Easy question already addressed within Islam.

The Torah that was given to Moses Peace be upon him m and the Injeel( Gospels) given to Jesus PBUH were corrupted and changed. The Torah and Gospels of today are not the same ones given by Allah to those prophets.
The oldest Greek bible known as codex vanicatus compared with bible today has 7228 from the Greek edition.

Mary PBUH is wearing what on every picture if her? A Hijab.

Mathew 26:39
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Jesus praying on ground in Bible. Who else prays like that? Muslims.

I find it odd that on one hand you claim the gospels are corrupted and then quote them to support another point,

Not very surprising, though.

The Koran isn't uncorrupted...it's what happens when an illiterate camel raper tries to add credibility to his megalomaniacal fantasies. Unfortunately for Mohammed he chose a shitty piece of fiction to embellish.

Sleepy, you have no evidence of corruption. If they've been changed, then give us proof.

Well they contradict islam! What more proof do you need?!

(November 30, 2013 at 6:16 pm)Sleepy Wrote: Pablo is exactly correct. They were all Prophets and Messengers and they all continued the same message sent by Allah.

In that case why didn't the first "prophet" show up with the complete message.

Seems somewhat incompetent from an all knowing, all powerful being, right?

Yes, I know the usual cop-outs that the religiously indoctrinated claim - it's somewhat universal - but there are often variations, slight though they may be, from one of the indoctrinated to another.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm)Sleepy Wrote: Liberal/homosexuality ideology is going to crumble and be destroyed based on its own ideas
They're always be going to be unnatural, repulsive and sick creatures if they stick to their ways.

If they choose to stop those activities and repent for their sins than that's fine

Actually sleepy you have me thinking, what if it is not homosexuality that is unnatural, but instead your religion. We have scientific evidence (link, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.abstract) that homosexuality is passed on the x chromosome inherited from the female. Along with that we have observations of widespread homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and in premonotheism cultures. however the theist seems to take one of two ways to usurp what is "natural".
1. They claim that god created us. This is demonstrably false in several ways. First is that the idea of the human race coming from two individuals, in a garden in the middle east. First objection that come to mind here is genetic diseases and how this can't effectively account for diversity among humans because if we all came from the same people in the place so recently then the rate of mutation ( which is observable) is far too slow to account for the diversity we see.
My second objection to this the fact that it has been proven that the mother population of humans is in east Africa, not the middle east. We know this because we can study the DNA of people and found that two neighbors in east Africa have more diversity in there genetics then a north American and a Asian. Not to mention most human ancestor fossils are found in the great rift valley. The Tigris isn't even close, nor is the Euphrates.
2. Is the theists try to claim the fall of man made nature evil ( and man evil) This falls short. The reason is because we now know there was no Adam and eve, evolution acts on populations not individuals, and is a gradient not a sudden change. Now if we accept this, as I did as a christian, the creation story must then be interpreted as a allegory. This falls apart under scrutiny because there is no agreed upon way of interpreting it. If there was no garden then there where was the fruit? If the fruit is a allegory then what could it symbolize? (many things of course) If nature had no evil before the allegorical man ate the allegorical fruit then did animals eat each each other? If yes then why did a perfect being create a system of life that requires death. If no then how do you explain the past evolution? You now see my point.
The problem is quite basic, religion, when faced with scrutiny falls apart and then has to be built up again with ad-hoc after ad-hoc, as apologetics (both muslim and christian does). Science on the other hand is built on intense scrutiny, and when it is wrong it admits it and change accordingly.
So therefore science rules over religion.
Also I wish address you claim sleepy that all children are born muslim, for this assertion makes prediction. If we were to take a young child of 4 that was born to nonrelgious parent and never exposed to religion would have some inborn knowledge of islam. If that was the case wouldn't young girls from non muslim backgrounds start wearing hijabs? would they not reject the morality they are born into as incorrect and gravitiate towards a islam like code instead? Your assertion says we would see this en masse, not in isolated cases. On the other hand with homosexuals, many claim to have feelings for people of the same gender since they were very young. In fact the peer reveiw journal science posted a article saying it may begin in the womb.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/201...start-womb
Now back on point we must conclude it is religion that is unnatural and not homosexuality, because religion fails on so many and is so contradictory to what we see it is therefore untrue. Where science is demonstrably true and when proven false seeks correction. And one, via scientific can conclude that homosexuality is natural, in almost all cases ( those where it is unnatural are often results of sexual abuse, again that is scientifically proven)


Some more links to back my points
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...008-9449-3
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resource...alEve.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/562

Sleepy thinks homosexuality is an ideology, rather than a biological imperative. Hilarious.

Lemon, expect the TL;DR/allahdidit rebuttal to your post.

(November 30, 2013 at 9:12 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Lemon, expect the TL;DR/allahdidit rebuttal to your post.

That is simply a non answer. To which I respond "prove it was Allah and not Vishnu."