(June 23, 2010 at 9:24 pm)mo3taz3nbar Wrote: what you guys are expecting me to respond to? he said nothing more than what he think
Mo3, I realize you are active on other threads but I'm just curious if you have any argument against my observation that Islam takes religious special pleading to a whole new level?
At this point, I'm not even going to ask for any proof that Muhammad spoke to God. We both already know there isn't any. Religion would never rely on "faith" if there was any legitimate proof they could use.
What I want to know is how you reconcile the idea that Muhammad knew Jesus better than the people who told him about Jesus, who's very church was established by the people who allegedly knew him? He also knew the Jewish prophets better than the Jews did. Many Muslims try to quote the Bible to me to try to prove the legitimacy of their religion, essentially confirming that their religion is based on the faiths of those who they say got it all wrong.
This is not just special pleading. We're past that. If I were to adopt a faith, I'd stay as close to the source as possible. Jews should be expected to know Jewish prophets best. Christians should be expected to know Jesus best. An active and personal god, involved in human events, would ensure that scriptures wouldn't be corrupted.
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
