My Thoughts On Islam

[DeistPaladin]

What you need to understand is that there is a concept of Orignal Sin in Christianity.

Where as in Islam,We Muslims believe Man is born free from any sins.

Nobody shall bear the sins of one another but only ownself.

If I make a mistake or broke any law.I should be held accountable and not anyone else.

Similarly is this not enough for you to understand why the concept of Orignal Sin fails for this very own reason.

Very much agreed. This is one of the fundamentally absurd things about Christianity, that God would punish me for the crimes of my ancestors. Human morality has long since evolved to understand that it is a moral no-brainer that you can't punish one man or woman for the crimes done by another. How can human morality be superior or more evolved than God's?

Christians may argue that "original sin" refers not just to Adam's sin but also to our inherent nature to commit sins, that Adam's actions but brought sin and corruption into the world. As Hitchens observed, this means that God has created us sick and commands us to be well.

Be sure to argue with them that not only does it make no sense that God should simply command sick people to be well and that the only solution offered was a blood sacrifice (!?) of his own son who was also himself (!?) , but also that the amoral tradition of punishing children for the crimes of their parents is written into the very 10 Commandments so revered by Christians.

The second commandment (bold emphasis added):

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

A god that would punish children for the iniquity of the fathers is a morally bankrupt god and one who does not deserve worship.

God is Most Merciful.Would he really need to send his begotten son to pay for the sins of Mankind??

Also agreed. Another fundamental concept in morality, justice and proper punishment is that one man can't "take the place" of someone's punishment, even if that man were willing to do so. Just as I can't be held responsible for someone else's crime, so to someone else can't take my punishment for a crime I did commit. This defeats the whole purpose of punishment, which should seek to correct bad behavior, discourage future bad behavior from the criminal and from others and perhaps even change the criminal. Human morality has again evolved to a point where we understand such a simple concept. Once again, would human morality be really so superior to God's?

The idea that Jesus could die for our sins is morally bankrupt. Then when you add on top of that Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate, we have barking madness on top of immorality (as an aside, I find a lot of overlap between morality and logic; can anything be morally right which is logically absurd?). So God has sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself as it was the only means to convince himself to forgive us for crimes done by our ancestors?

I'm going to skip around a bit on your post to address some other points of agreement:

Also you say about Trinity.Can you point out this word in the Bible ?

Doesn't exist and even the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) seem to argue against this point of Christian theology. In these Gospels, Jesus is clearly a separate being from his father god and subordinate in will and authority.

Here are a few examples from scripture that underscore this point:

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

So Jesus doesn't know what his father knows. Inferior knowledge would imply that Jesus is a separate being. Beware that some translations of the Bible drop "neither the son" from the translation. *Tsk, tsk* this kind of editing of "holy scripture" shows they knew and tried to cover their tracks. Liars!

Here's another:

Matthew 26:39 And he (Jesus) went a little farther, 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.

So Jesus clearly has a separate will from his father. This suggests that Jesus was a separate person. The fact that Jesus submits to the will of his father says he was both separate and subordinate.

And another (one from Luke so he doesn't feel left out):

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son;in thee I am well pleased.

So the booming voice from above, presumably God's, is speaking to Jesus in second person. Throughout the first three Gospels, Jesus and his father speak (or, in Jesus' case, pray) to each other in second person and of each other in third person. This suggests that Jesus and his father are separate beings.

The only justification Christians can muster for the Trinity in the early Gospels is one verse from Matthew which is itself an embarrassingly mistranslated understanding of Isaiah chapter 7 (showing Matthew relied on the Greek Septuagint and therefore wasn't the Matthew that followed Jesus and therefore the whole Gospel of his is a forgery):

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Christians will eagerly jump on "God with us" and assume this means that God has assumed a human form as a baby. !??!?! As an aside, does this mean Mary had to change God's diapers? Did Mary have to awake in the middle of the night for God's feedings? Did Mary breast feed God? Sorry, I digress.

Read Isaiah chapter 7 to understand both the verse and its context. Isaiah, who wrote several hundred years prior, was not writing about any future messiah or even a present one. He was trying to reassure his then king that the Syrian invasion would not prevail. To find a sign, he produced a woman who was with child and said her son would be a sign that God was on the side of Judea. The context of the verse is that "God is with us" and the Syrians wold not prevail.

As an aside, the Syrians did prevail, proving Isaiah was a false prophet.

Christians will, at this point, babble about how Isaiah 7 was a double meaning prophecy. They will offer squat for evidence that this was a double prophecy, that Isaiah was speaking at all of the subject of the future messiah or that such double prophecies are to be found anywhere in the Bible. This is a pure bare assertion.

The real reason for "The Trinity" is Christians needed this theological conundrum, consisting of the incoherent babble about "three separate persons in one substance god" is it was the only escape clause to reconcile an OT god that was not only strictly monotheistic but forbade an intercessor with the NT that required an intercessor.

OT god said "I forbid you to have an intercessor" in...

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Isaiah 43:11-12 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

The NT god said "I require you to have an intercessor" in...

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So how can we be both required and forbidden to have an intercessor?

The answer is The Trinity, a not only absurd but clearly contrived device that allows the Christian god to flip-flop between two roles depending on the needs of the moment, who can have an intercessor and yet be consistently monotheistic since he is his own intercessor (!?) with himself. Because as Jesus said, "no one comes to me except through me".

Pure...
Barking...
Madness.

Now the one problem of your argument about The Bible I would advice you on because a Christian will have a good answer:

Also can you point out any single unequivocal statement where Jesus Christ himself Says I am God and Worship me???

Actually, yes.

Not surprisingly, scripture is written by religion to promote itself. By the time the Gospel of John was penned, it was done to provide justification for a Jesus-is-God theology. This proves the Gospel of John was a late addition and its Jesus is wholly different from the Jesus of the earlier Gospels (and the story is completely different too). This Jesus is a much more bombastic character who might be played by Samuel Jackson. However,

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

So on the surface, it does seem that Islam corrects Christianity, like a 3.0 version that replaces a buggy software program, like Windows 7 replaced Vista.

The bugs fixed in this new software package includes:
1. Monotheism subroutine patched
2. Glitchy "Trinity" feature which never worked right is omitted
3. Theological problems of God being a baby, or physical being, replaced
4. Moral and justice features updated to other modern software applications. Compatibility issues don't crop up as much.
5. New virtue features focus less on proper faith and more on tangible applications, such as charity for the poor. However, new virtue features also include many ritualistic subroutines that have no practical application (praying 5 times a day, for example) and should be omitted in future 4.0 versions.
6. Obsolete blood-sacrifice-for-atonement function written out

Bugs not addressed in Abrahamic 3.0, aka "Islam", are:
1. Eternal Hell as a punishment. Hell is eternal so it has no remedial value for rehabilitating criminals not does it discourage wrong behavior since its existence and the rules for who goes there comes as a surprise after death.
2. Software distribution is still uneven, largely unavailable in certain markets. Users of this software determined by who is raised in a household of families who already are consumers. Said software distribution relies on human efforts. Divinely composed software should have better and more effective means of wide distribution all over the world.
3. Concepts of "evil" are still largely focused on victim-less crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. The new user manual (Quran) for the software focuses on these three far too much in its rules against misuse, as if they deserve any attention at all.
4. Demonstrations that the program actually works is still absent and largely the owner's manual is still used to prove itself.

On that last point:

Also Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H)1400 years ago.The same Quran is read and memorised by millions of Muslims worldwide.

...and?

Whereas for the Bible,No Orignal Manuscripts exist till date.

This is a problem for the Bible. And don't forget that problems of pseudo-epigraphy (nice way of saying "forgery") and interpolation (changes inserted over time, either through copyist errors or deliberate re-writes, such as dropping "neither the son" from Mark 13:32) were rife during the time and place where the Gospels were penned.

However, while contradictions and changes prove a story false, the lack of them do not prove a story true.

Prophet Muhammed and all other Prophets which came before him came with only one message.

"To believe and worship Only One True God"

...and?

Again, consistency does not prove truth.

This is where Islam proves itself a buggy software program. I've never heard a Muslim apologist offer any proof that doesn't involve what the Quran says (i.e. using the story book to prove the story is true). The arguments I've heard are:

1. The Quran is so beautifully written as to allow only a divine origin.
2. The Quran is faithfully translated over the years to allow no alterations.
3. The Quran has knowledge that could only allow a divine origin.

Please feel free to offer anything that doesn't fall under these three, or elaborations and defenses of these three arguments.

The first is, at best, a subjective opinion. The second fails for reasons I've mentioned. The third would be interesting if it were true but that's a more lengthy discussion. The larger point for now is nothing outside the Quran can be offered to prove Islam true.

It all boils down to seven words: "Some guy claimed God spoke to him".