguments in a way that tests their blind faith assumptions. These kinds of assumptions are not science, even if often held by scientists. They are just a product of human ignorance in approaching any topic. If you understand it well enough there is not a single ounce of blind faith in science.

loyal wrote:

Glorious Qur'an [17:36]: You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I (GOD) have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

This command would appear to apply to everything except the Qur’an itself. Since the context here is the Qur’an itself, this statement becomes one of hypocrisy, not a vouch for it’s having self-tested itself. You have clearly proven that the Qur’an was not tested in any way.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

References please.

I've given you an example/link of Ishmael and Isaac in the Bible. You've just completely ignored it. That's an excellent example of corruption. Read it and respond.

The fact that the Qur’an rewrote everything in the Bible is hardly evidence of the Bible have been changed, rather than the Qur’an itself being the change. I’ll try to hunt down the link you are talking about, but I thought you were simply referring to the fact that the Qur’an asserts a different story. If so, then so what? The Bible is older, the Qur’an is newer, so any difference in the Qur’an suggests that the it was the Qur’an that was changed, not the Bible.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Even atheistic academic scholars deny there are any significant distortions of content over time

I notice you used "significant". Do you admit that atheistic scholars say the Bible has small distortions?

Of course, all ancient texts were transcribed by hand and contain numerous small variations among surviving copies of the text. The New Testament is in worse shape than most because for 300 years these works and the people that wanted to preserve them were systematically hunted down and executed by the state. The Old Testament is in much better shape in this regard.

loyal wrote:

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly
immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it
was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

What is your argument here, that Paul changed the New Testament? None of your references support such an assertion, so I don’t know what you are trying to get at here at all. No one is suggesting that Paul went in and changed the writings of the Gospels or any other book in the NT. That is a preposterous insinuation, you can’t be serious??

loyal wrote:

Quote:

and certainly no main stream Christian theologians even remotely suggest the Bible is distorted, so your claim sounds brainwashed. Only someone who desperately wanted to believe this despite all evidence to the contrary could so blithely make such a baseless assertion about Christian theologians.

Check again. Modern Bible scholars have already said that the Comma Johanneum is false, and other verses have several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16, and others still having a large degree of doubt under textual criticism such as John 21.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum It is fully proven false by Bible scholars.

That is ONE SENTENCE. “Forgive them for they know not what they do”, was dropped from lots of versions of the gospels as anti-Semitism spread in early Christianity. Some of the transcription errors were quite insidious, but it is never more than a single sentence out of a long passage of text. That is the essential matter.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

loyal wrote:
There are two ways of understanding the claim by the Qur'an. First of all, Muslims believe that all/most of the Old Testament was revealed. The Old Testament contains mistakes, and so on.

What mistakes? Atheists come up with long lists of supposed contradictions in the Bible, all of which are contrived distortions or pure trivia. The Qur’an on the other hand is profoundly morally flawed.

Supposed? Oh come on! The amount of contradictions in the Bible is undeniable! http://www.islamhope.co.nr/articles/corrupted3.html
Just do some research anywhere and you'll see huge amounts of Bible contradictions. Yes i know that some Bible contradictions are actually supposed but quite alot of them are real problems.

I am far more interested in the moral contradictions in the Qur’an than these supposed contradictions that even you acknowledge are largely contrived.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

loyal wrote:
God does not make mistakes. So how could a Book revealed by God have a mistake in it? Because someone changed it.

That is paper thin logic that is nothing but pure conjecture. Do you have any CONCRETE evidence of alterations?

Conjecture? It's a logical argument. If a Book that was truly revealed by God contains a mistake in, it is because someone changed it. Why would God reveal a Book with mistakes in? It's like saying a scientist published a book promoting a false theory...

There are no THEOLOGICAL contradictions in the Bible, unlike the Qur’an which is full of theological contradictions. None of the supposed contradictions you refer to are theological, or if they are theological they are profoundly distorted, such as the antitrinitarian points.

All of your evidence for Biblical alterations is completely contrived, with no more substance than rival political slogans.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

How is it even remotely obvious? The only evidence you have provided is baseless conjecture and the fact that the Qur’an says so. That is anything but obvious, in fact quite the reverse is what is obviously true and accepted by all objective independent observers, even if they are hostile to Christianity and have every reason to be critical.

I have provided several links which you seem to have ignored. You will have to refute huge chunks of the links before you can say "The only evidence you have provided is baseless conjecture and the fact that the Qur’an says so".

You need to present a real argument and stop whining that the core of your evidence is in a link somewhere. I’m having a hard enough time keeping up with the volume of your posts without having to hunt down a bunch of links referred to hundreds of lines after they were presented.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence to backup your false conjecture? It is not as though there is not a vast body of scholarly work done on all of the archeological data and the slight variations between different transcriptions of the extremely numerous ancient copies of various books in the Bible. But you can’t draw on this huge body of research, the only scholarly endeavor that addresses your false conjecture, because absolutely none of it supports your wildly false assertion here.

See response to when you said this before. By the way, stop saying no-one has ever claimed the Bible is corrupt. Many many many people lots of them non-muslims have claimed it. Saying noone has except muslims is pure ignorance or refusal to accept basic facts.

The illustrious Irenaeus, considered the Shepherd of Hennas to be inspired, but rejected Hebrews, Jude, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John. Clement of Alexandria included the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas in his Bible. Tertullian — best remembered for his dictum, Certum est, quia impossibile est ("I believe it because it's impossible") — threw out all the New Testament books except the four gospels, Acts, thirteen "Pauline" epistles, Revelation, and 1 John.
These fameous early church fathers didn't accept parts of the modern New Testament!

Even though these people were hunted almost to extermination for three centuries, and were hopelessly fragmented in to dozens of splinter groups over that period, their theology is still profoundly more internally consistent than Islam. Christianity is the low bar on the planet, the only religion in worse shape theologically is Islam. It is only because of the low state that Christianity brought religion in the West too that allowed Islam to be born at all.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

The trinity is an illogical problem. It a) makes no sense b) is not properly supported by the Bible, and verses refute it c) contradicts itself.

The Trinitarian nature of God permeates the Bible. Just as we have body, spirit and soul, and we are made in the image of God, God also has three parts in precisely the same manner that we do as beings of body, spirit and soul.

You've ignored what i've said. Once again i repeat:
The trinity is an illogical problem. It a) makes no sense b) is not properly supported by the Bible, and verses refute it c) contradicts itself.

Please refute each of those clauses. Where does the Bible say there is a trinity clearly? Where does Jesus call himself a god?

I addressed these already. I repeat myself as well, Jesus quoted Psalms “ye are all gods!” All three elements of the Trinity are given individual significance as the force of God in both the Old and the New Testament. While the word trinity is never used, the Holy Spirit is not just an alternative name for God, there is a real distinction between God’s soul nature and God’s spirit nature.

That is the bottom line here, the fact that Islam is denying the soul/spirit distinction. Islam doesn’t say a word about the difference between the spirit and the soul. Only demonic religions try to deny this distinction. In fact it is an invariant of all demonic religions that they all deny the trinary nature of consciousness.

It is only by implicitly denying the distinction between spirit and soul that one can construct a foundation for attacking the Trinity. However, ultimately, trying to deny the distinction between spirit and soul is a form of atheism. Spirits can falter and fail, only the soul is impervious. By denying that humans have a soul nature, and asserting that humans only have a spirit nature, it is a denial of the existence of God within us.

Opposition to the Trinity is in fact an atheistic denial of God’s presence within us.

loyal wrote:

The trinity is self-contradictory. How can God be all-powerful and weak at the same time? It's self-contradictory!

How can God be everything? And yet He is. Do you deny this? If so, how can you claim to actually be a theist?

loyal wrote:

It's like claiming i am the best in my school at chess and also one of the worst. Which am i? The worst or the best?

God is all. God is not limited in the fashion that you contrive.

loyal wrote:

Which is God all-powerful or weak? If God is weak, He is no longer God. God is supposed to be infinite according to theologians. Yet the trinity says He is a weakling!

You mean the messiah? You fail to understand that love is a form of vulnerability, and though you foolishly define it as weak, it is actually love and openness that are the most important aspects of STRENGTH. You are obsessed with materialistic notions of weakness and completely ignore real spiritual and moral strength. The Qur’an does not prepare one to recognize spiritual strength because it focus on materialistic notions of strength that are devoid of probing moral insights, as a demon would have it!

loyal wrote:

Quote:

loyal wrote:
The trinity is a made up doctrine: http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html#Nicea (it's a CHRISTIAN link).

No, that is not a Christian link.

Yes it is. They are Christians. But it is beside the point.

No it is not, what denomination is Thunder Ministries? You can’t say or you would have. You can’t say because they have no denomination, they have formed their own non-denominational church that is no more Christian than Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Just because someone reads the Bible and starts their own cult doesn’t make them Christian.

loyal wrote:

The point is history itself shows that the trinity is made up. So scholars know that the trinity was created in church councils:

1) Nicea 325CE
2) Constantinople 381CE
3) Chalcedon 451CE

Do your research.

Please do yours, all three legs of the Trinity are as ancient as any text in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit was not a term invented at Nicea. Your supposition here is completely with factual support.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

What denomination of Christianity is that?

I think they are Unitarian i think. Unitarians reject the trinity but are still christians.

No, they are not Unitarian, Unitarians are not Jew and Catholic hating bigots. These were angry bigoted nut cases. Unitarians are pretty nutty, but in a pleasant way, not in an ugly racist manner like Thunder Ministries.

BTW, Unitarians do not reject the Trinity, they simply do not require their members to believe in it.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

These people hate Jews and Catholics

You are going to have to back that up with quotes.

http://www.thunderministries.com/Vatican/Hersy.html
http://www.thunderministries.com/Vatican/Hersy.html

loyal wrote:

Quote:

and reject the Apostles creed

There is such a thing as a Unitarian christian.

If only that is all that these racist nut cases were!

loyal wrote:

Quote:

It reflects badly on you that you would stoop to using the arguments of religious bigots like this. This is nothing more than a hate group that preaches religious bigotry.

I did not "stoop" to using arguments of thunder ministries. I simply wanted a detailed account of the council of Nicea and things leading upto it. This is because the council of Nicea is where the trinity was born. And thunder ministries has an accurate and detailed version so i quoted that link to you. When i quote a link to you, i am only quoting that page. Not the whole site.

Quote from a nut case sight that promotes racism and religious bigotry, along with your antitrinitarian point of view, actually speaks volumes for the true status of your antitrinitarian views. They are not rational, they are based on distorting Christianity and generally contemptuous opinions of intolerance.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

It is a cheap shot because it is a very advanced way of thinking about God for which not one in a thousand Christians can properly defend. When properly understood it is not hard at all to defend, but even as early as the 4th century ecumenical councils their understanding of this extremely rarified issue had already been in a sharp nose dive for generations.

The trinity is illogical and thus cannot be understood. You are going to have to explain it clearly and refute all of these criticisms i said earlier for example:

3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?

Please refute the whole list or most of it.

I have. The body and intellect are not co-equal with the soul and spirit, nor is the son co-equal with the father. Where do you get this co-equal persons bit? There is nothing Christian about that.

Quote:

I don’t have that problem, I understand it well enough to make it clear and simple even to a child. The Qur'an was based on betting that hardly anyone will bump into someone like me who can explain the Trinity clearly and concisely.

The Quran came from an illiterate man in the middle of the desert. I doubt the man understood the trinity, nor cared about it. Muhammed, peace and blessings upon him, met lots of Jews instead of lots of christians. I am sure he didn't know much about Christian beliefs.

loyal wrote:

I really doubt you can explain the trinity. Explain the major contradictions between it. How can God be all-powerful and weak at the same time? it's impossible! it's like claiming God could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.

It is ironic that you would attempt to use a classic atheistic argument against God, as an analogy to the manner in which you attack the Trinity. You keep very poor company in your theology!

loyal wrote:

You're missing the point. You say that because the subject was called Elohim, it has a divine spark. Does this mean that these false gods have a divine spark?

How could God control evil otherwise? Do you think that God does not control all things, even evil? He controls what is Him.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Same difference, “there are none of us chickens in here!”. It’s trying to lull people into not even considering the impact of demons. They are just jinn, not fallen angels. What do you think would be a more formidable opponent, an evil jinn, or a fallen angel?

both would be formidable. but the angel wouldn't be that bad. anything that has once been good will always retain that goodness no matter how small, the goodness has shrunk.

These are the ones that are best at manipulating good and telling the most convincing lies. A street person tells flimsy lies because he lacks the refinement to tell a convincing lie, but someone with great refinement can tell much more convincing lies if they turn evil. So I think that your reasoning here is the reverse of what it should be in this situation.

mike1reynolds

loyal wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

loyal wrote:

Quote:

Locutions, voices from unseen entities, should never be automatically trusted. However, all of Islam seems to be based on doing precisely that. Locutions are guilty until proven innocent.

Okay. But we don't need to prove that Gabriel was a demon because if the Quran is true, then that means its claims of being given through a messenger angel named Gabriel is true.

Huh? You need to prove that the entity was in fact Gabriel and not an imposter. You need to prove that the entity was not a demon. Why on Earth would you feel like I was demanding that you prove it was a demon? BTW, that is not my job either, all I have to do is cast a reasonable shadow of doubt because the burden of proof is on you. You must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohammed’s locutions came from a real angel or logically it should be rejected.

I don't think you understood what i meant. I mean that if i prove the Quran true, then that means the Quran's claims of being delivered by Gabriel are true as well. Agree?
So i'm gonna have to try and prove the Quran true...Funny how debates focusing on one aspect in religion end up including most of the religion...

If that is the best evidence that can be presented then conversely, if I can prove that the Qur’an is lying, which shouldn’t be that hard to do since it is on a whole array of moral issues, then I have proven that the Qur’an was dictated by an arch-demon and not an archangel.

loyal wrote:

Quote:

This narrative does not include a single test. The only “test” that took place was from Mohammed’s elderly Christian cousin who was not a priest and not qualified to conduct a trial of spirit locutions. It was not even conducted as a trial, he came to his conclusion in an extremely casual manner.

What do you mean a test? How could he have tested Gabriel? By taking a feather (assuming angels have physical literal wings) and studying it under the microscope?

The most famous examples of trials of locutions come from the lives of Joan of Arc and St. Teresa of Avila. Are you familiar with them? Joan was being tried by clergy loyal to the British crown who were under enormous political pressures to find any way to convict her, and yet they were unable to convict her locutions as demonic. Instead they convicted her of wearing men’s clothing as the primary charge of witchcraft. It was so absurd that one of the British crown’s own advisors bewailed from an tower overlooking the sight of her burning, “God save us all, we are putting a saint to death!” A priest on the scene defied all ecclesiastical authority there by fashioning a makeshift cross and throwing it to her. It is only because of this priest’s act of overt defiance that she became eligible for sainthood, so that was no small act.

The point is that the ancient Orthodox Christian procedures for testing these spirits are so precise, rigorous, scientific, and incorruptible, that even with judges and jurors who were doing everything in their power to pervert the system, it still could not be manipulated into producing a convincing false conviction.

loyal wrote:

When a man says he is visited by an angel we can either conclude he is
-lying
or
-telling the truth
or
-had mental problems

You left out MY