Try to prove to me your religion.

@Taylor Seraphim Complete proof through science that Islam is truth and it could never have been copied:
In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqahinto a mudghah (chewed substance)...

1(Quran, 23:12-14)

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two2 as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.3



Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at thealaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)

The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)



Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)



The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)


So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqahstage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghahstage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”6 (see figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at themudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)



Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at themudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)
B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.
(Click on the image to enlarge it.)



How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad ). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.7




Figure 10: A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the ‘smoke’ that was the origin of the whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)







View full at @ http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-f.htm

Jabar said:

Why the Bible is false:
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22).

Click to expand...

---"which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth"::::::: there is a double reading of this clause; the textual reading is, "which have not legs", and is followed by several interpreters and translators; and the marginal reading, which we follow, is, "which have legs"; and both are to be regarded as true, and written by Moses, as Ainsworth observes; for locusts are born without legs, and yet creep low, as Pliny assertsF26, and they have them afterwards; and it is a canon of the Jews, that what have not legs or wings now, or have not wings to cover the greatest part of them, but shall have after a time when grown up, these are as free (to eat) now, as when grown upF1. Dr. Shaw thinksF2 the words may bear this construction, "which have knees upon" or "above their hinder legs, to leap withal upon the earth"; and applying this to the locust afterwards, and only instanced in, he observes, that this has the two hindermost of its legs and feet much stronger, larger, and longer than any of the foremost. In them the knee, or the articulation of the leg and thigh, is distinguished by a remarkable bending or curvature, whereby it is able, whenever prepared, to jump, to spring, or raise itself up with great force and activity. And these AristotleF3calls the leaping parts; and though he attributes to the locust six feet, as does also PlinyF4, yet he takes the two leaping parts into the account; whereas Moses distinguishes those two from the four feet; and so AustinF5 observes, that Moses does not reckon among the feet the two hinder thighs with which locusts leap, which he calls clean, and thereby distinguishes them from such unclean flying creatures which do not leap with their thighs, such as beetles; and so the Jewish writers always describe a clean locust as having four feet, and two legs, thighs, or knees. MaimonidesF6 gives three signs of them, which are these, whatsoever has four feet and four wings, which cover the greatest part of its body in length, and the greatest part of the compass of it, and has two thighs or knees to leap with, they are of the clean kind; and although its head is long, and it hath a tail, if its name is "chagob" (a locust) it is clean.

Excerpt from 'studylight.org'

Also take in consideration that the Bible is changed through time and uses science advances as well as other investigations to help promote it. It still has error while Quran has no error. @Hockeycowboy

Jabar said:

The Quran has no false claims, it is what the people think it as. It is a misconception throughout society. The Quran still remains with no error. @Taylor Seraphim

Click to expand...

Well the Quran has in error in claiming that a just god would torture people for eternity.

@Taylor Seraphim You are once again misconcepting what the truth actually is. They are being punished for legitimate reasons. I really feel bad for you man. Al-Baqarah 26 God does not shy away from making an example of a gnat, or something above it. As for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did God intend by this example?" He leads astray many thereby, and He guides many thereby; but He misleads thereby only the evildoers.
Allah is just.
Now let me argue why what you believe in is false: Let me ask you a question. If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

Jabar said:

@Taylor Seraphim You are once again misconcepting what the truth actually is. They are being punished for legitimate reasons. I really feel bad for you man. Al-Baqarah 26 God does not shy away from making an example of a gnat, or something above it. As for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did God intend by this example?" He leads astray many thereby, and He guides many thereby; but He misleads thereby only the evildoers.
Allah is just.
Now let me argue why what you believe in is false: Let me ask you a question. If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

Click to expand...

Your argument is false because if I was shown a foreign object, I would not assume it was created.

Now why doesn't your god make there be undeniable proof of his existence?

Taylor Seraphim said:

Well the Quran has in error in claiming that a just god would torture people for eternity.

Click to expand...

If, by comparing the Bible to the Quran, you are saying that the Bible doesn't actually teach eternal torment, then you are absolutely right! It really doesn't!

@Taylor Seraphim Today technology allows people to find translations and understand what it means. The humans who call it a foreign object do not investigate on the Quran even with the Quran translations in all kinds at fingertips. The reason God does not make undeniable proof of his existence is because satan who is called iblees in Quran disobeyed Allah and was a fool who wanted to challenge Allah S.W.A.T. Allah is most merciful as described in the Quran “When Allah Most Exalted commanded angels to prostrate before Adam, Satan was also included in this command. For although he was not of their kind, he resembled them and performed their deeds. Therefore, Satan was also counted as addressee to this command which was directed to angels. And he was condemned because he did not fulfill the command.” (36). He gave satan a chance by letting him exist within us. The Satan, who despaired of Divine mercy and was left completely alone because of his haughtiness as regards the command of prostrating before Adam, peace be upon him, started to doubt about his life, too. He implored Allah, saying: “-Grant me respite till the Day when they are raised from the dead.” (The Qur'an, Al-A'raf, 7:14). What is meant with the Day when they are raised from the dead is the time when The Trumpet will be blown for the second time (The Qur'an, Az-Zumar, 39:68; Al-Mutaffifin, 83:6). By asking for such a respite, he knew that after the Resurrection, there would be no more death and he assumed that he would thus be saved from death. That wish for immortality was answered as “You shall be among the ones granted respite.” (The Qur'an, Al-A'raf, 7:15) with the condition “Until the Day of the appointed time known.” (The Qur'an, Al-Hijr, 15:38). And what is meant with the appointed time is the time when The Trumpet is blown for the first time (The Qur'an, An-Naml, 27:87). Thereby, he preferred a life full of shame and abasement to death. And that was his real downfall. If Allah S.W.A.T were to give undeniable truth that he is the True One All-mighty, then that would make him unmerciful which Allah is not. As he is the Greatest. Iblees was a great angel before he turned bad. Allah is all merciful so he gives him a chance but he will still burn in hell.

Yes but that does not prove anything: @Taylor Seraphim @Hockeycowboy
Unfortunately, Christianity is not that clear on the concept of an eternal hell, and whether that hell will be cruel (mind you, I didn't say uncomfortable, they are two distinct things).

There are three differing schools within Christianity:

• Eternal Conscious Torment: As you rightly pointed out, this is the most traditional idea regarding the afterlife. There isn't much to it. Those who have heard the message will be judged on their merit as an individual, but ultimately by their faith. There are those who were not aware of the message (such as those before Christ) and who were evangelised to in the Harrowing of Hell (1 Peter [3:19–20]), and those who have not heard of the message after Christ (Romans 2:14-16).
• Annihilationism: This is the idea that those who were awful on this Earth and were of the unfaithful will be blotted out from existence, including in the afterlife (Romans [6:23], Psalm [92:7], Matthew [10:28b], John [3:16]).
• Universalism: This is the idea that hell is not eternal. Some of these Universalists may adhere to purgatorialism, where those who were unfaithful or bad in this life will remain in this state of hell until they are purified enough to enter Theosis (1 Timothy [4:10], 2 Peter [3:9], Romans [5], Romans [9-11]).

In regard to the word eternal in the Bible, I suggest the following academic study Aiónios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Textsby Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan. It explores the term 'eternal' in classical literature from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period, from the Septuagint to the New Testament and other contemporaries. Dr. Ramelli concludes with the following:

We have seen that the term aidios has its roots in the earliest Greek philosophical vocabulary, and more or less consistently refers to a strictly eternal stretch of time, without beginning or end, or at least endless. This use obtains in later pagan as well as Christian writers. The term aiónios, which seems to have been introduced by Plato and comes into its own in the Scriptures, is more complex: it may indicate a long period of time, or, in Platonizing writers, an atemporal or transcendental timelessness. Very broadly, aiónios corresponds to the uses of aión, which means a lifetime, a generation, or an entire age or epoch, particularly in Stoicizing contexts: in Christian writings, aión may refer to the temporal age prior to creation, to this present world, or, most often, to the epoch to come in the next world. Aiónios may also acquire the connotation of strict eternity, particularly when it is appleid to God or divine things: here, the sense of the adjective is conditions by the subject it modifies."

Interestingly, aidios is used only twice in Christian literature, both in Romans [1:20] - where Paul discusses God's divine nature - and Jude [1:6], where the Angels will be chained up in eternal darkness. Aiónios, on the other hand, is used repeatedly throughout Christian literature, however, the word in itself is a lot more complex, and will depend on the contextual subject in order to understand the term's fuller meaning.

Further insight into the concept of Universalism (historically and theologically) is discussed in The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis (Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements). I think it's also important to add that this discussion of the term 'eternal' may be futile. Instead, I think it may be better to look at other terminologies and connotations that the religious texts may provide beside eternal. I've done this briefly here. Islam does not give much leeway, where as you rightly mentioned, people who enter hell because of informed disbelief will never leave, and nor will they be reprieved, as one life will be enough to suffice (Q2:161-167, Q35:37, Q43:77). This doesn't exactly exist in Christianity.

Don't get me wrong, there have been Islamic Universalists in the past, but they were a lot rarer and their convictions may have not as been as thorough as their Christian counterparts. For instance, the most prominent Sunni scholars on Universalism were Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim. However, Ibn Qayyim eventually retracted his opinion (that hell was not eternal) in Mukhtaṣar al-Sawāqi, presumably under the influence of al-Subki (see Against Islamic Universalism by Dr. Hoover).

Interestingly, what hell is composed of in Christianity is not exactly detailed. We understand the gnashing of teeth, but that in itself is a consequence of something, but we're unsure of what that something is. It could possibly be the fire, however, Hellenistic and Jewish thought may claim that this fire is not the same fire of this Earth, and may in fact be a fire of purification (there are multiple instances in both OT and NT where fire presents a refining attribute, however, that is not to say that all instances of fire in the Bible are of the refining nature - this topic is more complex than I have explained). The Orthodox church would recognise that this gnashing of teeth is a response to having acknowledged the existence of this pure Love (that being God, 1 John [4:8]), and now they have to come to terms with the idea they'll never enter Theosis (Divinization, or full unity with this God), and hence they gnash their teeth in regret.

Conversely, Islamic hell is a lot more detailed, with plenty of Qur'anic and extra-Qur'anic literature painting a relatively thorough picture as to what it may potentially contain.

• Q22:19 "But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water."
• Q14:49-50 "And you will see the criminals that Day bound together in shackles, their garments of liquid pitch (melted copper) and their faces covered by the Fire.”
• Q56:41-44 "And the companions of the left – what are the companions of the left? (They will be) in scorching fire and scalding water and a shade of black smoke, neither cool nor beneficial."
• Q74:26-29 "And what can make you know what is Hellfire? It lets nothing remain and leaves nothing (unburned), altering the skins"
• Q88:6-7 "No food will there be for them except from a bitter, thorny plant which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger."
• Q47:15 "They will be given to drink boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)."
• Q73:12-13 "Surely, with us are fetters (to bind them) and a ranging Fire (to burn them), and a food that chokes and a penalty grievous."
• Q18:29 "And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds (their) faces. Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place."
• Q4:56 "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, God is ever Exalted in Might and Wise."
• Q76:4 "for the rejecters We have prepared iron chains, yokes, and a blazing Fire."

Hockeycowboy said:

If, by comparing the Bible to the Quran, you are saying that the Bible doesn't actually teach eternal torment, then you are absolutely right! It really doesn't!

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was an invention by later Christians that was taken into Islam that also proves that Islam is incorrect.

Jabar said:

Yes but that does not prove anything: @Taylor Seraphim @Hockeycowboy
Unfortunately, Christianity is not that clear on the concept of an eternal hell, and whether that hell will be cruel (mind you, I didn't say uncomfortable, they are two distinct things).

There are three differing schools within Christianity:

• Eternal Conscious Torment: As you rightly pointed out, this is the most traditional idea regarding the afterlife. There isn't much to it. Those who have heard the message will be judged on their merit as an individual, but ultimately by their faith. There are those who were not aware of the message (such as those before Christ) and who were evangelised to in the Harrowing of Hell (1 Peter [3:19–20]), and those who have not heard of the message after Christ (Romans 2:14-16).
• Annihilationism: This is the idea that those who were awful on this Earth and were of the unfaithful will be blotted out from existence, including in the afterlife (Romans [6:23], Psalm [92:7], Matthew [10:28b], John [3:16]).
• Universalism: This is the idea that hell is not eternal. Some of these Universalists may adhere to purgatorialism, where those who were unfaithful or bad in this life will remain in this state of hell until they are purified enough to enter Theosis (1 Timothy [4:10], 2 Peter [3:9], Romans [5], Romans [9-11]).

In regard to the word eternal in the Bible, I suggest the following academic study Aiónios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Textsby Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan. It explores the term 'eternal' in classical literature from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period, from the Septuagint to the New Testament and other contemporaries. Dr. Ramelli concludes with the following:

We have seen that the term aidios has its roots in the earliest Greek philosophical vocabulary, and more or less consistently refers to a strictly eternal stretch of time, without beginning or end, or at least endless. This use obtains in later pagan as well as Christian writers. The term aiónios, which seems to have been introduced by Plato and comes into its own in the Scriptures, is more complex: it may indicate a long period of time, or, in Platonizing writers, an atemporal or transcendental timelessness. Very broadly, aiónios corresponds to the uses of aión, which means a lifetime, a generation, or an entire age or epoch, particularly in Stoicizing contexts: in Christian writings, aión may refer to the temporal age prior to creation, to this present world, or, most often, to the epoch to come in the next world. Aiónios may also acquire the connotation of strict eternity, particularly when it is appleid to God or divine things: here, the sense of the adjective is conditions by the subject it modifies."

Interestingly, aidios is used only twice in Christian literature, both in Romans [1:20] - where Paul discusses God's divine nature - and Jude [1:6], where the Angels will be chained up in eternal darkness. Aiónios, on the other hand, is used repeatedly throughout Christian literature, however, the word in itself is a lot more complex, and will depend on the contextual subject in order to understand the term's fuller meaning.

Further insight into the concept of Universalism (historically and theologically) is discussed in The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis (Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements). I think it's also important to add that this discussion of the term 'eternal' may be futile. Instead, I think it may be better to look at other terminologies and connotations that the religious texts may provide beside eternal. I've done this briefly here. Islam does not give much leeway, where as you rightly mentioned, people who enter hell because of informed disbelief will never leave, and nor will they be reprieved, as one life will be enough to suffice (Q2:161-167, Q35:37, Q43:77). This doesn't exactly exist in Christianity.

Don't get me wrong, there have been Islamic Universalists in the past, but they were a lot rarer and their convictions may have not as been as thorough as their Christian counterparts. For instance, the most prominent Sunni scholars on Universalism were Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim. However, Ibn Qayyim eventually retracted his opinion (that hell was not eternal) in Mukhtaṣar al-Sawāqi, presumably under the influence of al-Subki (see Against Islamic Universalism by Dr. Hoover).

Interestingly, what hell is composed of in Christianity is not exactly detailed. We understand the gnashing of teeth, but that in itself is a consequence of something, but we're unsure of what that something is. It could possibly be the fire, however, Hellenistic and Jewish thought may claim that this fire is not the same fire of this Earth, and may in fact be a fire of purification (there are multiple instances in both OT and NT where fire presents a refining attribute, however, that is not to say that all instances of fire in the Bible are of the refining nature - this topic is more complex than I have explained). The Orthodox church would recognise that this gnashing of teeth is a response to having acknowledged the existence of this pure Love (that being God, 1 John [4:8]), and now they have to come to terms with the idea they'll never enter Theosis (Divinization, or full unity with this God), and hence they gnash their teeth in regret.

Conversely, Islamic hell is a lot more detailed, with plenty of Qur'anic and extra-Qur'anic literature painting a relatively thorough picture as to what it may potentially contain.

• Q22:19 "But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water."
• Q14:49-50 "And you will see the criminals that Day bound together in shackles, their garments of liquid pitch (melted copper) and their faces covered by the Fire.”
• Q56:41-44 "And the companions of the left – what are the companions of the left? (They will be) in scorching fire and scalding water and a shade of black smoke, neither cool nor beneficial."
• Q74:26-29 "And what can make you know what is Hellfire? It lets nothing remain and leaves nothing (unburned), altering the skins"
• Q88:6-7 "No food will there be for them except from a bitter, thorny plant which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger."
• Q47:15 "They will be given to drink boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)."
• Q73:12-13 "Surely, with us are fetters (to bind them) and a ranging Fire (to burn them), and a food that chokes and a penalty grievous."
• Q18:29 "And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds (their) faces. Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place."
• Q4:56 "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, God is ever Exalted in Might and Wise."
• Q76:4 "for the rejecters We have prepared iron chains, yokes, and a blazing Fire."

Click to expand...

Is being skeptical wrong?

Jabar said:

@Taylor Seraphim Today technology allows people to find translations and understand what it means. The humans who call it a foreign object do not investigate on the Quran even with the Quran translations in all kinds at fingertips. The reason God does not make undeniable proof of his existence is because satan who is called iblees in Quran disobeyed Allah and was a fool who wanted to challenge Allah S.W.A.T. Allah is most merciful as described in the Quran “When Allah Most Exalted commanded angels to prostrate before Adam, Satan was also included in this command. For although he was not of their kind, he resembled them and performed their deeds. Therefore, Satan was also counted as addressee to this command which was directed to angels. And he was condemned because he did not fulfill the command.” (36). He gave satan a chance by letting him exist within us. The Satan, who despaired of Divine mercy and was left completely alone because of his haughtiness as regards the command of prostrating before Adam, peace be upon him, started to doubt about his life, too. He implored Allah, saying: “-Grant me respite till the Day when they are raised from the dead.” (The Qur'an, Al-A'raf, 7:14). What is meant with the Day when they are raised from the dead is the time when The Trumpet will be blown for the second time (The Qur'an, Az-Zumar, 39:68; Al-Mutaffifin, 83:6). By asking for such a respite, he knew that after the Resurrection, there would be no more death and he assumed that he would thus be saved from death. That wish for immortality was answered as “You shall be among the ones granted respite.” (The Qur'an, Al-A'raf, 7:15) with the condition “Until the Day of the appointed time known.” (The Qur'an, Al-Hijr, 15:38). And what is meant with the appointed time is the time when The Trumpet is blown for the first time (The Qur'an, An-Naml, 27:87). Thereby, he preferred a life full of shame and abasement to death. And that was his real downfall. If Allah S.W.A.T were to give undeniable truth that he is the True One All-mighty, then that would make him unmerciful which Allah is not. As he is the Greatest. Iblees was a great angel before he turned bad. Allah is all merciful so he gives him a chance but he will still burn in hell.

Click to expand...

If eternal torture for wanting proof is mercy, what do you think is cruelty?

Taylor Seraphim said:

Please try to prove to me your religion is true.

Click to expand...

The nature of my religious practices as a whole are not such that they should be proven true to any one person's satisfaction. They are about self-exploration, healing, and finding one's own Will and involve the use of myth and ritual. I don't know why so many people assume that all forms of religiosity are about very specific sorts of supernatural beliefs.

EverChanging said:

The nature of my religious practices as a whole are not such that they should be proven true to any one person's satisfaction. They are about self-exploration, healing, and finding one's own Will and involve the use of myth and ritual. I don't know why so many people assume that all forms of religiosity are about very specific sorts of supernatural beliefs.

Click to expand...

Cool! Have fun with your religion.

@Jabar

Jabar said:

Now let me argue why what you believe in is false: Let me ask you a question. If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you:

Perhaps I show you a rock. Who is the first person to show me details of the mechanism of this object?

Jabar said:

The reason God does not make undeniable proof of his existence is because satan who is called iblees in Quran disobeyed Allah and was a fool who wanted to challenge Allah S.W.A.T. Allah is most merciful as described in the Quran

Click to expand...

Hell is brimming with those God was NOT merciful towards. Is there a mercy quota?

Forgiving the pickpocket is easy. Prove grace and mercy by forgiving the REAL bad guys. The bible and the Quran alike have this gaping plot hole and characterization inconsistency.

@Taylor Seraphim I can post whenever i want. I am offering substantial arguements. You guys are not. You guys are beating around the bush. Allah is merciful as described in the Quran. @Kelly of the Phoenix This was the first time Satan sinned. The true christians have the same beliefs as muslims which was prescribed in the Old testament. The Bible is changed throughout the years and is tampered with, making the New testament. Same with Jewish scripture, and Hindu scripture. The only true type of people that do not include in this list is Atheist because they do not believe in a God. As well as people who believe in Idols, and other religions such that basically object the beliefs in Islam.

The Quran was the last revelation made by God because people thought that Jesus was the Son of God. So, Allah brought the Quran as the last revelation to show the disbelievers the Truth. @Taylor Seraphim @[URL='http://www.religiousforums.com/members/kelly-of-the-phoenix.58387/']Kelly of the Phoenix[/URL]

Jabar said:

@Taylor Seraphim I can post whenever i want. I am offering substantial arguements. You guys are not. You guys are beating around the bush. Allah is merciful as described in the Quran. @Kelly of the Phoenix This was the first time Satan sinned. The true christians have the same beliefs as muslims which was prescribed in the Old testament. The Bible is changed throughout the years and is tampered with, making the New testament. Same with Jewish scripture, and Hindu scripture. The only true type of people that do not include in this list is Atheist because they do not believe in a God. As well as people who believe in Idols, and other religions such that basically object the beliefs in Islam.

Click to expand...

The Abrahamic god concept simply makes no logical sense to me. Add the fact there is zero evidence to support the claims of Abrahamic religions and I remain firmly unconvinced. So, why would your "all merciful" god create me to be a skeptic, then refuse to give me the evidence I require to believe in him, then torture me in hell for all eternity for not believing in him? That doesn't make any sense, and if something doesn't make sense, it's nonsense.

Jabar said:

You have not answered my question. You are avoiding to accept the Truth after that question was directed to you.

Click to expand...

About the machine thing? What if it was automated? There is no creator per se, just machines making machines.

And what about if I show you a rock? It's not like you answered my question either. What do you say when someone shows a NATURAL object?

Jabar said:

I am offering substantial arguements.

Click to expand...

Technically, you are offering arguments. If they were substantial, we'd be convinced easily.

Jabar said:

The true christians have the same beliefs as muslims which was prescribed in the Old testament. The Bible is changed throughout the years and is tampered with, making the New testament.

Click to expand...

I agree with Muslim thought that the other books were tampered with. It's a historical fact. That doesn't logically make the Quran the superior choice. I can even concede that it's not particularly fair to criticize ancient people for not using modern terms for scientific or historical data, as those words hadn't been invented yet (such as how the Chinese thought crows lived in the sun but were referring to sunspots). However, crows don't literally live in the sun and men weren't made from clay and despite overly cynical pro-choice arguers, an embryo technically isn't a leech, which is a different species, though both use a host body to survive. Personally? I'm fine with metaphorical stuff. It just shouldn't be taken literally.

It appears there was this ancient Greek named Soranus who knew of how the birds and bees worked (more or less) way earlier than the Prophet Mohammad.

Jabar said:

The Quran was the last revelation made by God because people thought that Jesus was the Son of God. So, Allah brought the Quran as the last revelation to show the disbelievers the Truth. @Taylor Seraphim @Kelly of the Phoenix

Click to expand...

Everyone has a "last testament". Jews thought theirs was. Christians thought theirs was. Muslims hardly have the last say on anything regarding God, as newer religions show us.