Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Dawnofhope]

We are really delving into some serious study of the Qur'an and history. This is excellent. Its getting late here and I have two days of intense work commitments. I hope to respond in the next few days.

 

[Prestor John]

Hi @Katzpur,

Thank you for dropping in. Your contribution here is timely. While appreciating we have different worldviews, its really important we're able to appreciate the positives in each others faiths.

I'm a Baha'i representative member and vice chairman of my cities interfaith council. Our current chair is a Mormon and your faith is well represented as we would hope.

I grew up Christian but became a Baha'i nearly 30 years ago attracted to Teachings that recognised the Divine origins of all the main religions so I believe in the same God, Jesus, and bible as I did as a Christian.

Although Baha'is don't believe Jospeh Smith to be a prophet, we do recognise the Mormons as Christians. Your high moral standards such as abstinence from alcohol are admired and Baha'is do not partake of alcoholic beverages either. Clearly Mormons are animated by the Teachings of Christ and that is the most important thing.

Baha'is are also enjoined to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship and avoid conflict and contention. On the other hand we are to be just and fair in our dealings with others. Sometimes that means being firm and correcting those who attempt to disparage the faiths of others through the propogation of false and misleading information.

Best Wishes
Adrian

For the record, I would have shared something like what Katz shared, but you told me not to talk about "Mormonism" anymore.

I'm waiting for when you lash out at Katz for sharing it.

 

[serp777]

Of course Muhammad was a Messenger of God. 22% of the world population are not just following "some guy."
Muhammad is one of the greatest Messengers who ever lived, along with Jesus, the Bab and Baha'u'llah...
More later, gotta run to work, I mean bike. I do not like being late, I prefer being early...

Oh wait, I just remembered. How do we know if someone is a Messenger of God, a Prophet?

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

"if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet."
I guess Muhammad must be a Prophet.

22% of the world population are not just following "some guy.

Fallacious argument from popularity. Lots of people believed in Elron Hubbard. The truth is not determined in any way by the amount of people who believe or the strength of their convictions.

"if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet."
I guess Muhammad must be a Prophet.

Maybe i'm missing something and just being dense--is your whole post a joke? All the emogiis are making me doubt, but im not sure since your religion says Baha'i.

This is an equivocation fallacy. Redefining a prophet and then calling him a prophet is dishonest. The most common usage of prophet absolutely has a divine context. Furthermore, what evidence do you have that he trained a nation of people? They didn't seem to be rising to the highest station of knowledge when Muhammad was consummating his marriages with young girls and pillaging whole nations.

 

[serp777]

I agree we need to consider all plausible explanations. That means looking at history and the known evidence. There is no question of the presence of Jews and Christians in the region. The next question for me is what is the evidence from BOTH with Islamic sources and non-Islamic that can provide meaningful and reliable information. Questions of reliability of the Sirat aside we have at the very least a pact or treaty being made with the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe. That is a significant association.

I'm interested in any historic sources of information you can provide. Having considered the surahs of Joseph and Mary, I wonder if the next step might be the constitution of Medina?

Constitution of Medina - Wikipedia

That might give us a better sense of how Muhammad united the Arabian peninsula as well as informing us about who was around.



Those are the two main explanations. Its useful to consider that the Baha'i message came out of a similar time of social change with the European renaissance and then so called enlightenment period. The Message of Christ was after exposure of the Jewish peoples to the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and then Romans. So did Muhammad, Jesus, and Baha'u'llah as enlightened people with knowledge and insight into the social changes manage to repackage these ideas into pre-existing religious ideas and call it a Divine Revelation? Or was it in fact a Divine revelation as each One claimed?



Having been a Baha'i for a while its often easier to know what's there and what isn't and where to find it. You certainly have that with the Bible from your Christian days.

I doubt if the those Sabian and Mandaean influences will take us too far either except to give us an appreciation of the difficulties and challenges of unravelling some periods of history.

I'm starting to think also about the Davidic Covenant you mentioned on another thread too as that's an important part of the picture for the Abrahamic Faiths including Islam. The two biblical characters that Muhammad most resemble IMHO are King David and Moses.

I agree we need to consider all plausible explanations.

What makes you think we have good enough evidence to come to a determination,

That might give us a better sense of how Muhammad united the Arabian peninsula as well as informing us about who was around.

Plenty of warlords have conquered territory. Just because you conquered territory doesn't mean you are divine or have a connection to the divine or you are in fact a legitimate prophet. Genghis Khan was a much better prophet if you think uniting some territory proves anything.

Those are the two main explanations. Its useful to consider that the Baha'i message came out of a similar time of social change with the European renaissance and then so called enlightenment period. The Message of Christ was after exposure of the Jewish peoples to the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and then Romans. So did Muhammad, Jesus, and Baha'u'llah as enlightened people with knowledge and insight into the social changes manage to repackage these ideas into pre-existing religious ideas and call it a Divine Revelation? Or was it in fact a Divine revelation as each One claimed?

This is quite fallacious on many levels. First there are two main explanations? That's a false dilemma. I can probably come up with many reasonable explanations of combinations of explanations, none of which involve anything divine.

It could have simply been a combination of legends and superstitious people, possibly liars and hallucinations as well, that together led to a culture that believed divine revelation. Its very easy, and we see it all the time, how religions emerge. And usually there are many explanations and factors, not just one simple one.

 

[serp777]

I don't know seems to be the best answer, and yet nobody but me selected it. We don't have remotely enough evidence to make a determination about something supernatural after many hundreds of years. To accept something divine rationally, we would need very good evidence, not just doubtful historical analysis that emerged from peasants who barely understood that the Earth orbited the sun

 

[Dawnofhope]

For the record, I would have shared something like what Katz shared, but you told me not to talk about "Mormonism" anymore.

I'm waiting for when you lash out at Katz for sharing it.

Sorry, but I thought I had encouraged you to share your Mormon beliefs as it related to proofs or arguments that Muhammad wasn't a Messenger of God.

Neither Katz, nor I have lashed out at each other in all the time we've been on RF and can't imagine either of us ever will. She started a very good thread yesterday and I was very positive.

Finding common ground

 

[Trailblazer]

Fallacious argument from popularity. Lots of people believed in Elron Hubbard. The truth is not determined in any way by the amount of people who believe or the strength of their convictions.

I fully agree. I was being a bit facetious. However, the chances of 22% of people following Muhammad if He was just an ordinary man are what? How many ordinary men still have a following that is steadily growing after 1400 years? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Nowhere near 22% of the world population ever followed Hubbard and those numbers are shrinking. That is the evidence that indicates Scientology it was a cult and not a real religion like Islam. Islam is projected to overtake Christianity by the year 2070 as the largest religion in the world.
Once thriving Church of Scientology faces extinction, says cult tracker

"if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet."
I guess Muhammad must be a Prophet.

Maybe i'm missing something and just being dense--is your whole post a joke? All the emogiis are making me doubt, but im not sure since your religion says Baha'i.

No, it was not a joke, although it was a bit jovial.

This is an equivocation fallacy. Redefining a prophet and then calling him a prophet is dishonest. The most common usage of prophet absolutely has a divine context.

I did not redefine a prophet. I just posted a passage that explains how we can know someone is a prophet, by the effects they have upon the world. It is a given that a prophet was divine, and it says that in this passage:

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273
​

“causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge” is not referring to knowledge we can acquire in schools. It refers to spiritual knowledge, moral values. The knowledge the prophets had and imparted to humanity was not learned in any school, they had innate knowledge in addition to the knowledge that was revealed to them by God (their revelation).

Furthermore, what evidence do you have that he trained a nation of people? They didn't seem to be rising to the highest station of knowledge when Muhammad was consummating his marriages with young girls and pillaging whole nations.

I guess you do not know much about Islam and its contributions to civilization. Take a look inside the book for a brief overview.
https://www.amazon.com/Islamic-contributions-civilization-Stanwood-Cobb/dp/B0007DNBG0

I am sure a lot more books have been written on this subject, this is only one book.

 

[Prestor John]

Matthew 7:1-4 appears relevant here.

I suppose it depends on how you interpret those verses.

I know that many would interpret these verses as saying simply, “Don’t judge others”, but I do not believe that to be the case.

Rather, the Lord was teaching that whatever judgement or “measure” we use to judge others will be used against us at the time of our Final Judgement.

All of us will one day be judged and I am completely comfortable being judged according to the “measure” I have applied to what you have said.

I would hope that the Lord’s judgement would include ruling against “flawed logic, hypocrisy and self-righteousness”, especially against those who claim to be “reasonable and fair.”

I hope not to be possessed by any of those things at the time I am judged. How about you?

Do you have any facts to support your opinion?

What “facts” are there that could support that opinion?

I could share from books that I believe are the Word of God, the testimonies of men who I believe are true prophets of God and my own personal testimony concerning the divinity of Christ based on the witness I received from the Holy Spirit.

Would you consider any of these to be “facts” or “proof” of anything?

I believe your demand for “facts” or “proofs” of these matters of belief to be naive, as well as hypocritical considering that there are no “facts” to support the teachings of Muhammad or Islam.

Is it your understanding that the Lord Jesus Christ would condemn me for pointing out your flawed logic and hypocrisy here?

Muslims view the Qur'an as the authoritative inerrant Word of God.

This would be another “deal-breaker” for me.

No book of scripture is perfect, because any human being who writes said book would introduce imperfections into the text in some way.

Mary is mentioned over 30 times in the Quran but there is no mention of Mary's age and certainly nothing to suggest she was a child when she became pregnant with Jesus.

If her age was not mentioned, why assume that she was not a child?

Muslims and Christians have many diverse beliefs, but we need to look towards the Qur'an to appreciate what Muhammad taught just as we need to read the Bible to appreciate what Jesus taught.

I never claimed that Muhammad taught anything about Mary.

What I said was that there are Muslims who believe and teach that Mary was a child when she gave birth to Christ.

I have learned this fact from personal experiences and other sources.

I shared a source with you in post #659 which claimed that, “Most Muslim theologians indicate Mary’s age at the time of pregnancy to have been ten, thirteen, or fifteen.”

You have yet to respond to that source or dispute that claim in any way.

Besides, as you pointed out, the Qur’an does not address the subject of her age at the time she gave birth to Christ, so how am I at fault for looking to other Muslim sources to learn the Muslim perspective on that topic?

Is it reasonable to look down on those who would look to non-Biblical sources to discover Bible-times information that is not contained in the Bible?

Is it your understanding that the Lord Jesus Christ would condemn me for pointing out your unreasonable position and your putting words in my mouth?

Just because a Christian holds a particular belief does not mean that belief is supported by the Bible.

I never claimed that the belief that Mary was a child at the time she gave birth to Christ was supported by the Qur’an.

That was the straw-man that you erected and are now trying to burn.

Why would you consider my pointing this out to an “extreme personal attack” on you?

Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would condemn me for pointing out your logical fallacies?

Exactly the same principle applies in regards the Quran, or should we apply a different standard to Muslims?

I am holding Muslims to the exact same standard I am holding to other Christians.

There are Christians that believe that the Virgin Mary herself was the product of Immaculate Conception, even though that idea is not supported by the Bible.

There are Christians that believe that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, even though that idea is not supported by the Bible.

Am I “ignorant” for mentioning these non-Biblical beliefs had by other Christians? I must be “living in a bubble”?

Does the fact that these ideas are not present in the Bible make them any less believed by these other Christians?

Does the fact that these ideas are not present in the Bible make them inaccurate?

Saying that the Qur’an does not mention Mary’s age at the time she gave birth to Christ is not the same as saying that there are no Muslims that believe she was a child at the time.

You are in denial about this fact and are yourself trying to hold a different standard for Islam than for Christianity.

You believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would condemn me for pointing out your flawed logic and hypocrisy here?

Are you aware Baha'is don't believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet?

I am aware that the Baha’i believe that “prophets” and “seers” are very different from one another and that there are those in the Baha’i faith who believe Joseph Smith was a “seer” (like those I met).

I do not agree with the Baha’i “Manifestations of God” concept and would contend that a “seer” is a “prophet” also.

Considering where our beliefs clash and the Baha’i understanding of a “seer”, is it any wonder that I left that meeting feeling that they “stood for everything”?

Any reasonable person would understand how I came to that conclusion without feeling the need to label me “ignorant.”

Any reasonable person would have at least asked me how I came to that conclusion before claiming I was “ignorant” or “living in a bubble”.

Is it your belief that the Lord Jesus Christ would condemn me for judging you to be unreasonable by calling me ignorant because you did not like my opinion?

My point in posting the wikipedia link that was critical of Mormonism was to remind you that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. You had criticised my faith.

Yet, that doesn’t “prove” that you know anything about my religion, does it?

I shared the beliefs that I had which conflicted with Islamic teachings, as well as the personal experiences that I had which led to my opinion about the Baha’i faith.

That is a world's difference than sharing a link.

Since you claimed that I was “ignorant” simply because I disagreed with you and then set up a subjective “goal post” to prove that I was not ignorant, how does sharing a link prove that you are not ignorant?

You have disputed my claims about Islam and the Baha’i faiths with strawmen, flawed logic and hypocrisy. That is all.

You have yet to share anything that directly combats what I have said.

This thread is about Muhammad. You mentioned you didn't believe in Muhammad because He doesn't agree with your belief about the Divinity of Christ. I referenced the Bible to examine the question of the Divinity of Christ but you never replied.

But I did reply.

You failed to mention that in the very same post where you quoted from the Bible you also claimed that I was “ignorant” and that I “lived in a bubble.”

I replied in post #546,

“I have no incentive to continue since you have become belligerent and accusatory.

Besides, nothing you shared changed the fact that Muhammad denied the divinity of Christ and Mankind's reliance on Him for salvation.

Since I have come to believe that these are absolute truths through the witness of the Holy Spirit, I cannot accept Muhammad as a true prophet.

It really is that simple.

I would enjoy going over the Biblical verses you quoted, as well as the other Bible verses that contradict them.

I also would have enjoyed sharing the teachings of the LDS Church, but I do not deal in "proofs" and would never claim that what I shared "proved" anything one way or the other.

That would be ignorant and naïve.

Your recent behavior and demand for such leads me to believe that you may not be capable of having this type of discussion.”(Bold and italics added)

 

[Prestor John]

Remember?

Yes, I remember how nothing you shared changed the fact that Muhammad denied the divinity of Christ and that your attempt to wield Biblical verses as a sword showcased your ignorance of the teachings of the LDS Church.

The doctrines of the LDS Church are not bound by the Bible.

We have other books of scripture, the words of modern-day prophets and I even have my own personal witness from the Holy Spirit that confirm the divinity of Christ to me.

We do not consider the Bible, or any other book of scripture, to be inerrant or free from mistranslation or misinterpretation.

I also never once claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ was “God incarnate” because we believe that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are separate and distinct individual Beings.

As I said before, I would enjoy talking about the Bible verses you quoted, but I do not deal in “proofs”.

It would be a discussion of interpretations. Nothing more.

I'm sure it is an argument made by some Muslims. Some Muslims have beliefs that have nothing to do with what Muhammad said just as Christians have beliefs that have nothing to do with what Christ said.

You finally admit it!

As there is no mention of Mary's age in the Qur'an I don't see how its relevant other than to criticise Islam.

I don’t consider the belief that Mary was a child at the time that she gave birth to Christ to be a criticism of Islam.

The only reason this ever came up in this discussion was because I mentioned it as a point where Islam and Christianity may disagree.

I never said that it was wrong or incorrect.

In post #515, in response to you saying, “Muslims believe in the virgin birth and see Mary the mother of Jesus as the greatest woman of her time. A whole chapter of the Quran is dedicated to her.” I said,

“That’s right. I think they also claim that Mary was only a little girl at the time.

Even though I believe that Muhammad is not a true prophet and that the teachings of Islam are not completely true, I never meant to claim that everything that Islam believes and teaches is wrong or incorrect.”

The LDS Church, as far as I know, has no stance on the age of Mary at the time she gave birth to Christ.

I do not fault anyone for believing that she was a child at the time. She could very well have been and I would not be put off if it were somehow proven that she was.

The only reason I cared about Mary’s age at all was because you claimed that I was wrong, when I knew for a fact that there were Muslims that believed that she was a child at the time.

I’m starting to think we may have been operating under a false pretense here because I never meant for this to be a criticism of Islam.

I only brought it up to point out where I believed Christianity and Islam may disagree concerning Mary.

You would need to reference a reputable Islamic scholar not WikiIslam as a proof.

Why? Because Quora, another site that cannot claim credibility, said so?

There are certainly apocryphal Christian accounts that refers to Mary as being 12 -14 years old but these are not considered authoritative.

Of course. I never claimed otherwise.

That is not true and I provided you with information about the opinion of a range of views including an Iranian scholar who believes Aisha may have been in her late teens when she married Muhammad.

I remember you providing me yet another wiki link. The oh so reliable wikipedia!

However, even in the link you posted, most of the sources claim that she was pre-teen and a teenager is still not an adult.

I think that's exactly what you're doing.

Nope!

The only reason Aisha came up in this discussion was because you claimed that I was wrong about Islamic views concerning Mary’s age.

I mentioned that I had first-hand knowledge that there were Muslims who believed that Mary was a child at the time she gave birth to Christ because they used the “Christian-God-Is-A-Pedophile” argument in discussions I had about Aisha’s age.

I said in post #641, “I know this because I have had personal discussions with many Muslims on the topic of Muhammad's child bride and they mentioned their belief that Mary had been a child at the time of her virgin birth of Christ as some sort of defense for the practice of men marrying prepubescent girls. (I don't know how it does, but they did it.)”

You yourself said that that was a poor argument.

I again said in post #659, “I did not bring this up in an attempt to slander or defame anyone. I only mentioned it because this was the topic of discussion I had that led to many Muslims making claims about Mary's age.”

Again in post #659 I mentioned that I did not care about Aisha’s age and that I had only the one criticism about it,

“No, I'm good because I don’t really care about this. It’s like what I said back in post #515,

“My opinion about Muhammad as a man is a mixed bag, and ultimately unimportant. I’ve heard good and bad about him.”

The only thing that bothered me about this topic was the fact that Muhammad claimed that it was revelation from God that Aisha marry him.

I feel that this would have been more defensible if Aisha had been of childbearing age at the time of the revelation and the purpose of the marriage included Muhammad having children by her.

However, the primary reasons given were to reinforce friendly relations which already existed between Muhammad and her father and to educate, train, and utilize her capabilities for the sake of Islam.

All of which could have been accomplished without him marrying her, so I have my doubts about the existence of such a revelation, besides the fact that I do not consider him to be a true prophet.”

Why not post actual arguments then rather than personal attacks and opinion?

You seem to confuse “personal attacks” with opinion.

I can criticize what you say and how you say it without it being a “personal attack”. Sometimes pointing out how an opponent is wrong is argument enough.

You have repeatedly erected strawmen, presented flawed logic and hypocrisies, and played the victim card when these things were exposed.

You have been unable to dispute anything I have said concerning Islam and the Baha’i faiths.

Nothing you have shared has changed the fact that Muhammad denied the divinity of Christ.

I cannot deny the divinity of Christ, therefore I must continue to reject Muhammad as a true prophet.

Sorry, but I thought I had encouraged you to share your Mormon beliefs as it related to proofs or arguments that Muhammad wasn't a Messenger of God.

You said in post #417 (which was your very first post to me),

“The Baha'i Faith and Mormonism are not the main point of discussion here. We are talking about Muhammad and Islam.”

Although later in post #538 (where you claimed I was “ignorant” and “living in a bubble”) you also demanded LDS “proofs” that Muhammad was not a true prophet.

I told you that I do not deal in “proofs” and I have since asked you what you would consider to be “facts” and “proofs”.

Do you consider what Katz shared to be “proof” of anything?

If all you wanted was for me to provide the scripture verses or statements made by Church leaders that teach the divinity of Christ or the Church’s stance on Muhammad, I could have easily done that, but you demanded “facts” that “proved” the things I said about Muhammad, which I could never claim to have.

I think you might be confused on what is or is not “fact” or “proof”.

Neither Katz, nor I have lashed out at each other in all the time we've been on RF and can't imagine either of us ever will.

You have been the only one “lashing out” in this discussion.

I shared both facts of Islam and the Baha’i faiths and my opinion which was formed from my personal experiences and instead of you sharing facts and opinion to combat what I shared you claimed that I was “ignorant” and that I “lived in a bubble”.

I have repeatedly pointed out your flawed logic, hypocrisies and unreasonableness - yet none of that equates to me “lashing out”.

She started a very good thread yesterday and I was very positive.

Just wait until she says something you don’t like.

I’m sure you’ll start “lashing out” at her as you have been with me.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi @Prestor John, You’ve made it clear you don’t believe Muhammad to be a Messenger of God. I have no problem with that or you having different religious beliefs to me. I can’t see any further discussion between us on this thread being helpful. All the best.

 

[Prestor John]

Hi @Prestor John, You’ve made it clear you don’t believe Muhammad to be a Messenger of God. I have no problem with that or you having different religious beliefs to me. I can’t see any further discussion between us on this thread being helpful. All the best.

It may help you to recognize how you derailed this discussion and take responsibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I fully agree. I was being a bit facetious. However, the chances of 22% of people following Muhammad if He was just an ordinary man are what? How many ordinary men still have a following that is steadily growing after 1400 years? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Nearly 100% of Muslims never met Muhammad personally. They don't follow him; they follow legends about him.

Nowhere near 22% of the world population ever followed Hubbard and those numbers are shrinking. That is the evidence that indicates Scientology it was a cult and not a real religion like Islam. Islam is projected to overtake Christianity by the year 2070 as the largest religion in the world.
Once thriving Church of Scientology faces extinction, says cult tracker

IMO, a big part of that difference comes from:

- Scientology has never gotten enough political power anywhere to be able to make itself any country's official religion or suppress competing religions.

- as bad as Scientology is, they've never converted people at swordpoint or had death sentences for apostasy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nearly 100% of Muslims never met Muhammad personally. They don't follow him; they follow legends about him.

As far as I know, they adhere to the Qur’an. That is what I meant when I said they follow Muhammad. Maybe some Muslims adhere to the Hadiths, which are legends, I do not know.

IMO, a big part of that difference comes from:

- Scientology has never gotten enough political power anywhere to be able to make itself any country's official religion or suppress competing religions.

- as bad as Scientology is, they've never converted people at swordpoint or had death sentences for apostasy.

I have to disagree with you. The difference is that Islam is a religion of God and Scientology is a cult.Scientoly never had that many adherents to begin with. It could never become any country’s official religion.

Scientology is dying out because many people are realizing what it really is. Cults come and go but religions come and grow.

Once thriving Church of Scientology faces extinction, says cult tracker

Scientology is dying’: John Brousseau on the decline of Int Base and fate of Shelly Miscavige

I do not know if Islam ever converted people at swordpoint. You would have to ask a Muslim or another Baha’i about that. Even if that did happen initially that is not why the religion has grown as fast as it has since then. Part but not all of the high growth rate can be attributed to high birth rates.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as I know, they adhere to the Qur’an. That is what I meant when I said they follow Muhammad. Maybe some Muslims adhere to the Hadiths, which are legends, I do not know.

When I said “legends and stories,” I was referring to the Qur’an.

The Qur’an is not Muhammad. No Muslim - or anyone else - alive today has met Muhammad.

I have to disagree with you. The difference is that Islam is a religion of God and Scientology is a cult.

IOW, Scientology is a religion you don’t like.

I’m more familiar with another dividing line between cults and religions: “a religion is a cult that survived the death of its founder.” By that measure, the Baha’i faith and Scientology both started as cults and are both now religions.

I see no reason to consider either one “of God”... and I won’t until it’s been established:

- that God exists
- that God communicates with humanity
- that God has opinions on how humans ought to spend their leisure time
- which leisure activities (which religions, etc.) God endorses and doesn’t endorse.

Scientoly never had that many adherents to begin with.

Same as most religions.

It could never become any country’s official religion.

Wackier and more oppressive religions have become official religions in some countries.

Scientology is dying out because many people are realizing what it really is. Cults come and go but religions come and grow.

Once thriving Church of Scientology faces extinction, says cult tracker

Scientology is dying’: John Brousseau on the decline of Int Base and fate of Shelly Miscavige

You do realize that many of the religions you call “religions of God” are also declining, right?

I do not know if Islam ever converted people at swordpoint. You would have to ask a Muslim or another Baha’i about that.

Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia

Even if that did happen initially that is not why the religion has grown as fast as it has since then. Part but not all of the high growth rate can be attributed to high birth rates.

Another factor not tied to the truth of the religion or whether it was endorsed by God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

When I said “legends and stories,” I was referring to the Qur’an.

The Qur’an is not Muhammad. No Muslim - or anyone else - alive today has met Muhammad.

The final version of the Qur’an we have today was established within the lifetime of those who closely associated with Muhammad such as the Caliphs Uthman and Ali. So we have a much higher degree of reliability with the Quran compared to the Bible, that it truly reflected what Muhammad taught. That doesn’t mean He was from God, simply we have a reliable record of what He taught. So if we were to investigate His claims to be a Messenger of God we simply study the Quran.

IOW, Scientology is a religion you don’t like.

I’m more familiar with another dividing line between cults and religions: “a religion is a cult that survived the death of its founder.” By that measure, the Baha’i faith and Scientology both started as cults and are both now religions.

There’s some truth in that.

I see no reason to consider either one “of God”... and I won’t until it’s been established:

- that God exists
- that God communicates with humanity
- that God has opinions on how humans ought to spend their leisure time
- which leisure activities (which religions, etc.) God endorses and doesn’t endorse.

So the proof of God’s existence or not is closely linked to the Bible for the Christians, the Quran for the Muslims and Baha’i writings for the Baha’is.

Good luck with proving the non existence of God.

Sorry for the interruption.

Continue....lol

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The final version of the Qur’an we have today was established within the lifetime of those who closely associated with Muhammad such as the Caliphs Uthman and Ali. So we have a much higher degree of reliability with the Quran compared to the Bible, that it truly reflected what Muhammad taught. That doesn’t mean He was from God, simply we have a reliable record of what He taught. So if we were to investigate His claims to be a Messenger of God we simply study the Quran.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to go against anything I said.

So the proof of God’s existence or not is closely linked to the Bible for the Christians, the Quran for the Muslims and Baha’i writings for the Baha’is.

Then you have no proof... or even good reason to believe. Scriptures are, by their nature, hearsay.

Good luck with proving the non existence of God.

What makes you think I need to?

The time to accept a "revealed" religion is when we have good reason to believe that the religion is in line with God's revelation.

...But what "God's revelation" is can't be established without establishing (among other things) God's existence.

Yes, if we establish that God doesn't exist, then your religion fails... but if the point we're at is "we can't tell whether God exists or not," then your religion fails, too.

 

[Trailblazer]

When I said “legends and stories,” I was referring to the Qur’an.
The Qur’an is not Muhammad. No Muslim - or anyone else - alive today has met Muhammad.

I do not believe the Qur’an was legends and stories. I believe that the Qur’an was revealed by God to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.

It is totally irrelevant that no Muslim alive today has ever met Muhammad. No Christian ever met Jesus either, but they “know Jesus” through the New Testament, just as Muslims “know Muhammad” through the Qur’an.

IOW, Scientology is a religion you don’t like.

I consider Scientology a cult and so do many other people because it invented by a man, rather than being revealed by God. Hubbard did not take any position on God and said he left that up to everyone to decide.Scientology is a philosophy/personal growth system, not a religion by the definition of religion, since there is no belief in or worship of a God or gods:

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. https://www.google.com/search

I’m more familiar with another dividing line between cults and religions: “a religion is a cult that survived the death of its founder.” By that measure, the Baha’i faith and Scientology both started as cults and are both now religions.

I do not “use” that definition of religion. I use the definition above.

All religions started out small and gradually grew larger over time. The same can be said of cults, but the “difference” between cults and divinely revealed religions is that cults eventually get smaller or die out altogether whereas divinely revealed religions get larger over time and never die out, even after thousands of years.

I believe the reason that religions survive is that they were divinely revealed and they are all chapters in “one” Book of God that is continually unfolding. Jesus said His words would never pass away and they haven’t passed away after over 2000 years. What cult can say that?

I see no reason to consider either one “of God”... and I won’t until it’s been established:

- that God exists
- that God communicates with humanity
- that God has opinions on how humans ought to spend their leisure time
- which leisure activities (which religions, etc.) God endorses and doesn’t endorse.

I can understand your position on that, given you are an atheist. I hope you can understand my position, given I believe in God.

What do you mean by leisure activities? Why is that important to you?

Wackier and more oppressive religions have become official religions in some countries.

What are those religions?

You do realize that many of the religions you call “religions of God” are also declining, right?

No, none of the religions are declining, although certain religions are growing much slower than others. Growth of religion - Wikipedia

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

The growth rates of the Baha’i Faith were higher than Islam from 1910 to 2010 because it includes the “formative age” of the Baha’i Faith (1921-1944) FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944

Growth of the Baha’i Faith has slowed down since 2000 because the new goal is consolidation and community building, so the emphasis is not spreading the Faith all over the world as it was before in the 20th century.

Atheism was growing at a rate of 6.54% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.05% from 2000-2010. Agnosticism was growing at a rate of 5.45% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.32% from 2000-2010. That demonstrates that both atheism and agnosticism are on the decline but also that there are many more agnostics than atheists.

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

Since the year 2000, religion has made resurgence whereas atheism and agnosticism are on the decline. The trend will continue because more and more people are now seeking God. Baha’is believe that is because Baha’u’llah released the Holy Spirit into the world which has stimulated not only scientific discoveries but also spiritual growth. This forum and others like it are evidence that people are interested in religion.

I think what accounts for the fact that Christianity is growing slower than Islam and the Baha’i Faith is because many people are leaving Christianity, most of whom become nonbelievers. Former Christians account for most atheists in the United States and Europe. By contrast, very few people drop out of Islam or the Baha’i Faith and become nonbelievers.

Another factor not tied to the truth of the religion or whether it was endorsed by God.

But high birth rates is only one factor of many, and it only explains why certain religions like Islam are growing so fast. It does not explain the fact that the Baha’i Faith is the second fastest growing religion in the world, given Baha’is do not have high birth rates.