03 Mar 08
1 edit
A question for Christians out there.
After reading and trying to understand your reasoning, I must ask this question. There's a lot more evidence that the Qu'ran is the exact word of God (your same God) than the Bible. It has lesser inconsistencies, and makes a lot more sense.
Why don't you accept it? Because you don't like it? Because of cultural reasons?
The truth is, by your own arguments, you shouldn't have a reason to reject Islam.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoBecause the Bible doesn't say "accept Islam".... Duh.......
A question for Christians out there.
After reading and trying to understand your reasoning, I must ask this question. There's a lot more evidence that the Qu'ran is the exact word of God (your same God) than the Bible. It has lesser inconsistencies, and makes a lot more sense.
Why don't you accept it? Because you don't like it? Because of cultural reasons?
The truth is, by your own arguments, you shouldn't have a reason to reject Islam.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by David CNo. There's an original copy from the Qu'ran, and proof today's copies are exact to the original Muhammed's writings.
Um, no. There's exactly the same amount of evidence that the Judeo-Christian Bible and the Muslim Qu'ran are the word of "god".
That is to say...none at all.
The point is exactly that one. There's nothing to prefer the Bible to the Qu'ran. But at least in the Qu'ran you know for sure it hasn't been tempered.
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoOK ... I will get converted right away.
A question for Christians out there.
After reading and trying to understand your reasoning, I must ask this question. There's a lot more evidence that the Qu'ran is the exact word of God (your same God) than the Bible. It has lesser inconsistencies, and makes a lot more sense.
Why don't you accept it? Because you don't like it? Because of cultural reasons?
The truth is, by your own arguments, you shouldn't have a reason to reject Islam.
You happy now ?
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoI never wondered about whether the Qu'ran is exact to the original Muhammed's writings, as you put it. In fact, I guess I always assumed they were. I also know there are plenty of materials supporting some of the translations of the Bible. That doesn't mean diddly squat. Just because Muhammed wrote it or Paul said it doesn't mean that it's God's word -- exact, paraphrased, or otherwise.
No. There's an original copy from the Qu'ran, and proof today's copies are exact to the original Muhammed's writings.
The point is exactly that one. There's nothing to prefer the Bible to the Qu'ran. But at least in the Qu'ran you know for sure it hasn't been tempered.
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerYes, I can't agree more with you.
I never wondered about whether the Qu'ran is exact to the original Muhammed's writings, as you put it. In fact, I guess I always assumed they were. I also know there are plenty of materials supporting some of the translations of the Bible. That doesn't mean diddly squat. Just because Muhammed wrote it or Paul said it doesn't mean that it's God's word -- exact, paraphrased, or otherwise.
But my point is: IF you believe the Bible is the word of God, what makes you believe Qu'ran is not the word of God.
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoMuhammad's writings? "Original"? You might want to check in to that a little deeper. Muhammad could neither read nor write, and these "writings" are those of his companions. Just as in Christianity, most of the original transmissions were ostensibly oral.
No. There's an original copy from the Qu'ran, and proof today's copies are exact to the original Muhammed's writings.
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by David CThere's no dispute to the originality of the Qu'ran, that's what I mean.
Muhammad's writings? "Original"? You might want to check in to that a little deeper. Muhammad could neither read nor write, and these "writings" are those of his companions. Just as in Christianity, most of the original transmissions were ostensibly oral.
Supposedly Muhammed memorized all of it, transmitted to his partners, and eventually it was written all at once, with minimal deturpations.
But that's not the point or discussion in this thread.
The question is: what's the reason for Christians not accepting what's written there. They base their belief in one book, but what makes them choose one book over the other? Personal taste? Indoctrination? Cultural aspects?