Koran v. Bible

[F0uad]

"Your claim directly contradicts the companions and Mohammed's(saws) own words.. seems a bit strange.. "

Apparently some of those companions didn't allow Prophet Muhammad even a pen to write His Will.

Hadith of the pen and paper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears in this instance at least the Companions present contradicted their own Prophet.

Damn .

Do me a favour and read the page also verse 5:3 refutes your whole claim that there is a new religion after Islam.


Sunni view:

Sunni Muslims refer to this episode as the "Event of Thursday". It is generally seen as a minor event and a test by Muhammad of his "Companions". The Companions are considered to have chosen to do the right thing and passed the test, having remained free from criticism by Muhammad for the rest of the days he remained with them. Further Sunni's say it was not a matter of disobedience but rather it was Umar’s Ijtihad in that situation.[5] This period (from Thursday to Monday) during which Muhammad remained with the Companions after this incident was also not utilized to make a will - which, Sunnis argue, confirms that it was not an important document to be written but rather a simple test to know whether the Ummah is aware of the message of the Qur'an. The following passage is cited as evidence: "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (5:3).
Some other arguments Sunnis use to support their view include:[6]

• If Muhammad had been ordered by God to write down something, then no one could have prevented him from this- not even Umar. This goes by the Muslim reasoning that God’s message cannot be silenced or withheld by the antagonism of anyone. However, the fact that Muhammad did not end up writing something down (neither then nor during the future days) only proves that the thing which was supposed to be written was already known to the Sahaba and Muhammad was aware of this, so he did not take the matter any further.

• The accusation that Umar prevented Muhammad from writing down what he willed due to Umar’s fear that it would contain orders of obedience to Ali, is nothing more than an unproven assumption and conjecture driven by ones predetermined feelings towards Umar.

• The obvious, visible and immediate interpretation of Umar’s behavior is that he acted solely out of concern for the health and condition of Muhammad (as he saw most fit) due to his love and concern for Muhammad, by not having Muhammad burden himself during his present predicament of ill health. Likewise, other Sahaba who were present followed the same opinion as Umar.

• The Sahaba differed even among themselves in their reaction to the request of Muhammad for a pen and paper i.e. they were not united in their opposition to Muhammad writing something down during his illness. Some Sahaba opposed Muhammad’s request, while others agreed with it. Therefore, there was no conspiracy (on behalf of the Sahaba) to “deny” Ali his “right” to succeed Muhammad. Instead, the Sahaba were acting upon their own sincere assessments of the situation of Muhammad.

• Muhammad's condition improved for a time after this incidence and had it been important he would have had it written down then.

the Hadith we are speaking about:

from Ibn Abbas that he said: Thursday, and what about Thursday? Then tears began to flow until I saw them on his cheeks as it they were the strings of pearls. He (the narrator) said that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and inkpot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray. They said: Allah's Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness."

Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sahih Muslim.



Now i am not sure why you went from one subject to the other it seems to me that you are despread to make any case about anything.

 

[Oryonder]

Once again neither one of these factors are an argument for it's being from God. It goes back less than 1/20th as far as Christianity/Judaism. So it is relatively very new like dozens of others.

What kind of argument is this ?

You are arguing that the age of a religion becomes more from God with age ?

Protestantism is very new relative to Christianity. By your logic we should all be Catholic or Orthdox as these are more from God ??

Really new stuff like Pentacostalism and Evangelical should be avoided according to your theory because they are much younger than even Protestantism.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Lol so with other words your religion exist of cherypicking?


It not only has different numberings but also different words and interpretations so please use a right one.



No they aren't they are the oppsite they actually say and teach us that no-one will come after him that Allah(swt) completed the religion and hes revelation. What a is Muslim leader according to you.. i would say the Companions and Mohammed(saws) himself?


Yes they do. You have read a whole different Quran then i have or the majority has i think. Companions asked Mohammed(saws) about everything almost each verse wherein Mohammed(saws) explained this and this is what we call Tasfeer/Hadiths.


A prophet is not always a messenger but a Messenger is always a prophet according to Authentic Hadiths so your argument fails. Its not ''Was'' but is yes we are supposed to ''meet'' with God but this doesn't mean we will face him in any form however this is irrelevant.

"Lol so with other words your religion exist of cherypicking?"

My Response: No, part of Baha'i Scriptures corrects the misinterpretations of Quran by those Moslems who made the sects. Also, part of the Baha'i Scriptures came to judge between sects of Islam. Something that was promised in Quran, and you seem to ignore again!

"It not only has different numberings but also different words and interpretations so please use a right one."

My Response: Numbering is irrelevant, so stop making excuses. You can find the verses anyways.
Which one is the right one? can even moslems agree which one? I would say none of them is as perfect as the original Arabic. But out of translations, Rodwell is much better than others, because it is not effected much by those who created sects and are biased. Anyways, you can always check the Arabic, so stop making excuses please


"No they aren't they are the oppsite they actually say and teach us that no-one will come after him that Allah(swt) completed the religion and hes revelation. What a is Muslim leader according to you.. i would say the Companions and Mohammed(saws) himself? "

My Response: Then you ignore meeting with Lord that was promised in Quran. I had asked you before, how would meeting with God would happen in your understanding, when God is invisible, you were unable to respond. For us it happend as a new revelation, with clear proofs.
Islam leaders were the ones that made the sects, and interpretaed Quran base on their own limited understanding. Quran says, those who make sects, are selfish. So, I don't know how you can trust them?

"Yes they do. You have read a whole different Quran then i have or the majority has i think. Companions asked Mohammed(saws) about everything almost each verse wherein Mohammed(saws) explained this and this is what we call Tasfeer/Hadiths."

My response: Then you are ignoring the verses of Quran which says, none knows it's interpretation except God, and on the Day it's interpretation shall come.
Yes, in some cases they asked, and Muhammad explained the ones that he was allowed. Moreover, there is no proof that the Hadithes are infallible, except the ones that Baha'i Scriptures confirms them. Only Quran is infallible! You cannot rely on hadithes.

But do you accept this Hadith? ::

We read this verse in the Qur’an: “Lo! Ye are they, who are called to expend for the Cause of God: and some of you are niggards (stingy) but whoso is niggardly shall be niggard only to his own loss, for God is the rich and ye are the poor: and if ye turn back, he will change you for another people, and they shall not be your like!” (Muhammad – 47:40)
Muhammad was asked who were the people He referred to as “another people”, who were to replace the Arabs? One of His famous followers, Salman Farsi, a Persian, was sitting near Him. Muhammad patted the legs of Salman and said: “He and his people” and He continued: “By the True One, in Whose hands is My life, if the Faith of God should be suspended in the Pleiades, surely men from Persia shall reach it.” (This tradition is accepted by Sunnis and Shiites and is included by Nasafi in his book, Vol 4, page 169, as well as by Muhammad Farid Vajdi, in his book, third edition, page 676)​

"A prophet is not always a messenger but a Messenger is always a prophet according to Authentic Hadiths so your argument fails. Its not ''Was'' but is yes we are supposed to ''meet'' with God but this doesn't mean we will face him in any form however this is irrelevant"​

My response: You keep ignoring my previous comment that Muhammad was the seal of the prophets and Messenges till the Day of Resurrection.
If you think the meeting with lord has not come yet, then you failed to recognize Him when He did come. Simple as that! ​

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Damn .

The following passage is cited as evidence: "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (5:3).

Again another misunderstanding by Moslem Leaders in interpreting Quran. It's impossible, that God did not perfected His religion for every people, and leave them with an incomplete religion for Ages.

As we can see the completion of religion in the light of the whole Qur'an, there are many other verses in Quran, which talks about completing previous religions too.

Each religion of God is perfect, FOR its own Age!!!

For instance, we find that God's favor was completed at the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph:

And thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the interpretation of sayings and make His favor complete to you and to the children of Jacob, as He made it complete before to your fathers, Abraham and Isaac; surely your Lord is knowing, wise.
- Qur'an 12:6

We also find that God completed His favor through Moses:

Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favor) to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.
- Qur'an 6:154

According to the Qur'an, the completion of the favor is also conditional upon the individual's success in obeying and fearing God:

And from whatsoever place you come forth, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are turn your face towards it, so that people shall have no accusation against you, except such of them as are unjust; so do not fear them, and fear Me, that I may complete My favor on you and that you may walk on the right course.
- Qur'an 2:150

Some argue however, that while "completion" of the favor may not be unique to Muslims, "perfection" of the religion is.

This is a matter of interpretation, and it certainly is the prerogative of the translators to have chosen the word "perfected" for the Arabic word "akmaltu". For Arabs (and others familiar with the language) however, while the word definitely conveys the meaning of perfection, and wholeness, it is also very often used to mean "completion" as we find in verses: 2:185, 2:196, 2:233, and 16:25 among others.

This same theme has also caused followers of other religions to believe that their religion was complete, not only for the duration it was destined, but for all times. For example we see that for the Christians, the favors of God were also completed on humanity through Jesus:

"And ye are complete in Him [i.e. Jesus] , which is the head of all principality and power"
- The Epistle to the Colossians, Chapter 2

"Epaphras, who is [one] of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God."
- The Epistle to the Colossians, Chapter 4

It is also necessary to remember, that both completeness and perfection are among God's attributes, integral to His Essence (magnified be His name). It would be blasphemous to doubt that any of His actions and doings or favors, would be anything but complete and perfect:

It is Allah Who made out of the things He created, some things to give you shade; of the hills He made some for your shelter; He made you garments to protect you from heat, and coats of mail to protect you from your (mutual) violence. Thus does He complete His favours on you, that ye may bow to His Will (in Islam).
- Qur'an 16:81



Let us also take the Qur'an as a whole entity, and remember the verses which explain that there is a set time for every nation and a set book. Let us also remember to examine the verses which tell us that the words of God are endless and can not be encompassed in one book.
Let us not forget either the verses that speak of Messengers to come.

Islam and the Baha'i Faith

 

[1robin]

What kind of argument is this ?

You are arguing that the age of a religion becomes more from God with age ?

Protestantism is very new relative to Christianity. By your logic we should all be Catholic or Orthdox as these are more from God ??

Really new stuff like Pentacostalism and Evangelical should be avoided according to your theory because they are much younger than even Protestantism.

No I was not arguing this. In fact I was arguing the opposite. I was showing that age is not valid for establishing truth in response to someones statement about how old baha i was. And I added that even if it was then it isn't even close to Christianity in age. Protest-ism is Christianity and goes back way further than Baha i so once again if you value age then my faith is older. However like I said age doesn't guaranty truth.

 

[arthra]

Robin:

The problem I see with your argument is that when the Book of Revelation appeared it was well before it became the "last book" of the canon in 397 CE ... and so the verse quoted above...notably:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

- Revelation 22:18

Applies only to the "prophecy of this book", i.e. the Book of Revelation and not the entire Bible or sixty six books as you mention.

 

[arthra]

FOaud wrote above:

Damn .

Do me a favour and read the page also verse 5:3 refutes your whole claim that there is a new religion after Islam.

..........................................

No I wasn't in this discussion earlier you confused me with Investigate Truth who has already responded. You acknowledge the Hadith that Umar's instructions over road those of the Prophet ..

Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise." "

 

[BruceDLimber]

I never claimed or ever thought Christianity's history was free from many questionable events.

You overlook the fact that I accept Christianity also.

But the events I described do make it tougher to apply Christ's "fruits" test, as I'm sure you see.

[T]here is no need for a different [book] to come along in the 1800's. The bible already covered that time period and gave all that is necessary.

Clearly not, which IOV is why God revealed more. And the age of a scriptural work isn't any proof of its validity.

This is so obvious and clear that any other religion claiming to have this prophet is obviously a false religion. Without any doubt Jesus meant the holy spirit.

Only according to some interpretations; others disagree.

And on the contrary, there are also confirmatory prophecies and tests. As well as matching the "fruits" listed in Galatians, the Baha'i Faith clearly passes the most critical test in First John 4:2!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

The fact that the two groups both view themselves as "final" revelations in no way refutes anything I said (much as some clearly wish it did).

I require an explanation of your strange racism assertion.

The assertion was based on the gratuitous description of scientists as "Jewish" when this has no relevance whatever to the topic being discussed. It's exactly the sort of thing various racist groups are constantly saying, be it about bankers, scientists, or whatever....

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

[to a third party] Absolutely not correct. I notice in your quotation the word man nor human even appears except where you inserted them....

Kindly reread the posting:

The words WEREN'T IN the quote! He had already closed the quote and was appending his own remarks.

So you protest too much, methinks!

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Even Muslims can't agree on which hadiths are accurate.

Yes they do.

Not that I've ever heard of!

That's why Sunnis and Shias recognize different subgroups of hadith, for example.

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

There is no need to even quote this from a [sic] article.

No sweat: I didn't quote it.

I wrote the whole thing myself.

(And I'm well aware, BTW, that "nabi" is a subgroup within "Ras'ul." No problem.)

Also, you totally ignored the verse's other meanings and nuances, which I described.

Bruce

 

[mystic444]

1Robin - I appreciate you reading my article (if indeed you read the whole thing), quoting from it, and linking to it. However, it should be obvious that I do not share your conclusions concerning the "counselor/comforter" passages in the gospel narrative attributed to John. I emphasized the word seem in the section you quoted for a very good reason. Anyone who reads the following paragraphs of that article, and the following article, will clearly see that I sought to show that what seems to be the case is in fact not the case. I conclude that the "counselor/comforter" whom Jesus (peace be with him) said was to follow him was in fact God's Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family). I welcome you or anyone else to read those articles to see my reasons and draw your own conclusions as to my success in correctly understanding the meaning of those statements attributed to God's Prophet Jesus, the anointed one.

I have no intention of getting involved in the argument over the meaning of the Qur'anic statement that Muhammad was the "seal" of the Prophets, and whether or not that excludes any future true Prophet of God (Sikh, Baha'i, Morman, etc.). I only wish to establish that I believe that the one Jesus said would come after him was Muhammad.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Absolutely not correct. I notice in your quotation the word man nor human even appears except where you inserted them however spirit appears several times along with characteristics that are specifically associated with the Holy spirit in the bible. Then somehow you think this proves your point. Quite astonishing. Especially since I quoted two scholars who said the exact opposite of what you do.

What you are missing, and did not address is:

The verse says, When The Spirit Comes, then He will hear and speaks and tells the truth to people.

If you recall, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus, then He was raised and spoke to people. He said whatever He heard from the Father.

Similarly, when it says, the Spirit of truth comes, then He hears and speaks, this can only happen in a physical world, as a person, so He can hear and speaks to tell the truth. That can only happen when, the same Holy Spirit descends upon another Prophet, who can hear from God and Speaks.

So, if Holy spirit does not appear, as a human, it is impossible He can hear, and speaks to people.

Well even by your standards it sure as heck doesn't say that true ones will. Especially when Jesus only mentions one more true prophet and the book its self was complete. One of the tests for any prophet is signs and wonders as well as his teachings lining up with the biblical narrative. There have been none since the bible was completed that have.

The tests that Jesus gives for a true prophet is His Fruits.
What was the Fruits of Jesus according to Bible?

However these two prophets are not new they are either Moses and Elija or Enoch and Elija. Most claim it is Moses and Elija. No scholar I have ever read suggests they were two new prophets. If I was you I would abandon this line of reasoning. It won't end well for you. It appears that you want to find justification for your religion so bad by attaching it to Christianity and Islam that you are seeing what you want to see in things that actually mean the opposite.

They cannot be either Moses and Elija or Enoch and Elija, because if you read the whole chapter, They did not fulfill all of those prophecies.
For example it says:
"And if any man would hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies."

"These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy,"

"And smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will,"

"The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them"

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

"And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves."

"And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth."

So, if you cannot show all these prophecies are fulfilled by any of those you claim, then your theology that says no prophet will come falls apart.

 

[Reverend Richard]

The Koran does not perfectly represent the original, Muslim scholars are unable to take the stance that the Bible is corrupted, and the Koran in not more theologically unified then the Bible.

For these reasons, the accusation that the Bible has been corrupted and standards that set the Koran higher must be ignored when comparing both books. They have to be treated minimally as equals in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity.

This one is long, so please forgive the verbosity:

The root problem with the Bible (Old and New Testament) as well as the Quran, is that humans were involved in the delivery of these Holy Books to mankind.

I was raised as a conservative Christian and was therefore taught to believe that the Bible is literally true. However, as I grew older and began to raise questions about what I had been taught from my childhood, I came to realize that anytime a human touches anything, whether considered a holy prophet or a worthless sinner, it is subject to mistakes, misinterpretations, failures of memory, socio-political prejudices and cultural influences. No human is perfect.

As a student of comparative religion myself, I have tried to study most of the world’s major religions with an open mind. This includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Daoism, and so on. I will be the first to admit that I have my own personal prejudices to deal with. After all, I am human so I am subject to the same weaknesses and foibles as others within my species. However, as imperfect as I am, I try to approach my study of each religion with an open heart and mind. For example, after some study of Judaism, it is now perfectly clear to me why devout Jews today still rejected Jesus as their “Messiah”.


So, regarding the Bible, most Biblical scholars today agree that the Christian Bible was assembled “after the fact”, and by consensus, by the early Church Fathers at various Councils. Even Christian churches today can’t agree on which books should or should not be included. The Catholic Bible includes several books that the Protestant Bible has rejected. Additionally, many if not most Bible Scholars, even within the Catholic Church itself, believe that many of the books of the Bible, including the 4 Gospels, may not have been written by the names (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that are attributed to them. And recently, many Jewish scholars have openly said that they no longer believe that the Torah is literally true, nor should it be taken literally. Since Judaism is the base of both Christianity and Islam, if even a portion of Jewish scholarship is accurate, then the basis of all Abrahamic religions is beginning to crumble.


With regard to Islam, the now suspect underpinnings of Judaism itself notwithstanding, since Mohammed was human, and admittedly illiterate, neither the Quran nor Islam can claim transmission of errorless scripture. In fact having a “single source” for scripture would seem to make it even more subject to error since there is little or no corroboration from independent or outside sources or references.


Finally, let me make it clear that it is not my intention to disrespect or denigrate anyone’s religious denomination or religious path. If you find spiritual strength and peace within a particular religious belief or denomination, then by all means you should stick with it. Personally, while I claim New Thought as my particular path, I don’t feel any need to “convert” anyone else to my belief system, nor do I believe my path is the only one that leads to religious truth. It is simply the path that has been uncovered for me in my studies in comparative religion. I take strength and spiritual guidance from where I find it, and many times that comes from a variety of spiritual sources and from different faiths.

One of my favorite “scriptures” (from the Kalama Sutta, I think) comes from the Buddha when he said, “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

 

[InvestigateTruth]

With regard to Islam, the now suspect underpinnings of Judaism itself notwithstanding, since Mohammed was human, and admittedly illiterate, neither the Quran nor Islam can claim transmission of errorless scripture. In fact having a “single source” for scripture would seem to make it even more subject to error since there is little or no corroboration from independent or outside sources or references.

I would mostly agree with what you say, but your view is based on the assumption that God cannot or Does not create a Perfect and Infallible human to send Him as a guidance to Mankind.

 

[Reverend Richard]

I would mostly agree with what you say, but your view is based on the assumption that God cannot or Does not create a Perfect and Infallible human to send Him as a guidance to Mankind.

That is true, but mainly because I have never met such an infallible being. Have you?

There have been rumors of such beings like Jesus and Mohammad. But those reports and rumors appear in scripture (oops).

Jesus never wrote down anything. Not a single word that we know of.
Mohammad (a human) could not write down anything, so we are left with a report of his perfect recitation of the Quran to another human (oops!) who copied it down exactly (oops!) without error.

So we are back where we started in terms of the reliability of scripture where humans are involved.

Part of my personal belief is that if God wanted to make Himself perfectly clear on what is true and what is not true about Him, He could do so with a single breath, to all of mankind in a single gesture. And I am not talking about a compulsion to believe where our freedom to accept or reject Him is removed. I am simply talking about God, as an omnipotent being, making a single clear revelation to all of mankind that would end wars, terrorism, bickering, and prejudices that religion has rained down on the human species. Instead, God has left us to continue quarreling as we have for the last several millenia, fighting and killing each other in His name.

For me, God is not who we humans think He (or She) is. The God of the Bible and the Quran is an invention of man. God for His or Her part, remains anonymous.

 

[F0uad]

That is true, but mainly because I have never met such an infallible being. Have you?

There have been rumors of such beings like Jesus and Mohammad. But those reports and rumors appear in scripture (oops).

Jesus never wrote down anything. Not a single word that we know of.
Mohammad (a human) could not write down anything, so we are left with a report of his perfect recitation of the Quran to another human (oops!) who copied it down exactly (oops!) without error.

So we are back where we started in terms of the reliability of scripture where humans are involved.

Part of my personal belief is that if God wanted to make Himself perfectly clear on what is true and what is not true about Him, He could do so with a single breath, to all of mankind in a single gesture. And I am not talking about a compulsion to believe where our freedom to accept or reject Him is removed. I am simply talking about God, as an omnipotent being, making a single clear revelation to all of mankind that would end wars, terrorism, bickering, and prejudices that religion has rained down on the human species. Instead, God has left us to continue quarreling as we have for the last several millenia, fighting and killing each other in His name.

For me, God is not who we humans think He (or She) is. The God of the Bible and the Quran is an invention of man. God for His or Her part, remains anonymous.

Is there a reason that you can speak for the Quran without studying what it says or what Tradition says?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is true, but mainly because I have never met such an infallible being. Have you?

There have been rumors of such beings like Jesus and Mohammad. But those reports and rumors appear in scripture (oops).

Jesus never wrote down anything. Not a single word that we know of.
Mohammad (a human) could not write down anything, so we are left with a report of his perfect recitation of the Quran to another human (oops!) who copied it down exactly (oops!) without error.

So we are back where we started in terms of the reliability of scripture where humans are involved.

Part of my personal belief is that if God wanted to make Himself perfectly clear on what is true and what is not true about Him, He could do so with a single breath, to all of mankind in a single gesture. And I am not talking about a compulsion to believe where our freedom to accept or reject Him is removed. I am simply talking about God, as an omnipotent being, making a single clear revelation to all of mankind that would end wars, terrorism, bickering, and prejudices that religion has rained down on the human species. Instead, God has left us to continue quarreling as we have for the last several millenia, fighting and killing each other in His name.

For me, God is not who we humans think He (or She) is. The God of the Bible and the Quran is an invention of man. God for His or Her part, remains anonymous.

"That is true, but mainly because I have never met such an infallible being. Have you?"

No, I haven't met either.

"There have been rumors of such beings like Jesus and Mohammad. But those reports and rumors appear in scripture (oops)."

Well, could be the interpretation of people, made it appear as unrealistic and rumors.


"Jesus never wrote down anything. Not a single word that we know of.
Mohammad (a human) could not write down anything, so we are left with a report of his perfect recitation of the Quran to another human (oops!) who copied it down exactly (oops!) without error. "

I agree about bible not written by Jesus. For the Muhammad, though, He appointed Ali, the commander of the Faith to make sure, it is what He said.

"So we are back where we started in terms of the reliability of scripture where humans are involved."

Except for Baha'i Scriptures, which are written by the hands of the Messenger and in His own time.

"Part of my personal belief is that if God wanted to make Himself perfectly clear on what is true and what is not true about Him, He could do so with a single breath, to all of mankind in a single gesture. And I am not talking about a compulsion to believe where our freedom to accept or reject Him is removed. I am simply talking about God, as an omnipotent being, making a single clear revelation to all of mankind that would end wars, terrorism, bickering, and prejudices that religion has rained down on the human species. Instead, God has left us to continue quarreling as we have for the last several millenia, fighting and killing each other in His name."

But God revelations would be progressive. This is because in everything there is a sense of progressive and evolution. For example, an embryo gradually develops his body members in the womb, then, later gradually grows up.
The buds opens and turns to flowers gradually, trees give fruits gradually.
So, if God wants to reveal revelations, it would make sense that also be progressive. So, the process of perfection and reaching peace would also be gradual and progressive.


"For me, God is not who we humans think He (or She) is."

100% agree.


"The God of the Bible and the Quran is an invention of man. God for His or Her part, remains anonymous"

I would say, for the most part, that's due to misinterpretations of those Books, than the actual Book.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Is there a reason that you can speak for the Quran without studying what it says or what Tradition says?

Thank you F0uad. I never claimed to speak for the Quran, nor for the Bible, nor for any faith, or faith tradition. I have studied the history of most major religions, I have read the Bible all the way through at least once (mainly because I was raised as a Christian), and yes I have read some of the Quran (but I admit not all of it). There are so many religions, and so little time!

The point is that all scripture was remembered, recited, and/or written by the hand of a human, and all humans are flawed being, regardless of how divinely inspired he or she might be. Therefore everything we do is subject to error and mistakes.

If God is the God that Muslims, or Christians or the Jews say He is, would He leave something as important as our eternal souls as something to fight, kill and die over, and still we cannot agree with each other?

The God of Muslims, Christians and Jews must see the confusion. He must see how we treat each other in his name, and yet the brutality continues.

That's the reason I (personally) do not believe that God is who man believes Him (or Her) to be.