Convert me if you can

[Ashendant]

Lol everyone is ignoring the eyewitness for Christianity i mentioned

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Oh yeah, that's the ultimate killer sentence which all theists are afraid to answer ...

Afraid? I wouldn't say so. I'd say incapable,just as hard atheists are incapable of falsifying the existence of gods. Hence my position; I'm unable in conscience to make a claim either way.

[Regens Küchl]

Please do not dispose the child along with the bathtub. You are right with this reasons playing a role for the excellent preservance of Allahs word.
Mohammed (blessed be his name) was the last prophet, so Islam of course is younger. Arabic was accepted by Allah as the best form of his word, because it is a beautiful and living language used in a great part of the world. Because of the Quran being the true word, the followers were extemely and rightfully determined to preserve it.
All true, but all this is rather more evidence for Islam and not against it.

I don't follow your logic here at all. Can you rephrase?

Uh, will try. You cannot hold it against a holy book that it is not older than the prophet who received it.
Allah choose to clothe his final words into a tongue that would not need much translation. That is only logical and you cannot hold Allahs logical choice against Allahs religion.
Because it is an extremely precious book, people preserved the Quran in his original words as they did for example with the works of Shakespeare.
But if you do not hold the preservance of Shakespeares works against their worthyness, you can hardly hold the presevance of the Quran against the truth of Islam.

And so you must admit that it was wrong to say he was no great prophet, as it would be wrong to say a darkness was not black.

I admit that you've defined all prophets are automatically "great", a definition I don't hold. I personally use the word "great" in measuring the achievement of results.

The holy prophets were at no time scholars in a contest of who does it at best.

Hah here again I have to break to you that the fact that Jesus was highly misinterpreted and on him was based an incorrect cult (Xians), is not an argument against Islam but is a massive argument for Islam.

I don't follow. How exactly?

I do not speak for Christianity, I speak for Islam. You come along, you tell me that the christians got it wrong in so many ways (which is true) and present that to me as an argument against Islam.
Do you not see that this is an argument for Islam ? Please think it through.
If you yourself state that christians are wrong, than that means that muslims could very well be right. (In context to your plan to choose between the two religions.)

Besides: It was not the prophet Jesus fault, but the fault of people that he was misinterpreted and not all Xians got it totally wrong.

A teacher shares responsibility if most of his class fails to learn.

As you like it. But is he responsible for every error people make in his name after he is dead and gone.
And you will grant that Paul preached after Jesus lifetime.
Here is an example : Do you hold Charles Darwin responsible for modern racism? If not why do you think Jesus is responsible for a church and religion built after his lifetime?

Before Mohammed(blessed be his name) great parts of the ancient world and some emperors were arian, whose concept of Jesus was not so far from the muslim concept of a great prophet. Here is the arian concept:

Arian Christianity is a 3rd century variant on the Christian theme, some 200 years after Paul led the Christians astray. I therefore don't see how this is relevant. Even if it were, Arius taught that Jesus was an angel or lesser god, sent by God to be the intercessor. This is not consistent with Islamic teaching.

And evangelical churches are less polytheistic than catholic ones. The christians cannot make it right even for and among themselves. Only Islam is truly monotheistic and teaches the right path.

Not the poetry, but the message should you let enter your heart.

This argument is a wash with the Christian "Holy Spirit" arguments re: the Bible.

I doubt that the Holy Spirit hands you a divine book wherein you can read the thuth black on white.

At last once muslims were settled they were more tolerant than xians.

That's a low bar.

It makes the difference nonetheless.

You cannot deny the fact that while the xian west sank down in his dark middle ages, suppressed and destroyed scientific advance as well as many early scientists, the islamic orient came to blossom in regard of culture and sciences.

And as Ash has pointed out, the Christian and Islamic world switched places since. It seems the more devoutly religious a society is, the more backward.

This, btw, is what I mean by "not a dime's worth of difference". Islam and Christianity have the same effect on society where they have the power to. The marketing may be a bit more crude with the former but the results are the same once the package is purchased.

Christians receive hell for not aknowledging Allahs final prophet Muslims receive Heaven. I suggest you take that difference into account and make the right choice

[DeistPaladin]

Allah choose to clothe his final words into a tongue that would not need much translation. That is only logical and you cannot hold Allahs logical choice against Allahs religion.
Because it is an extremely precious book, people preserved the Quran in his original words as they did for example with the works of Shakespeare.

Once again, I won't attribute to God what can be easily explained by human efforts.

I do not speak for Christianity, I speak for Islam. You come along, you tell me that the christians got it wrong in so many ways (which is true) and present that to me as an argument against Islam.

No, this is Islam's claim. In real life, I think both have it wrong but that's not what I'm role-playing. In this exercise, I'm assuming one got it right. The Christians say their eye-witnesses who founded the Church knew Jesus. The Muslims cite some guy several centuries later who only heard about Jesus from the Christians and they say he got it right and the very Christians who told him about Jesus were wrong.

As you like it. But is he responsible for every error people make in his name after he is dead and gone.
And you will grant that Paul preached after Jesus lifetime.

Yes. If Jesus had been more clear or written anything down, it might not have happened.

Here is an example : Do you hold Charles Darwin responsible for modern racism?

Modern racism is built on Darwin's findings? I wasn't aware. I seem to remember studying Hitler's speeches and how they referenced his Biblical duty to "the Lord" and that he rejected Darwin. I seem to remember studying the radical right wing in America and how intertwined their thinking is with religion. I seem to remember that evolution reveals that we all have common ancestry from Africa, that the only difference is skin pigmentation caused by long term exposure to direct sunlight. Obviously, I'm mistaken.

I doubt that the Holy Spirit hands you a divine book wherein you can read the thuth black on white.

According to some Christian claims, yes.

At last once muslims were settled they were more tolerant than xians.

That's a low bar.

It makes the difference nonetheless.
[/quote]

Does it mean that Muslims were or are tolerant of religious difference or apostasy? If not, than no, it doesn't.

---

Muslim reasons would be:

1. Islam is more monotheistic. The Christian trinity is polytheistic, they associate partners with God.
2. The poetic beauty of the Qur'an being proof of divine origin.
3. The most common method of Muslim brainwashing nowadays is the scientific miracles of the Qur'an. They're incredibly deceptive and a lot of Muslims use them to rationalise their belief.
4. They also whitewash Islamic history, glorifying Mohammed and explain away the nastier verses of the Qur'an.

Only the third one would be worthy of any examination. The first is based on a false assumption (monotheism = true), the second is an appeal to art, and the fourth is a non-sequitur.

[Regens Küchl]

Once again, I won't attribute to God what can be easily explained by human efforts.

The humans felt in their heart that the Quran is Gods true word and that is the reason they preserved it so well. Doesnt that make you think ?

Makes me think they preserved it for illogical reasons. So what?

[Edwardo Piet]

The humans felt in their heart that the Quran is Gods true word and that is the reason they preserved it so well. Doesnt that make you think ?

If I "feel in my heart" that a benevolent jelly-monster named Kevin lives under my bed, doesn't that make you think?

[Regens Küchl]

Why dont you look at it this way :

The christians hold Jesus high, but spit at prophet Mohammed (blessed be his name) and dont aknowledge him as one.

We muslims (remember I am a roleplay muslim only) honor Jesus also and we aknowledge Mohammed (blessed be his name) as the final prophet and are, for good reasons, very sure we are right in doing so.

So if you are going to choose christianity as your religion, and find out too late that Islam is right you will got to hell for not believing in Allahs final prophet.

But if you choose Islam and should ,theoretically spoken, Christianity be the right religion then Allah will see that you after all honored his son Jesus and just in Mohammed honored a false prophet too many.

Since Allah is mercyful he will in this case not send you to hell if you were additionally a righteous person in your life.

So even if you are 50 -50 unsure whether to become christian or muslim you have to see that you are still on the safer side joining Islam

What do you have to say to that ?

[Edwardo Piet]

I say Pascal's Wager sucks donkey balls.

[DeistPaladin]

What do you have to say to that ?

I'd say that since I'm seeing the Pascal's Wager card getting played, that it's a sign that we're at the bottom of a small deck of cards. I think it's time to review and conclude.

Islam's Claim: God spoke to Muhammad

Evidence Offered:
1. "Look how beautiful the poetry of the Koran is." (appeal to art)
2. "Islam has grown and so it must be true." (appeal to popularity)
3. "There's scientific knowledge in the Koran that Muhammad couldn't have known."

What's interesting is not just how short this list is but also the lack of any evidence outside the Koran. Christians will at least present historical documentation and supposed "eye-witnesses" to try to compliment their claims regarding Jesus. The Koran, by stark contrast, has zero corroborating evidence. Muslims are forced to use exclusively their holy book to prove their holy book is true.

This is not to say that the Christian evidence is especially compelling either but one has to do the research and dig into history to find the ways that Christian leaders have conned their followers over the ages. Islam doesn't even offer anything to be examined aside from its holy book.

Now, of the three "proofs" offered, only the last is even worthy of examination. The first is an appeal to art and the second is an appeal to popularity. These are obvious logical fallacies and should be dismissed immediately in any rational discussion. The third collapses under close examination of the passages referenced.

[Rayaan]

Islam's Claim: God spoke to Muhammad

Christianity's claim: God spoke to Jesus

The point is that the same thing can be said for Christianity by using the same argument that you're using for Islam.

Evidence Offered:
1. "Look how beautiful the poetry of the Koran is." (appeal to art)
2. "Islam has grown and so it must be true." (appeal to popularity)
3. "There's scientific knowledge in the Koran that Muhammad couldn't have known."

And what are your evidences for Christianity?

Please make a list for Christianity as you did for Islam and prove to me that they are better than Islam's. I'm asking you to do this because you're trying to compare the two religions and saying that there is more evidence for Christianity than Islam. That's why I want to see how would prove this by comparing the evidences from both religions.

Christians will at least present historical documentation and supposed "eye-witnesses" to try to compliment their claims regarding Jesus.

Then tell me about these historical documents. Where should I look to find the eye-witness accounts? The Book of Acts of the Apostles is one of them and what else?

The Koran, by stark contrast, has zero corroborating evidence.

Then prove to me that the Bible has more corroborating evidence than the Quran since you said that there is a "stark contrast" between them, right?

Muslims are forced to use exclusively their holy book to prove their holy book is true.

You already agreed with me before that Muslims also use the Hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh), not only the Quran. I don't know why you're trying to go back again.

Islam doesn't even offer anything to be examined aside from its holy book.

Refer to the comment above. We use the Hadiths AND the Quran. We don't look at the Quran only as you're implying.

That he was divine, an intercessor for mortals with God, who's sacrifice redeemed us from sin. That much all the branches of Christianity seemed to agree on.

And do you believe that Jesus actually said that or no?

If yes, then that means you accept that the Christians are wrong in believing that he is the son of God, because you don't believe in that yourself. If he didn't say that, however, then that means that the Christians are still wrong about Jesus because he didn't say that "I am the son of God" and it's not true that he rose up from the grave after he died.

So, who is more likely to be right about Jesus (and why): Muhammad or the Christians?