K.TRAD writes:

"Please do not lump the Qur`an, which contains only words from the Creator with other writings…"

But that's the whole point K.TRAD old son. You are, as the lawyers are fond of saying, assuming facts not in evidence.

FIRST you have to demonstrate that the koran contains any words from the creator. THEN I'll accord it the respect you think it deserves.

But you cannot prove the koran "contains only words from the Creator." There is no EVIDENCE.

On the other hand there is quite a bit of evidence that the koran is NOT the word of the creator. At the very least I would expect the creator to get the basic facts of biology, geology and cosmology right in an UNAMBIGUOUS fashion. By "unambiguous" I mean something that does not require 20 – 50 words of interpretation for every word in the aya. Nor should it require assumptions about uncertainties in the tenses of Arabic verbs.

I certainly expect the creator to be able to do better than paraphrase the second century anatomist, Galen, on the development of the embryo. (Dr. Keith Moore's preposterous claims notwithstanding.)

When you read the koran you may see the words of the creator. When I read the koran all I see is poppycock. Perhaps it is poppycock that is beautifully expressed in Arabic; but it is still poppycock.

You may find my language offensive K.TRAD. But here's the thing. You may demand that I respect your right to believe what you want. And I do.

But that's different from respecting the beliefs themselves. That you cannot demand of me.

You may believe that the koran is the uncorrupted word of a creator. You may try to propagate that belief. That is your right.

I on the other hand have the right to attack, ridicule and satirise that point of view. I even have the right to lampoon your prophet (so-called) in cartoons.

That's the way this freedom of speech thing works old son.

Keyser: I won’t take you up on the invitation to correspond privately, thank you, as I am not afraid to risk your public condemnation, of my motives or the state of my soul.

I agree with you that the Qu’ranic Jesus and the biblical Jesus are not the same, and you are no longer being duplicitous about that.

As the gospels are a record of Jesus’ life and ministry, based on eyewitness accounts written in living memory, I will continue believing in the original Jesus. The bible is the source of my confidence:

Hebrews 12
2. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sad down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

2 Corinthians 5
14. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation:
20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Well, we’ve seen what the Qu’ran says about Jesus Christ, but what does the bible say about Mohammed?

Did the bible prophecy the coming of Mohammed?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm

*I was particularly interested in the “Principle of Embarrassment” as it applies to the Satanic Verses.*

In a democracy there is a cacophony of voices: and we LOVE it that way: mine, Keyser Trad’s, Ginx’s …. People with passion and conviction expressing opinions, or just people who want to air grievances or debate a point. The enemy of this is suppression. So,

Stevenlmeyer, you can’t argue for the principle of free speech on one hand, but implore

<<WHY CAN'T EITHER OF YOU LEAVE YOUR DELUSIONS BEHIND?>>

on the other, and hope to protect this basic freedom.

Stickman & Ginx: it’s not really a case of my God’s BETTER than yours. Thanks for following the thread but I think you’ve missed the subtext (ie. that the Qu’ran and the bible are mutually exclusive).

Stickman: just what do you do with your blessing of abundant, unburdened time? Cure for cancer? Well it’s a new argument for atheism – to be better time managers, although totally 1990s. It’s quality not quantity these days: just get your work done – it doesn’t matter what time you clock on or clock off. At least that’s what we tell ourselves, us mums trying to juggle all the pressures that modern day society demands of us. Building churches? I wish….

Dear Sticky :) yes.. I fully realized that your comments were also directed towards me. I welcome them.

Regarding 'evidence'.. the most we (Christians) can say is that we offer a 'compelling case' to reason.

The Gospel..the 'euangellion' in greek, the 'good news' is as KatieO so aptly pointed out:

That "He who knew no sin, became sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God"...

Repentance from sin, and faith in Christ/The Gospel is what we offer, and make known, how people react to that is entirely their decision.

The historical facts this relies on, are contentious, yes, but usually for 'theological' reasons :) In Keysars case, he cannot (as with Mohammad his founder) accept any kind of Christ who 'rises' from the dead as this is a threat to the whole notion of Mohammad's self understanding and the subsquent self understanding/religious position of Muslims.

Hence..the Islamic perspective involves a revision of real history to fit an 'Islamic/Mohammad friendly' mould.

For the atheist... the denial of Christ's resurrection is probably partly 'moral' (I don't 'want' to believe such a thing) and partly scientific/Empirical "People don't rise from the dead today, thus, Jesus could not have"

My Original Assertion/Keysars response.

Both the PRIMARY source (Quran)and the SECONDARY source (Bukharis' hadith) and the TERTIARY source (Ibn Kathir/Maududi/others) of Islamic knowledge, confirm my assertion to be true.

The idea Keysar wants us to believe that the Translator of Bukhari, Muhsin Khan 'invented' the hadith in question is absurd. Khan spent his final years in MEDINA and had he added or invented, he probably would have been stoned to death.
So, on every level, "Islam" has an implied permission for the marriage to, sexual use of and divorce of pre-pubescent female children.

Khans work is connected to "Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" or the most valued Sunni commentary of Sahih Bukhari, written by Ibn Hajr Asqalani in 18 volumes.

"invented/non_authentic"? Keysar..thats a joke...right?

May God guide in Christ.

KatieO said "
Stickman: just what do you do with your blessing of abundant, unburdened time? Cure for cancer? "

Yeah maybe Katie.. I am currently in my 4th year of a 5 year medical degree.. ;)

Whatever it is that I do with that blessing of abundant, unburdened time that I have left after studying/working and looking after my 9 month old son though, it won't involve arguing the merits of man-made thousand year old texts and their interpretations.

Peace :)

Boazy.. you are welcome to your interpretation of my denial of Christ's resurrection.. but I fear you overestimate markedly my interest in your myths. I was raised Catholic and spent about 16 years of my life in church pews, wondering if I was the only one in there that didn't really feel that there was much in the way of truth being spoken.

My life is wonderful and awe-inspiring enough... and I just don't need what you are selling, thanks!

Dear Sticky...

being raised in a Catholic environment, helps me to understand some of your skepticism.

I was raised in 'nothing' and my first adult encounters with 'The Church' involved going from one to the other and trying to get a feel for what was real and what was not. (In my 20s)..

First..I tried 'Anglican' but I had big issues with the "liturgy"..
Then I tried 'Methodist' (which at the time was still going separately from the Uniting)... found that better but still... not quite right..
Tried the Catholics.. hmmm lots more people, but still.. the liturgy and do this, then that..then the other thing.. sit down stand up kneel... etc.. hmm too much for me.

All I wanted was to meet people who had a living faith in their hearts... finally I did, they happened to be Baptists, but the 'brand' was not the issue..it was Christ in them.

I'm not selling :) anything.. I can understand your 'interesting' life etc.. been there..done that.. and how so!...

While not 'selling'..I am offering something priceless, as Jesus said
"the kingdom of God is like a man who discovered a treasure in a field, then went and sold everything he had and bought that field"

Did you know that Jesus mentions YOU in one of his parables? :) yess.. its true..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=31

Check that out and see which 'soil' are you? Parable of the sower.

blessings