Christians or Muslims: Who is Right?

[zynner]

Christianity and Islam are very much alike. Both believe in the same god. What it really breaks down to is this:

(a) The Jesus story is true, or
(b) The Muhammad story is true, or
(c) Neither story is true

The reality is, only one of these statements can be true.

If you are a Christian or Muslim, can you show why the other guy's story is false, and do so without reference to your own "good book?"

~ zynner

[Abdullah]

Muslims believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) as being a prophet of God, he was not literal son of God nor was he divine in anyway and he never died on the cross. And of course, the story of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the same excpet Christians believe that he was a "false prophet" (Nauzubillah), so your options are flawed ; I suggest you revise them to make them more accurate in light of this new information. And does me using the Bible instead of the Holy Qur'an count as a legitamate source? Because I think I can prove from the bible that Christ (peace be upon him never died on the cross hence there was no "ressurection" and we know what that means :

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. (1 Corinthians 15 : 14)

[zynner]

In the context of this thread ...

The "Jesus story" is that which Christians claim is true.

The "Muhammad story" is that which Muslims claim is true.

The two stories cannot both be true.

So, please do show how the Christian version of the Jesus story is false, and please do so without reference to Muslim works.

~ zynner

[Suburbanite]

I don't get how you SHOW a belief to be false. There is no criteria to judge. Your post isn't really that substantial.

[RickSp]

Quote by: zynner Christianity and Islam are very much alike. Both believe in the same god. What it really breaks down to is this: (a) The Jesus story is true, or (b) The Muhammad story is true, or (c) Neither story is true The reality is, only one of these statements can be true.

Neither affirmative statement need be true. Or if one is willing to conceed that the beliefs are based strictly on faith, then both statements may be equally valid. If one is willing to live on faith, any dogma will do.

[zynner]

Suburbanite --

The "beliefs" we are talking about here have to do with historical events that either did or did not occur. So, for those who believe one story but not the other, I am asking: On what basis can you show that the other story is not true (that the events did not occur in history)?

- - -

Rick --

If one believes story A but not story B, then they are claiming that A is true and B is false. I am asking them to show why B is false without reference to A.

I don't know of anyone who believes both A and B to be true in this case. So, I agree that any dogma will do, but in this case it is only ONE dogma that is claimed to be true, to the exclusion of all other dogmas.

I'm sure you can see why I ask.

~ zynner

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: zynner Suburbanite -- The "beliefs" we are talking about here have to do with historical events that either did or did not occur. So, for those who believe one story but not the other, I am asking: On what basis can you show that the other story is not true (that the events did not occur in history)?

Exactly, you can't. It is in the past, all eye witnesses are dead, and most importantly YOU weren't there. So how can someone "prove" anything. One can merely illustrate a way of viewing Christianity as historical and contingent, but it can just as easily and validly be refuted by another opinion on the simple basis of it being an opinion. What if there was no “right way” of looking at things? Debates might seem a bit futile.

[underbear1]

What is the point of deciding which of either of these is true?
The believers in either won't change because of a discussion here, and neither will the beliefs who hold neither are true.

[RickSp]

Quote by: zynner Suburbanite -- The "beliefs" we are talking about here have to do with historical events that either did or did not occur. So, for those who believe one story but not the other, I am asking: On what basis can you show that the other story is not true (that the events did not occur in history)? Rick -- If one believes story A but not story B, then they are claiming that A is true and B is false. I am asking them to show why B is false without reference to A. I don't know of anyone who believes both A and B to be true in this case. So, I agree that any dogma will do, but in this case it is only ONE dogma that is claimed to be true, to the exclusion of all other dogmas. ~ zynner

The historical events you reference are far closer to folklore than fact. Religion has almost nothing to do with what may have been factually accurate in any case.

If one believes one folktale does that require that the other not be true? Of course believers may think so, and may use that view as an excuse to slaughter their fellow man, but, nevertheless, there is no logical case to be made on either side. Some folk tales may have elements of fact and some may be merely tales sufficiently entertaining to demand retelling.

And if you insist of comparing Islam and Chrsitianity why exclude the other religions? They all have tales to tell, even if logic plays no part in any.

[zynner]

Suburbanite --

Do you agree that the Jesus story and Muhammad story cannot both be true versions of historical facts?

If one asserts that one is true, then they automatically assert that the other is false.

What is the basis for asserting the other is false?

- - -
underbear --

You express an opinion that expressing opinions is futile.

Then, why do you express your opinion?

You must not really believe that doing so is futile.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: RickSp If one believes one folktale does that require that the other not be true?

Yes, it does. And that is the point of this thread.

~ zynner

[phoenix_fire]

Well, everyone already knows my bias so I might as well put my two cents in. I'm sure to have a lot of people cry foul, but remember: you guys did ask. Both Jesus and Mohammed are far from being prophets. Jesus is the Son of God. You can't argue that He was just a prophet if you've ever read any of the New Testament. For those of you who are rolling your eyes and planning cracks about how "neither myth is true", stow it: I'm not talking to you. I am talking about Christianity and Islam in the context of each other. Islam is incompatible with the idea of Christ being divine and Christianity is incompatible with the idea that He isn't. Islam has tried to be diplomatic and get around this point, but to be entirely intellectually honest and still remain Muslim, you would have to say that Jesus was either a liar or a madman.

Christian scripture is obviously silent on the specific idea of Mohammed because he postdates it. I admit that long ago I tried to reconcile the idea of Islam with the Christian belief, but this too is impossible. Christ does not speak of a coming prophet of God in the way that Mohammed would have been. You'd think if it was that important, He would've. And Mohammed does not address Christ as one would expect of someone sent from God. Since it is that important, He should've.

Neither Christ nor Mohammed fit the pattern of OT prophets. Christ fits in the humility and parable-speaking sense, but little else. No one before Him said what He said or did what He did. No one had authority as He does. Many of the prophets were killed, but not for the reconciliation of the world to God. Mohammed does not fit at all with the OT prophets. They lived humbly and were often considered insane because of the things they did in prophecy. Mohammed was a warlord. He had a big following. OT prophets were ostracized, killed, and otherwise misunderstood.

Christianity views Mohammed as a false prophet. All things considered, I have to agree.

[Abdullah]

Dear phoenix_fire,

Since your the only Christian who seems to be willing to debate this issue I guess I should respond to your post:

Both Jesus and Mohammed are far from being prophets.

Jesus (pbuh) testified to being a prophet you are completley wrong here:

And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57)

and again:

4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."(Mark 6:4)

and again

(Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.)(John 4:44)

Jesus is the Son of God. You can't argue that He was just a prophet if you've ever read any of the New Testament. For those of you who are rolling your eyes and planning cracks about how "neither myth is true", stow it: I'm not talking to you. I am talking about Christianity and Islam in the context of each other. Islam is incompatible with the idea of Christ being divine and Christianity is incompatible with the idea that He isn't. Islam has tried to be diplomatic and get around this point, but to be entirely intellectually honest and still remain Muslim, you would have to say that Jesus was either a liar or a madman.

Jesus (pbuh) is only the Son of God in the sense he was the Messiah, the Christ:

61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"62"I am," said Jesus [...](Mark 14:61-62)

and

[...]The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a] the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.[...](Matthew 26:63-64)

Islam accepts he was the Messiah,not the literal Son of God as you Christians claim and nethier was he divine. Islam only accepts what Jesus (pbuh) says he is, not what Paul or anybody else says.

Christian scripture is obviously silent on the specific idea of Mohammed because he postdates it. I admit that long ago I tried to reconcile the idea of Islam with the Christian belief, but this too is impossible. Christ does not speak of a coming prophet of God in the way that Mohammed would have been. You'd think if it was that important, He would've. And Mohammed does not address Christ as one would expect of someone sent from God. Since it is that important, He should've.

Actually the Bible does fortell the comming of Muhammad (saw) and yes the prophet (saw) does address Jesus (pbuh) as one of the mighties messengers of God. Infact Muhamma (saw) is even fortolled in the Hindu Scriptures, more info in this subject in ny next post.Inshallah

[Athena]

Excuse please, democracy is the way to peace. Use your knowledge of religion to find your agreements, not your disagreements. And then have dialogue rather than debates is increase your understanding. This will bring you closer together and isn't that what you want for the world? Speak of what is true rather than argue of what is not true?

How about Hebrews translated Sumerian stories and carried on concepts of sin that were Sumerian. For the truth, we need to look to Sumer and other popular beliefs that were incorperated into the different religions. After gaining a better understanding of the beliefs that were adopted by the Hebrews, and then the Christians; examine how Mohammed used both to create a religion for the Arab culture. Look for truths.

[RickSp]

Quote by: RickSp If one believes one folktale does that require that the other not be true?

Quote by: zynner Yes, it does. And that is the point of this thread.

I see you shortened the quote. What I wrote was:

Quote by: RickSp If one believes one folktale does that require that the other not be true? Of course believers may think so, and may use that view as an excuse to slaughter their fellow man, but, nevertheless, there is no logical case to be made on either side.

You seem to imply that a logical syllogism can be built from folklore. It can't be done. Folklore need not be logical.

[Sandy]

Well, I am an atheist so in my world there is no God. It has been easier to stop searching for the truth and simply declare everything "is God's Will" then you can go back to watching American Idol and open a cold beer.

That is the new American Culture.

[zynner]

Rick --

I shortened your quote because I was dealing with that particular concept.

I am not implying that logical syllogism can be built from folklore.

Rather, I am showing that one's belief that "folkore A is true" must necessarily mean that, in that person's view, "folklore B is not true" is a necessary corollary..

Furthermore, any attempt to prove, by rational analysis, the said position regarding folklore B will become a problem for the person in that the rational basis for both A and B is the same (which is to say, there isn't any).

~ zynner

[underbear1]

Quote by: zynner Suburbanite -- Do you agree that the Jesus story and Muhammad story cannot both be true versions of historical facts? If one asserts that one is true, then they automatically assert that the other is false. What is the basis for asserting the other is false? - - - underbear -- You express an opinion that expressing opinions is futile. Then, why do you express your opinion? You must not really believe that doing so is futile. ~ zynner

I asked what's the point of the discussion, and it wasn't answered btw.:rolleyes:

[Gabe2007]

To Abdullah:

What Phoenix-fire said was "You can't argue that He was JUST a prophet if you've ever read any of the New Testament"

He DIDN'T say that Jesus WASN"T a prophet!!! He said Jesus was not JUST a prophet!! In other words, he is saying that Jesus was a prophet but that Jesus was also MORE THAN JUST a prophet at the same time!!

Anmd to Sandy:

Maybe to you, watching American Idol and drinking beer is the new American lifestyle, but to over half this country it is NOT!!! More people believe in religion than you think!!

And just because you don't believe in God, that doesn't give you the right sarcastically put down someone beliefs!! And just because there is no God in "your world" (which doesn't appear to be much), that doesn't mean God doesn't exist!! Tell me, how did earth and the universe come to be, if your an atheist, because I don't think some explosion caused the earth to come into existence??
If you don't care much for religion, then why don't you put down Islam as well?
Why do people always have to put down Christianity?? As far as I'm concerned, Islam is a religion too!!

[Matt W]

And just because you don't believe in God, that doesn't give you the right sarcastically put down someone beliefs!! And just because there is no God in "your world" (which doesn't appear to be much), that doesn't mean God doesn't exist!! Tell me, how did earth and the universe come to be, if your an atheist, because I don't think some explosion caused the earth to come into existence?? If you don't care much for religion, then why don't you put down Islam as well? Why do people always have to put down Christianity?? As far as I'm concerned, Islam is a religion too!!

Gabe, please stay focussed on the topic at hand. Thanks.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.