Myth Or History?

[muhammad_isa]

The Pope is supposedly infallible.

Mmm .. along with the writers of the NT .. and those that decided on the canon.
That is an awful lot of infallible men

..oh .. and then there is you, of course..

I believe that to be false.
I believe that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, and I believe that Jesus is LIKEWISE infallible.

You want to pretend that it is all the same .. all falsehood.
Well, you would, wouldn't you..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mmm .. along with the writers of the NT .. and those that decided on the canon.
That is an awful lot of infallible men

I don't think any of them are infallible. So again, we're stuck having to figure out which one is right. How do we do that?

..oh .. and then there is you, of course..

I've never claimed infallibility.

I believe that to be false.
I believe that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, and I believe that Jesus is LIKEWISE infallible.

Why? And why do I have to ask so many times?

You want to pretend that it is all the same .. all falsehood.
Well, you would, wouldn't you..

It is all the same. As already pointed out about 3 times now. You claim your holy book is "the word of god." Others claim the same about their holy books.
HOW DO WE RECONCILE THESE DIFFERING CLAIMS?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why? And why do I have to ask so many times?

I don't know why you cannot understand the difference between a claimed messenger of God and an ordinary human being.
It seems to me that you are just being pedantic, and ignoring the difference between claimed messengers and others.

What you believe about Jesus and Muhammad is completely irrelevant here .. it is all about what people are CLAIMED to be, according to major religions.

It is all the same..

Only because you refuse to differentiate between claimed messengers of God and others.

That is dishonest. It doesn't matter a HOOT whether you believe in God or not. The difference between claims is obvious.

It is not just a case of one person saying "my book is the word of God", and another claiming the same about theirs, with no further information.
..so why are you pretending that it is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False.
The claim of Christians is that all the men concerned with producing the NT were infallible.

Which is that same as your claim regarding Muhammad. It does not matter if it is one or one hundred.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which is that same as your claim regarding Muhammad. It does not matter if it is one or one hundred.

Of course it does..

Jesus and Muhammad were messengers of God.
They are not equivalent to other men.

Do Christians believe that Jesus is the same as other men? No.
Do Muslims believe that Muhammad is the same as other men? No.

It doesn't matter whether you believe that Jesus and Muhammad were messengers or not.
If you are arguing on that platform, you are wasting our time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know why you cannot understand the difference between a claimed messenger of God and an ordinary human being.
It seems to me that you are just being pedantic, and ignoring the difference between claimed messengers and others.

I have no idea what you're going on about, or why you're off on yet another topic.

My question was/is, why do you believe what you do" and how can we verify that it's accurate?

What you believe about Jesus and Muhammad is completely irrelevant here .. it is all about what people are CLAIMED to be, according to major religions.

I haven't mentioned either of them.

Only because you refuse to differentiate between claimed messengers of God and others.

I haven't done any such thing. You've only just brought this up now. We were talking about if and what is the "word of god" and whether or not it would be infallible.

My question has been the same since the start. How do we reconcile the different views from varying religious that their holy books are the "word of god?" Is your claim that they're all the word of God? Because that presents a problem in that all of the holy books do not agree with each other and say different things about all kinds of different stuff. That doesn't demonstrate infallibility to me.

That is dishonest. It doesn't matter a HOOT whether you believe in God or not. The difference between claims is obvious.

It's not dishonest to me. They are all the same to me. Hence my question to you about how we know that the ones you believe are the word of god(s) are actually the word of god(s). How am I supposed to figure it out, given all the different claims?

I haven't said anything about how many hoots need to be given about whether I believe in god(s) or not.

It is not just a case of one person saying "my book is the word of God", and another claiming the same about theirs, with no further information.
..so why are you pretending that it is?

It is, actually, from my perspective. For the reasons addressed above and in earlier posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it does..

Jesus and Muhammad were messengers of God.
They are not equivalent to other men.

Do Christians believe that Jesus is the same as other men? No.
Do Muslims believe that Muhammad is the same as other men? No.

It doesn't matter whether you believe that Jesus and Muhammad were messengers or not.
If you are arguing on that platform, you are wasting our time.

No, you are not getting the myths right. Muhammad was a messenger from God. Jesus was the son of God, his early followers that wrote the books became the messengers. Why do you think that God is so limited that he can only handle one messenger at a time?

Sorry but the claims are the same. It is only the numbers that are different. Your beliefs are as weak as those of the Christians.

 

[muhammad_isa]

My question was/is, why do you believe what you do" and how can we verify that it's accurate?

That looks like a general question to me.
It cannot be answered in a reply post .. not satisfactorily, in any case.

My question has been the same since the start. How do we reconcile the different views from varying religious that their holy books are the "word of god?"

..and you have not attempted to comment on my replies.

They are all the same to me..

Of course it is .. because you don't beliieve in "messengers of God".
So what are we actually discussing?

Me: I believe in God's messengers and their infallibility
You: I don't, it's all the same

I think we are done.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..his early followers that wrote the books became the messengers. Why do you think that God is so limited that he can only handle one messenger at a time?

Sorry but the claims are the same. It is only the numbers that are different..

Ha ha
According to wikipedia, it cannot be ascertained who "these messengers" are.
Christians don't believe that the Gospel writers are "sons of God".
They believe that they are pious followers of Jesus who do not lie.
I happen to believe the same thing.

That does not equate to infallible though.
I do not subscribe to "infallibility doctrine" of the Catholic church, who say that a voting at an ecumenical council is an "infallible decision"

It is merely the words and proclamations of men.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha
According to wikipedia, it cannot be ascertained who "these messengers" are.
Christians don't believe that the Gospel writers are "sons of God".
They believe that they are pious followers of Jesus who do not lie.
I happen to believe the same thing.

That does not equate to infallible though.
I do not subscribe to "infallibility doctrine" of the Catholic church, who say that a voting at an ecumenical council is an "infallible decision"

It is merely the words and proclamations of men.

Of course they are not infallible. But then neither was Muhammad.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That looks like a general question to me.
It cannot be answered in a reply post .. not satisfactorily, in any case.


..and you have not attempted to comment on my replies.


Of course it is .. because you don't beliieve in "messengers of God".
So what are we actually discussing?

Try reading and responding to my posts in their entirety. That should help.
And it would move the discussion along as well.
I've stated my point very clearly, several times.

How can we figure out which "word of god" is the right one? Or if there even is a "word of god" in the first place?
That's it.

Me: I believe in God's messengers and their infallibility
You: I don't, it's all the same

I think we are done.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course they are not infallible. But then neither was Muhammad.

How do you know that?
Muhammad is claimed to be like Moses and Jesus.
i.e. not ordinary men

It's simply that you do not believe it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that?
Muhammad is claimed to be like Moses and Jesus.
i.e. not ordinary men

It's simply that you do not believe it.

What reasons are there to believe that anybody was/is infallible?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How can we figure out which "word of god" is the right one? Or if there even is a "word of god" in the first place?

The Bible and Qur'an are "Holy", as they concern the Divine.
How do we know they concern the Divine?
Try reading them..

I'm changing tack .. because you either don't understand my previous posts .. or judge them irrelevant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible and Qur'an are "Holy", as they concern the Divine.
How do we know they concern the Divine?
Try reading them..

I'm changing tack .. because you either don't understand my previous posts .. or judge them irrelevant.

So your guess is as good as anyone else's. Which is exactly where we started at the beginning of this conversation.

The question isn't whether holy books "concern the divine." They are full of claims of divinity. Just like religious believers who believer in all kinds of different religions and holy books.
How do we tell which one(s) is correct or what reasons we should have for believing any of it? Well, you can't answer that. I wish you had just said so in the first place.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So your guess is as good as anyone else's..

If you say so..

The question isn't whether holy books "concern the divine."
They are full of claims of divinity..

Not in my experience they aren't...

How do we tell which one(s) is correct or what reasons we should have for believing any of it?

Who's "we"?

Well, you can't answer that...

There is probably not much point in my answering it..
..because you just carry on with your assertions and ignore what I'm saying.

Perhaps tell me what Holy Books compare to the Bible and Qur'an? .. that will do for a start.
Remember .. they must claim to be about the Divine .. that which is responsible for creating and maintaining the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that?
Muhammad is claimed to be like Moses and Jesus.
i.e. not ordinary men

It's simply that you do not believe it.

They both make the same sort if errors. If anything Muhammad was worse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you say so..

You basically have said as much yourself.

Not in my experience they aren't...

Wait, what? Now you're claiming that holy books don't contain claims of divinity "in your experience?"
But you just said they did. And they do.

Who's "we"?

Humans. How do humans tell which one(s) is correct or what reasons humans should have for believing any of it?

Can you finally answer the question now?

There is probably not much point in my answering it..
..because you just carry on with your assertions and ignore what I'm saying.

Well, I've been asking you a question for several pages now. I can assure you I am actually looking for an answer.

Please point out what you think I've ignored that you've said. Sorry but you're the one leaving chunks out of my posts when you respond to them, so perhaps you're projecting here?

Perhaps tell me what Holy Books compare to the Bible and Qur'an? .. that will do for a start.

Do we really need any more than that in order to answer the question? Nope, we don't. All we need is more than one holy book to answer the question. Unless you are claiming that the Bible and the Qu'ran are both the words of the same God, which presents a problem unto itself, in that the texts don't agree with each other.

It's become increasingly obvious that you do not want to answer my question.

But okay, how about every other holy book in existence? The Avesta. The Vedas. The Sutras. The Upanishads. The Guru Granth Sahib. The Dasam Granth.

Remember .. they must claim to be about the Divine .. that which is responsible for creating and maintaining the universe.

Or you could just answer my question and quit obfuscating already.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Unless you are claiming that the Bible and the Qu'ran are both the words of the same God, which presents a problem unto itself, in that the texts don't agree with each other.

It is YOU that claims that most religions claim that their books are "the word of God" .. not me.

I said that the Bible and Qur'an concern the Divine..
..and yes .. they both concern the One God of Abraham.

We have already had a discussion about the differences between the two, but you ignore what I have said in my replies..
.. I can guess why

But okay, how about every other holy book in existence? The Avesta. The Vedas. The Sutras. The Upanishads. The Guru Granth Sahib. The Dasam Granth

Shall we take each one in turn..
Which book shall we start with .. and what is its source?
i.e. age .. to whom it was revealed etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is YOU that claims that most religions claim that their books are "the word of God" .. not me.

This is what you are responding to:

Unless you are claiming that the Bible and the Qu'ran are both the words of the same God, which presents a problem unto itself, in that the texts don't agree with each other.

Which you indicate, in your very next line:

I said that the Bible and Qur'an concern the Divine..

See?

What we are talking about is the "word of god." Rather than just, oh does it mention the divine?
Right?

..and yes .. they both concern the One God of Abraham.

The problem with this, as I just pointed out, is that they don't agree with each other and contradict each other in places.

We have already had a discussion about the differences between the two, but you ignore what I have said in my replies..
.. I can guess why

I haven't ignored anything. In fact, I just asked you to post something that you think I've ignored and this was your response to that.

Shall we take each one in turn..
Which book shall we start with .. and what is its source?
i.e. age .. to whom it was revealed etc.

How about answering my question already. You've chosen the book(s) you think are accurate depictions of reality. How and why did you do so? And how can the rest of us sort through all of these religious claims and determine which one is the right one? Enough with all this obfuscation.