Continuation to Sohail

Submitted by Servant of Christ (United States), Oct 18, 2006 at 19:37

The Quran doesn't command Muslims to kill non-Muslims:

Sura 8 is talking about the Battle of Badr, Sura 9 was revealed around the time of the Battle of Hunayn and the Battle of Tabouk. Why didn't you quote 2:190-193 it would have explained about the killing?

So explain how those teachings do not apply to an overall circumstance. Since there were many other verses where violence used violence as a means of conversion or torture.

The Quran also says this:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Quran 2.256

Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). Quran 15:2-3

Excellent, sources. However, this fails to acknowledge the other verses. This verse shows Allah as a peaceful God, but the others show him as a merciless, capricious, and torturous God.

However the Bible says this:

(Deuteronomy 13: 12-17): If you hear of a city where another god is worshiped, then destroy everyone in the city and burn it down:

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, ^[a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

Ah, yes. This is commonly misunderstood. In verse twelve, I would like to place emphasis on the words, "is giving you to live in." That way, you know that the Jews did run around killing random paganistic settlements. Instead, only when they were commanded to attack they did. The nations they did attack had 400 years to repent and choose God! But they steadfastly refused and instead attacked the Jews.

The nature of the other gods at those time were very barbaric and war-mongering. They sacrificed their children, practiced witchcraft, homosexuality, prostitution, and etc.

And Jesus says this:

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27.

It's obvious that you did not realize that this verse was a parable... This was not even literal... It is saying that those who have rejected Jesus as God, and have chosen to worship themselves have chosen to send themselves to Hell. Remember, Jesus came to save lives, nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus killed someone (but in fact saved people).

Now, you seem to have crushed the foundations of Islam. By calling the the Gospels and Deuteronomy evil (which are considered divinely inspired in Islam) you have just called what is 'Allah's work' evil. Yet, if they are so bad, why does Islam say they are divinely inspired? Contradictory!

Christianity is a pagan religion:

Similarities between the events in Jesus life and Krishna:

Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.

Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.

Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

His adoptive human father was a carpenter.

A spirit or ghost was their actual father.

Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.

Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.

Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination.

The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura

Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.

Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."

Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth

Both were "without sin."

Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."

Both selected disciples to spread his teachings

Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Krishna lived at least three centuries before Christ.

That's a humorous explanation to be honest. Please, give me a link saying the discovery of Krishna along with historic data to back that up.

Wikipedia says, "The mantra was popularized by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu roughly around 1500 CE when he began his mission to spread this mantra publicly to 'every town and village' in the world, travelling exstensively throughout India, especially in the southern regions. Some versions of the Kali Santarana Upanishad give the mantra with Hare Rama preceding Hare Krishna, and others with Hare Krishna preceding Hare Rama (as quoted above). The latter format is by far the more common within the Vaishnava traditions, within which it is a common belief that the mantra is equally potent when spoken either way."

So this religion was popularized in the 1500's. Great, just because the religion says, "Krishna was born before Jesus." Does archaeology defend ANY of that whatsoever? The religion was popularized so late that shows how questionable it really is. That's 1500 after Christianity... It's far more likely that it was based off of Christianity rather than vice-versa. Might I note that wikipedia is an encyclopedic website which means it is free from bias and most likely written by people who practice this religion.

And next, the prophecies for Jesus Christ were made in the Old Testament. That is around 2000 BC-400 BC. So that means that anything in the Bible is supported by the OT which was made far earlier than many of those 'pagan religions.'

Hinduism and Christianity have major doctrine differences. A few simple ones are:

Brahman is impersonal, God is not.

Man is not an individual nor has he self worth, but Christianity says man has purpose.

After all, the prophecies about all those listed above were made much earlier than the life of Krishna.

By placing such skeptism on the existence of Jesus you have rejected Jesus as one of the 'prophets of Allah.' Are not the Gospels inspired?

Jesus is not God:

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one Mark 12:29

Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. John 7:16 16

This is very ironic, the text you claim obselete is now the one you are trying to use to validate your claims. Unless you are searching for contradictions, this tactic doesn't even have a proper foundation.

Perhaps we should look deeper into the meaning of 'one'.

Mark 12:29-30 is directly citing Deuteronomy 6:4-5. It says, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."

And Isaiah says "Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." (Isaiah 44:8)

Now, let us immerse ourselves into the Hebrew language. The word used here in the place of one is echad. Echad means composite unity. Like when husband and wife become "echad". So God as 'one Persons' would not be compositely unified. Instead, that would be complete unity, which is the word yachid. But, a Trinity would echad. So this places skeptisms in Islam, which denies the doctrine of the Trinity or any sort of composite God. Not even Moses will support the Islamic doctrine.

I hope you have learned something.

Sohail

Unfortunately, these are just arguments that seem to have been recycled over and over again. Rather, I hope that you've learned something. Feel free to to raise any skeptisms and objections. I will explain the archaeology of Christianity and Bible verses that point to Christ's divinity later. It seems as if the foundation of your argument is a bit contradictory.

May the Lord Jesus Christ Bless You All

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".