I've been asked to comment on Islam. Since I'm not as familiar with this religion as I am on Christianity, I'm going to structure this post as a series of questions I have (i.e. "let me see if I got this straight..."). I've commented before that Islam is "Christianity on Steroids" but this is more about what I've seen as its practical applications in society than the nuances of its theology. If any Muslim apologists on the forum would like to comment or answer these questions, they're welcome to.
Having gotten a third of the way through the Koran, I notice the same OT stories and prophets. A few are changed slightly. For example, in the Garden of Eden, the angels were asked to bow down before the created humans and Lucifer (or Iblis) refused, which was the cause of his rebellion. The "Trinity" criticized at one point is misunderstood as the Father, Mother and Son, probably the result of Catholicism's fixation on Mary.
The biggest difference is that Jesus tells Allah that he never told the people to worship him or that he was the Son of God. I forget the exact verse but it's clear that Jesus was a forerunner to Muhammad, much the same way the Christian version of John the Baptist was to Jesus. I understand that Muslims regard Jesus as a "great prophet" but not as the divine Son of God.
At first glance, Islam seems slightly more rational that Christianity as it jettisons the babbling nonsense about "The Trinity", which I regard as a poorly contrived concept to try to reconcile pagan ideas of the intercessor savior with strict Jewish monotheism. Islam is at least consistent in its claim of monotheism. Indeed, I've heard some Muslim apologists claim that "Islam correct Christianity." One used the analogy of computer software that Judaism was "God 1.0", Christianity was "God 2.0" and Islam is "God 3.0".
Some questions I have on further examination is with regards to the claims Islam makes about Jesus. If the story of Islam is true, then Jesus preached a message of pure monotheism, foretold that a greater prophet was to come, he was framed by the Jews, he escaped crucifixion when someone took his place (kind of a "Tale of Two Cities" sort of twist) and was taken up into the sky to be in Heaven. A few years later, the heretic Paul convinced everyone to worship Jesus and Christianity was born.
Do I have the story straight?
Now exactly where Muhammad got his information about Jesus and the true story is something I wonder about. If we limit ourselves to worldly sources of information, Muhammad could have only heard about Jesus from the very Christians, the very people that he claimed got the story all wrong. Now assuming Muhammad isn't lying, that means he could have only gotten the true story from divine revelation.
So let me see if I got this straight.
1. Jesus gathers a group of close followers. Three years after he leaves the earth, Paul comes along and tells them to pay no attention to what Jesus said and to instead worship him. All the early Christians then say, "Duh, OK."
Seriously? Why didn't they just laugh at Paul? Why would they take Paul seriously enough to forget all they'd been taught and commit such blasphemy that goes against both the teachings of their prophet and their religion?
2. Jesus is a "great prophet" in Islam. His message as a prophet was to practice monotheism and to expect Muhammad. The people he preached to failed to get this message, they never anticipated another coming and, to top it all off, worshiped him in a gross commission of idolatry. Short of the Christians all becoming Satanists, I can't imagine a greater disaster in terms of his assigned mission contrasted with the results.
Therefore, Jesus was clearly incompetent and a miserable failure as an Islamic prophet. If not, why not?
3. The Jews killed Jesus why again? In the Christian story, Jesus blasphemed by calling himself the Son of God and an intercessor to God. Indeed, according to Jewish monotheism, Jesus DID blaspheme and the Jewish laws would have called for his death. But the Muslim version of the story has no such blasphemy. Jesus denies he is the Son of God and only preached a message of devotion to God, a message that the Jews should have been in agreement with. As for expecting another, greater prophet, this was again consistent with Jewish theology, which was looking for the Messiah. The expected Messiah was not a divine being but a warlord and a mortal human servant of God.
There was nothing the Muslim Jesus preached that should have called for his death by Jewish law or tradition. Am I missing something?
4. If God did decide to tell Muhammad the true story, why not tell the Christians? This is the classic problem a "new" religion has. If it is true, why didn't God tell anyone else before now?
You can begin to see why I say the story that Muslims tell about Jesus makes absolutely no sense from start to finish.
Now, I'm a critic of Christianity and can tear apart their bogus history but at least they have something to tear apart. Christianity, for all it's flaws, has a slick marketing package filled with "eye-witness accounts" and complete with folklore of an established church. What has Islam got? Some guy who is the Johnny-come-lately to the party (six centuries later) who announces that the party is all about him, that he's the awaited final great prophet? God spoke to him and wants to tell us how everyone else got it all wrong?
You can assert, if you like, that Muhammad got the real story about Jesus from divine revelation but what proof is there? I can go down to the local insane asylum and find a dozen inmates who will make the same claim to have spoken with God and have just as much proof.
If I WERE to choose between Islam and Christianity, it comes down to who is right about Jesus. Why should I not go with the people who are part of the established church that Jesus supposedly founded? Why would I believe the man who came along six centuries later to say the only people he could have heard about Jesus from were the ones who got it all wrong? This is beyond special pleading.
Having gotten a third of the way through the Koran, I notice the same OT stories and prophets. A few are changed slightly. For example, in the Garden of Eden, the angels were asked to bow down before the created humans and Lucifer (or Iblis) refused, which was the cause of his rebellion. The "Trinity" criticized at one point is misunderstood as the Father, Mother and Son, probably the result of Catholicism's fixation on Mary.
The biggest difference is that Jesus tells Allah that he never told the people to worship him or that he was the Son of God. I forget the exact verse but it's clear that Jesus was a forerunner to Muhammad, much the same way the Christian version of John the Baptist was to Jesus. I understand that Muslims regard Jesus as a "great prophet" but not as the divine Son of God.
At first glance, Islam seems slightly more rational that Christianity as it jettisons the babbling nonsense about "The Trinity", which I regard as a poorly contrived concept to try to reconcile pagan ideas of the intercessor savior with strict Jewish monotheism. Islam is at least consistent in its claim of monotheism. Indeed, I've heard some Muslim apologists claim that "Islam correct Christianity." One used the analogy of computer software that Judaism was "God 1.0", Christianity was "God 2.0" and Islam is "God 3.0".
Some questions I have on further examination is with regards to the claims Islam makes about Jesus. If the story of Islam is true, then Jesus preached a message of pure monotheism, foretold that a greater prophet was to come, he was framed by the Jews, he escaped crucifixion when someone took his place (kind of a "Tale of Two Cities" sort of twist) and was taken up into the sky to be in Heaven. A few years later, the heretic Paul convinced everyone to worship Jesus and Christianity was born.
Do I have the story straight?
Now exactly where Muhammad got his information about Jesus and the true story is something I wonder about. If we limit ourselves to worldly sources of information, Muhammad could have only heard about Jesus from the very Christians, the very people that he claimed got the story all wrong. Now assuming Muhammad isn't lying, that means he could have only gotten the true story from divine revelation.
So let me see if I got this straight.
1. Jesus gathers a group of close followers. Three years after he leaves the earth, Paul comes along and tells them to pay no attention to what Jesus said and to instead worship him. All the early Christians then say, "Duh, OK."
Seriously? Why didn't they just laugh at Paul? Why would they take Paul seriously enough to forget all they'd been taught and commit such blasphemy that goes against both the teachings of their prophet and their religion?
2. Jesus is a "great prophet" in Islam. His message as a prophet was to practice monotheism and to expect Muhammad. The people he preached to failed to get this message, they never anticipated another coming and, to top it all off, worshiped him in a gross commission of idolatry. Short of the Christians all becoming Satanists, I can't imagine a greater disaster in terms of his assigned mission contrasted with the results.
Therefore, Jesus was clearly incompetent and a miserable failure as an Islamic prophet. If not, why not?
3. The Jews killed Jesus why again? In the Christian story, Jesus blasphemed by calling himself the Son of God and an intercessor to God. Indeed, according to Jewish monotheism, Jesus DID blaspheme and the Jewish laws would have called for his death. But the Muslim version of the story has no such blasphemy. Jesus denies he is the Son of God and only preached a message of devotion to God, a message that the Jews should have been in agreement with. As for expecting another, greater prophet, this was again consistent with Jewish theology, which was looking for the Messiah. The expected Messiah was not a divine being but a warlord and a mortal human servant of God.
There was nothing the Muslim Jesus preached that should have called for his death by Jewish law or tradition. Am I missing something?
4. If God did decide to tell Muhammad the true story, why not tell the Christians? This is the classic problem a "new" religion has. If it is true, why didn't God tell anyone else before now?
You can begin to see why I say the story that Muslims tell about Jesus makes absolutely no sense from start to finish.
Now, I'm a critic of Christianity and can tear apart their bogus history but at least they have something to tear apart. Christianity, for all it's flaws, has a slick marketing package filled with "eye-witness accounts" and complete with folklore of an established church. What has Islam got? Some guy who is the Johnny-come-lately to the party (six centuries later) who announces that the party is all about him, that he's the awaited final great prophet? God spoke to him and wants to tell us how everyone else got it all wrong?
You can assert, if you like, that Muhammad got the real story about Jesus from divine revelation but what proof is there? I can go down to the local insane asylum and find a dozen inmates who will make the same claim to have spoken with God and have just as much proof.
If I WERE to choose between Islam and Christianity, it comes down to who is right about Jesus. Why should I not go with the people who are part of the established church that Jesus supposedly founded? Why would I believe the man who came along six centuries later to say the only people he could have heard about Jesus from were the ones who got it all wrong? This is beyond special pleading.
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
