(December 31, 2010 at 11:48 am)Regens Küchl Wrote: I have found an argument for Islam that in this case I will copy to let you read it. Mohammed (blessed be his name) succeeded to let preserve the true words of god unfalsified until today.
That the Koran has been better persevered (and there is some doubt about this but that's another discussion thread on the Islam forum so let that go for now) is a lot more easily attributed to the fact that Islam is a significantly younger sect, did not have the difficulty of translating their scripture into other languages and had a more determined goal of preserving the original book. Although I am role-playing a seeker of the right religion, I still will apply Occam's Razor and not attribute to divine intercession what could be easily explained by human efforts.
Quote:And, if you will so, all the great prophets are opposed to normal people who are not neccessarily great.
So "great" is internalized into the definition of the word "prophet", just as "dark" might be to the color "black"? Fine. Then it is a tautology to call Jesus a "great prophet".
Quote:Jesus convinced the people rightfully that Allah wants not only Jews but all people to serve him.
That was a enormous success.
It is another story that later humans perverted parts of his message to things like the christian Trinity dogma.
Jesus' followers prayed to him and thought of him as an intercessor to God. A more spectacular failure for the jealous YHWH-Allah would be impossible to imagine short of the Christians all becoming Satanists.
The second half of your statement invokes the dreamscape also used by Protestant Christians that there was a pure form of Jesus' teachings that were corrupted by a later Catholic-Trinitarian teaching. Actual research into early Christianity indicates that both claims are the stuff of fantasy created to justify their own religion, nothing more. While it is true that there were non-Trinitarian Christians, and Muslim apologists will spuriously point to them as Islamic, in fact, all the early Christians regarded Jesus as an intercessor divine agent of some sort, whether an angel, an apparition of God or a higher god. None of these early Christianities are consistent with Islamic teaching nor is there any indication that Jesus declared himself a forerunner of a prophet to come.
Quote:About success I wrote above, and this particular pretty poertry is also the truest word of god. But you wont see that without reading it with an open heart.
The Koran, at least the English translation, strikes me as being the inconsistent ravings of a madman but let that go. Shakespeare wrote pretty poetry as well. That doesn't prove he was a divine agent. This line of argument is completely irrelevant even if it were true.
Quote:Islam had no holy Inquisition and was historically more tolerant to unbelievers than christianity.
That's the propaganda. Google a news search on Islamic persecution of Hindus, Jews, Christians and atheists as well as the very institutional laws of Sharia regarding the Jizat tax for the other religions (pardon my spelling if that's not the right way) as well as "anti-blasphemy" laws and I think you'll find the claim quickly collapses under scrutiny.
So in review, do we have any arguments aside from:
1. Success of Islam
2. Pretty poetry
?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
