(January 28, 2015 at 6:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: I think the difference is what are the early members attesting to. One side they attesting to teachings from someone who claimed to be God and then witness a death and resurrection that then is explained to them by the person they believe to be God. With Mormons and Muslims, early members would be attesting to a man claiming to have a message from God.
So if the muslims had an identical story to the christian religion, you'd give them equal weight?
Do you, perchance, cast the same sorts of doubt on the ten commandments, Noah's ark, or Paul's conversion at Damascus? It's such a weird position you seem to hold here, where the message of a prophet is good enough for anyone in your own religion, but immediately suspect from anyone else. Paul's conversion happened in the new testament, and the one giving him a message there identified themselves as Jesus, and yet I've seen you refer to Paul's writings in this thread. If the messenger is that integral to whether you'll take the message seriously or not, why is that?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!