Question to all Christians, I'm curious: why don't you believe in the teachings of the Koran?

The Koran tells us that the arch-angel Gabriel stepped down from heaven to tell Mohammed, Peace Be Upon Him, how God wanted people to live. Mohammed, PBUH, then wrote down what Gabriel said, and his writings became the Koran. Since Mohammed, PBUH, was an analphabet, it must surely have been a miracle, the touch of God, that made it possible for him to write this book!

Now I ask, how do Christians explain that this story of how the Koran came to be is false? Why should we believe in the Bible but not in the Koran? What is the difference in the evidence that speaks for the two books?

Two interesting sidenotes:

--The Koran mentions Jesus, who is called Isa, as a prophet of God, but not his son.

--Islam clearly rejects the Jews. The Koran tells its readers that they should be relentless in their struggle against the Jews. The day will come when even the trees say: "Good Muslim, behind me is a Jew hiding. Come and strike him down."

Question to all Christians, I'm curious: why don't you believe in the teachings of the Koran?

Because the Koran contradicts itself. It recognizes the Christian scriptures as a true revelation from God, yet claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. You cannot accept the authority of the Christian gospels, as the Koran does, and then deny its most fundamental claims, as the Koran does also.

The Koran contradicts itself? And you give one single example of how it does that, when the Bible is shock full of contradictions?

Welllll....


Any other reasons we should not accept the Koran as the word of God? Consider:

1.a) We know that the Koran is the word of God, because of b)

b) the Koran says so. And everything in it must be true, because of a)

On the other hand....

2.a) We know that the Bible is the word of God, because of b)

b) the Bible says so. And everything in it must be true, because of a)

Yes and the jews are a chosen special people
above all creatures because they say so.

Yes Sir, And the CI Followers Wanna-Bee "The Chosen Of YHVH" so they say they are!

Posted by Oskorei in the old VNN Forum:

And how does all this fit into the Identity stuff, where, no matter what I say,
my brother-in-law tells me that white people are the "true house of israel"
because they came up from the area of the Caspian Sea also, and went
north to the UK, etc.

He even says Odin is just one of the members of the House of Israel, and
therefore I am stupid to believe in Odin and be and Odinist because Odin
was just one of the House of Israel guys who believed in God, Jesus, all that.

No matter WHAT I say, to him, I'm wrong unless I just believe what he believes.

....

Don't you just love to hear Folks say that they believe in something because they read it in a book!

Here a few links on the Bible's contradictions.

A list of Biblical contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)

Bible Contradictions (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html)

More Bible Contradictions (http://www.krysstal.com/contradi.html)

The same king can't be two ages on ascending to the throne. The messiah can't have conflicting ancestries. The messiah's father can't have two fathers. There can't be a single contradiction (let alone the documented contradictions on just those three sites).

Humans have a right to demand perfection from anything or anyone claiming infallibility.

.

The term omnipotence signifies that God is all powerful.
God can do anything He chooses and is only limited by
His own perfections,

which means that what He cannot do He would not do
anyway and that is the reason why He will not do it.

An example that God is limited to His perfections is that
He promises salvation to those who turn from their sins
and follow His way.


The Attributes of God - By Ken Cratchley
"The Christian Separatist Church Society
(Christian Identity)

.

The Koran contradicts itself? And you give one single example of how it does that, when the Bible is shock full of contradictions?

The contradiction I specified invalidates the Koran's legitimacy. You cannot deny the defining event of Christianity, while maintaining the authority of the Christian gospels.


Any other reasons we should not accept the Koran as the word of God? Consider:

1.a) We know that the Koran is the word of God, because of b)

b) the Koran says so. And everything in it must be true, because of a)

On the other hand....

2.a) We know that the Bible is the word of God, because of b)

b) the Bible says so. And everything in it must be true, because of a)

If Christianity was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so.

If Christianity was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so.

Let's play fill in the blank!

If the Holocaust was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so.

If equality was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so.

You used a logical fallacy. See where they get you?

108

The contradiction I specified invalidates the Koran's legitimacy. You cannot deny the defining event of Christianity, while maintaining the authority of the Christian gospels.

Sure you can. The Koran says that Isa/Jesus made some good points, but that his followers' claim that he would be God is silly.

Where's the contradiction? It just makes the New Testament a little bit less preposterous. As Vlad and 108 have pointed out, the Bible is full of contradictions itself.

And aside from that, is there any reason not to believe the Koran is the word of God? Surely one thing can't be the reason to reject the whole book, which is passed down by the arch-angel Gabriel. Max Power, do you deny that the Koran was recited to the Prophet by Gabriel? Do you think the Prophet was lying? How can you say that he lied, when the Prophet of God always spoke the truth? He said so himself.

Sure you can. The Koran says that Isa/Jesus made some good points, but that his followers' claim that he would be God is silly.

If Jesus was not the Son of God, then Christianity is false. Why would anyone accept the gospels of a false religion as a true relevation from God? Further, why would Christians (to answer your original question) embrace the teachings of a religion that rejects the fundamental claims of Christianity?

And aside from that, is there any reason not to believe the Koran is the word of God?

Which God? Muslims don't worship the Trinitarian God.


Surely one thing can't be the reason to reject the whole book, which is passed down by the arch-angel Gabriel. Max Power, do you deny that the Koran was recited to the Prophet by Gabriel? Do you think the Prophet was lying? How can you say that he lied, when the Prophet of God always spoke the truth? He said so himself.

Muhammad was the only person around when he supposedly heard Gabriel speak to him, so there were no second witnesses to verify Muhammad's story. That, coupled with the fact that he, unlike Christ, failed to perform any miracles during his lifetime, makes it extremely difficult for me to believe Muhammed was a Prophet of God.

Let's play fill in the blank!

If the Holocaust was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so.

If equality was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so.


But we live in a political climate where questioning equality and the 6 million figure is considered to be outside the realm of acceptable discourse. If you question the 6 million figure, you're persona non grata in the minds of most people, and you may even be looking at a prison sentence depending on where you live. There are people in Germany right now who are serving prison sentences for questioning and outright denying the Holy 6 million. When was the last time someone went to prison in the West for denying Christianity? The truth of Christianity, unlike the holocaust, is not taken for granted.

Also, Christians don't have a repertoire of dismissive epithets to tar non-believers with. "Sinner" and "heretic" don't carry the same sting as "anti-Semite," "bigot" and "racist"

Fred, clever question. Tack sa mycket.

1) I dont "believe" the Koran because I follow the religion of my ancestors which is Christianity. As for my pagan ancestors, I respect and revere their religious myths as well. I look for the similarities and spiritual truths that likely nourished my fathers before me in the same sacred literature that they did.

No doubt however some Christians would not consider me a believer, as I generally take the Bible only in a figurative or metaphorical- symbolic manner.

2) Although I dont "believe" the Koran, I would note that Islam has many similarities to the Arian heresy. As readers may know Arius was a heretic who revered Christ but denied his divinity. "Arianism" was popular among the Germans prior to forced conversion at the hand of Carolus Magnus.

3) there are universal spiritual truths in many different religions. I would suggest that the idea of "jihad" is such a concept. It entails both an inner struggle for moral perfection-- ie, cultivation of virtue and self-discipline; and an outer struggle against evil doers. The same idea was honored by Christians as "the good fight" and was also advocated by Zennists among the samurai.

Fair response?

If Jesus was not the Son of God, then Christianity is false. Why would anyone accept the gospels of a false religion as a true relevation from God?

Yes, the Muslims think that Christianity is false, but they think that Isa still made good religious points. Thus they don't consider the gospels to be holy scripture, and I'm not sure they would say that what Isa said was "true revelation from God." But he was a prophet, they say. Not everything a prophet says has to be put in his mind by God.

If I remember it correctly, the Bible doesn't say that Jesus claimed to be an incarnation of God..so there is not too much for the Mussies to reject.


Muhammad was the only person around when he supposedly heard Gabriel speak to him, so there were no second witnesses to verify Muhammad's story.

No, but the only verification needed is Muhammad's word, because he always spoke the truth. The Koran says so. And the Koran is completely true, because it is the word of God -- Muhammad wrote as much. And Muhammad always speaks the truth, as the Koran tells us. Isn't this reasoning correct? Do you find any faults in this logic?


That, coupled with the fact that he, unlike Christ, failed to perform any miracles during his lifetime, makes it extremely difficult for me to believe Muhammed was a Prophet of God.

Are you saying that if the Bible had not told us that Jesus performed miracles such as walking on water, you would not believe it when it says that Jesus is the son of God?

Is performing supernatural acts the sign of divinity? Could not the devil also help people perform supernatural acts?

Muhammad united the tribes, and he made sure that Islam, the word of God, prevailed -- that in itself is a miracle. And he was helped every step of the way by God, as the Koran tells us. So every step of the way was a miracle.

Fred, clever question. Tack sa mycket.


Varsågod!

2) Although I dont "believe" the Koran, I would note that Islam has many similarities to the Arian heresy. As readers may know Arius was a heretic who revered Christ but denied his divinity. "Arianism" was popular among the Germans prior to forced conversion at the hand of Carolus Magnus.

Interesting. If I remember it correctly, the Cathars didn't think that Jesus was divine either. They believed in two gods, one good and one evil, who battled for control of the universe.

They were wiped out when France invaded Languedoc. (Sidenote: when a French army took a city, an officer asked a bishop how they would know which people in the city to kill, as many Languedocians were Catholics and not Cathars. This is when the bishop uttered the famous phrase "Kill them all, and let God sort them out")

But we live in a political climate where questioning equality and the 6 million figure is considered to be outside the realm of acceptable discourse.

Political climate is irrelevant if based on your argument. Use a non-fallacy & then make that kind of statement. Regardless of the merits of that secondary point you base it on a fallacy. I gave two examples -- simple fill-in-the-blank examples -- to demonstrate that your logic leads to absurdity. I only needed one example.

"If X was such a blatant falsehood, you wouldn't spend so much time saying so" is the schema you used. I reply to your schema.

As for Jesus' alleged miracles, you were not there. None of the modern-day Christians were.

As David Hume says, "The plain consequence is that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

*cough* Would the falsehood of your testimony really be miraculous? Is there a more rational explanation? Your avoidance of Biblical contradictions, your simultaneous & hypocritical condemnation of Koranic contradictions, & your claim to a revelation exclusive to one contradictory text as opposed to all the other contradictory texts lend themselves, shall we say, to that more rational explanation.

108

Why should we believe in the Bible but not in the Koran?

If you are from Europe you should know that now is the time of the second "middle eastern wave" flooding europe and this wave is the Islam....
The first wave were Christianity - a process which I believe were designed by enemies of the europeans to eradicate the europeans...
Case is that Northern europe had been sought beaten so many times and no one had been able to supress the europeans for a longer time.
Therefore the europeans were needed to be broken by their enemies and Christianity were a tool injected for this purpose only , like Islam has been injected into the european societies today.....
The europeans were brainwashed into a mass psychosis leading them to belive that they stood for truth and free press - thus not understanding that all the medias had an agenda (if not the same all of them) - and also not understanding that not all the Arabs were without the capability of thinking . So when some of the very rich Arabs got the idea to briebe european politicians and medias to promote Arabs and Islam the Arabs and the European traitors met no resistance as no one understood what was going on... To understand how long time European politicians have been working to promote Arabs and Islam please see the following parts of EEC/EU-Bulletin :
"The European-arabian dialog" in EEC/EU-Bulletin no. 5-1976 and EEC/EU-Bulletin 12-1978 .

The great number of moslems recently in the U.S. ofcourse also has to do with the fact that some Oil-rich moslems have shoved money into it.
Please understand that not all arabs gets satisfied by only raping little girls (like the Arabs where you live) some Arabs has the need to rape whole nations.......

So to answer your question then : we should not believe in the Koran as Islam is the second middle eastern paid attempt to undermine our societies..

FIAT LUX

Political climate is irrelevant if based on your argument. Use a non-fallacy & then make that kind of statement. Regardless of the merits of that secondary point you base it on a fallacy.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The truth of equality and the six million figure are just assumed to be beyond question. The truth of Christianity is not.

As for Jesus' alleged miracles, you were not there. None of the modern-day Christians were.

So?

As David Hume says, "The plain consequence is that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

*cough* Would the falsehood of your testimony really be miraculous?

It doesn't really matter how foolproof my testimony would be, since Hume's argument against miracles is self-refuting. In "On Miracles" Hume argues that our everyday experience attests to the regularity of nature and that therefore the occurrence of anything that violates the laws of nature (i.e. miracles) is highly improbable. Well, "experience" can no more verify or make probable Hume's philosophical presupposition, which is naturalism, than it can the occurrence of miracles. Our experience is finite. To empirically verify naturalism you would have to have access to an infinite, or near-infinite range of possible experiences, past, present and future. And since naturalism serves as the underlying basis of Hume's objection to miracles, his argument is ultimately without foundation.

Your avoidance of Biblical contradictions,

If you had wanted me to address them, then you would have given me some indication that they were directed at me. You didn't.

your simultaneous & hypocritical condemnation of Koranic contradictions,

Why is it hypocritical to point out that another religion says mine is false, especially if I have good reasons for believing Christianity to be true? If I have good reasons for believing in Christianity, then of course I would reject the text of a religion that contradicts mine.

& your claim to a revelation exclusive to one contradictory text as opposed to all the other contradictory texts


Well, since they all make conflicting theological claims, they can't all be true. That leaves us with one of two possibilities: they could all be false, or one of them could be true, which would then exclude the truth of the others. And if I have good reasons for believing one of them, then obviously I would reject the others. That much should be obvious to you.

If I remember it correctly, the Bible doesn't say that Jesus claimed to be an incarnation of God..so there is not too much for the Mussies to reject.

Colossians 2:9 states that Jesus was God in the flesh.

No, but the only verification needed is Muhammad's word, because he always spoke the truth. The Koran says so. And the Koran is completely true, because it is the word of God -- Muhammad wrote as much. And Muhammad always speaks the truth, as the Koran tells us. Isn't this reasoning correct? Do you find any faults in this logic?

Yes, it's circular reasoning.

Are you saying that if the Bible had not told us that Jesus performed miracles such as walking on water, you would not believe it when it says that Jesus is the son of God?

I admit that in the absence of any historical evidence it might've been difficult for me to believe Christ was the Son of God, but not impossible. I didn't embrace Christianity through some process of deductive reasoning or empirical evidence.

Muhammad united the tribes, and he made sure that Islam, the word of God, prevailed -- that in itself is a miracle.

I thought miracles were violations of the laws of nature? How are you defining miracles, Fredrik?

Colossians 2:9 states that Jesus was God in the flesh.

Yes, but Jesus himself never really says it, does he?

Yes, it's circular reasoning.

Well, how about this, then:

We should believe what God says because he is good and speaks the truth. We know this because the Bible says so. We should believe what the Bible says because it is the word of God, and God always speaks the truth. We know this, because the Bible says so.


I didn't embrace Christianity through some process of deductive reasoning or empirical evidence.

Interesting. And if a Muslim argues the same way, then who can say which of you is right?


I thought miracles were violations of the laws of nature? How are you defining miracles, Fredrik?

Yes, that would be how we usually recognize them. But the definition, as I understand it, is that they come from divine intervention -- that they violate the laws of nature is only the way through which we usually recognize them. But Muhammed's success, even if no violation of the laws of nature were made, could still be a miracle if it happened because God willed it so.

Yes, but Jesus himself never really says it, does he?

Yes, he does, in John 10:30. Why do you think the Jews wanted to stone Christ?

Well, how about this, then:

We should believe what God says because he is good and speaks the truth. We know this because the Bible says so. We should believe what the Bible says because it is the word of God,

You're leaving out a crucial premise that I think most Christians would include in the argument. Most Christians, myself included, would also maintain that we should believe what the Bible says because it's a historically reliable text. There are, for example, more surviving manuscripts for the New Testament than any text of comparable age. Specific names and places are mentioned in the New Testament whose falsehood could have easily been established by now. We know that Christ lived and performed miracles for the same reason we know Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon -- eyewitnesses were present at the time of these events and recorded them.

Interesting. And if a Muslim argues the same way, then who can say which of you is right?

We can't both be right, since both of our religions make conflicting theological claims. When you have two religions making contradictory claims, you're left with one of two possibilities: either they're both wrong, or one of them is right, in which case the other is false. To determine which one is true, I would examine the life of both Jesus and Muhammed and see if the evidence measures up to who and what they claimed to be.


Yes, that would be how we usually recognize them. But the definition, as I understand it, is that they come from divine intervention -- that they violate the laws of nature is only the way through which we usually recognize them. But Muhammed's success, even if no violation of the laws of nature were made, could still be a miracle if it happened because God willed it so.

Muhammed spread his beliefs through the edge of a sword. I would not put sheer brute force in the same league as turning water into wine, walking on water, or being raised from the dead.

I'm not sure if the Cathars denied the divinity of Christ, or whether or not he was truly incarnated. They were definitely Manichean as he suggests, but I thought they believed Jesus was a sort of immaterial illusion.

Somebody posted at VNN rm the other day a wise quote from Carl Jung which I think folk should consider: "Christianity has been considered mythology for some time. But isnt it time Christianity start being taken seriously as mythology?"

I take the myths of my ancestors seriously. I grew up with my parents reading and telling me about Christian Scriptures and Greek myth alike. I knew I was supposed to "believe the Christian stories but they always seemed similar to me. My mom gave me Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" when I was maybe ten and then I learned the Norse stories which fit in nicely as well.

Add to that what I learned of Mithraism, from reading about Jung's interest in it... and Revilo Oliver's comparison of Zoroastrianism to Christianity in "Origins of Christianity," and I feel very enriched. I dont worry for two minutes about literal truth anymore. Remember what Pilate said to Jesus: "What is truth?"

At the same time, I feel like the anti-Christian critics at VNN who are so strident are really missing the boat. Spiritual inspiration is valuable to one's emotional life and feeling of mytical community with other people. One can legitimately find spiritual inspiration in many places including Christian faith or practice. Dismissing Christianity a Jew scam gives short shrift to a very big and complicated thing. I would call the buyoff of hucksters like Fallwell by the Izzies a Jew scam, but beyond this recent incident, that is a far too simplistic and inaccurate characterization of the whole, to serve much purpose.

Specific names and places are mentioned in the New Testament whose falsehood could have easily been established by now. We know that Christ lived and performed miracles for the same reason we know Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon -- eyewitnesses were present at the time of these events and recorded them.

But these people could easily have lied. People lie all the time. There are people who swear they have seen miracles made by the Hindu gods, and their observations are written down as well. In fact, there have been people in all religions, I am sure, who claim to have seen their gods, and seen miracles performed by those gods or their agents on earth. Why should I believe some of these testimonies but not the rest?

To determine which one is true, I would examine the life of both Jesus and Muhammed and see if the evidence measures up to who and what they claimed to be.

But do religions stand and fall with one person? If Jesus did not perform miracles, if it turned out he didn't exist at all, does that mean the Christian God would not exist? Because one man claimed he was the Christian God's son but wasn't?


Muhammed spread his beliefs through the edge of a sword. I would not put sheer brute force in the same league as turning water into wine, walking on water, or being raised from the dead.

I believe Christianity has been spread through the edge of a sword more times than we can count. As for turning water into wine, walking on water and being raised from the dead, how does that prove that a man speaks the truth? He could be a magician. Or he could get his powers from the devil. Or he could get his powers from other deities than the Christian God, who for some reason wanted people to believe what Jesus said. How do we know that wasn't the case?

But these people could easily have lied. People lie all the time.

The earliest Christians had more to lose than they did to gain by lying about Christ being the Son of God. They were constantly persecuted, otracized and killed for professing their beliefs. Why would they put their lives in jeopardy, unless they actually believed Christ was the Son of God? This seems like the most reasonable explanation for their behavior.

One of the reasons they believed Christ was the Son of God was because they witnessed him, among other things, perform miracles before their very eyes.

But do religions stand and fall with one person?

Like I said before, if Jesus was not the Son of God, then Christianity is false.

If Jesus did not perform miracles, if it turned out he didn't exist at all, does that mean the Christian God would not exist?

The Trinitarian God wouldn't.

I believe Christianity has been spread through the edge of a sword more times than we can count.

Christ didn't spread his message through coercive means. Muhammed did.

As for turning water into wine, walking on water and being raised from the dead, how does that prove that a man speaks the truth? He could be a magician.

You're joking, right? The illusion of raising oneself from the dead is a feat Harry Houdini would have found difficult to perform.


Or he could get his powers from the devil.

Christ didn't use his powers to advance Satan's agenda.

"Mohammed vs Jesus, the Christ"

Comparison of Teachings of Mohammed With Teachings of Jesus

From Messengers of Christ Ministries, Andrew Neckar

Mohammed was the prophet of war; Christ is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Mohammed's disciples killed for the faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith (Acts 12:2; 2 Timothy 4:7).

Mohammed promoted persecution against the "infidels"; Christ forgave and converted the chief persecutor (1 Timothy 1:13-15).

Mohammed was the taker of life; Christ was the giver of life (John 10:27-28).

Mohammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; Christ murdered none but saved many (compare John 12:48).

Mohammed's method was COMPULSION; Christ's aim was voluntary CONVERSION (Acts 3:19).

Mohammed practiced FORCE; Christ preached FAITH (John 6:29, 35).

Mohammed was a WARRIOR; Christ is a DELIVERER (Col. 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:10).

Mohammed conquered his enemies with the sword; Christ conquered his enemies with another kind of sword, the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12; Acts 2:37).

Mohammed said to the masses, "Convert or die!"; Christ said, "Believe and live!" (John 6:47; 11:25-26).

Mohammed was swift to shed blood (Romans 3:15-17); Christ shed His own blood for the salvation of many (Ephesians 1:7).

Mohammed preached "Death to the infidels!"; Christ prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).

Mohammed declared a holy war (Jihad) against infidels; Christ achieved a holy victory on Calvary's cross (Colossians 2:14-15) and His followers share in that victory (John 16:33).

Mohammed constrained people by conquest; Christ constrained people by love (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Modern terrorists derive their inspiration from Mohammed and carry out their despicable atrocities in the name of his god; Christians derive their inspiration from the One who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9).

Modern day disciples of Mohammed respond to the terrorist attacks by cheering in the streets; Modern day disciples of Christ are deeply grieved at past atrocities carried out by those who were "Christians" in name only (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).

Many Muslims are peaceful and peace-loving because they do not strictly follow the teachings of their founder; Many Christians are peaceful and peace-loving because they do strictly follow the teachings of their Founder (Romans 12:17-21).

Mohammed said the Koran is authoritative only in Arabic, and only in his dialect; The Bible is authoritative in many languages around the world, for God knows all things and can inspire (and preserve) His Word in more than one language.

Mohammed hated music; Jesus and His disciples sang hymns, and the Apostle commanded the Lord's Church to sing. (Matthew 26:30, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).

Mohammed allowed that a Mullah, Imam, or Mufti of Islam can be a terrorist and an amoral animal like Osama bin Laden; The Bible requires that a leader in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must be above reproach, and when this is not true, Christians demand such a fallen leader be removed from leadership. (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 5:19-20).

Islam calls on its followers to observe Five Pillars, while all other aspects of life can be vulgar and not affect the Muslim's prospects in Paradise. The Bible calls on the Christian to submit to the total change of his life by the Spirit of God -- NO area of life and thought is the choice of the follower. (Romans 12:1-2).

The Muslim looks forward to eternity in Paradise where there will be virgins who are used for eternal perpetual copulation.

The Bible believing Christian looks forward to being with Jesus Christ and is delighted with that. (2 Corinthians 5:8).

Mohammed said the witness of a woman was half the value of the witness of a man; and Muhammed said a woman goes to Paradise because she satisfies her husband sexually; The Bible teaches that a husband is to love his wife and be willing to die for her. (Ephesians 5:25).

Mohammed called upon his servants to fight; Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight . . . but now is My kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

Mohammed ordered death to the Jews (see A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press [1975], p. 369); Christ ordered that the gospel be preached "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16).

The Koran says, "Fight in the cause of Allah" (Qu'ran 2.244); The Bible says, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" and "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (Ephesians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4).

The Koran says, "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" (Qu'ran 9.5); Christ said, "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).

The Koran says, "I will inspire terror into the hearts of unbelievers" (Qu'ran 8.12); God inspires His terror into the hearts of believers (Isaiah 8:13).

The Koran (Qu'ran) is a terrorist manual which condones fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam; The Bible is a missionary manual to spread the gospel of peace to all the world (Romans 10:15).

Mohammed's Mission was to conquer the world for Allah; Christ's mission was to conquer sin's penalty and power by substitutionary atonement (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18).

Mohammed considered Christ a good prophet; Christ pronounced (in His statement on many false prophets arising) Mohammed to be a false prophet (John 10:10; Matthew 24:11).

Mohammed claimed that there was but one God, Allah; Christ claimed that He was God (John 10:30-31; John 8:58-59; John 5:18; John 14:9).

Islam is geocentric, that is, the whole universe is centered on the Kaaba in the Grand Mosque in Mecca in Arabia, and all Muslims pray facing that direction; Jesus Christ is the center of all Christian worship and fellowship, for He is "in the midst" where his saints meet anywhere on earth. (Matthew 18:20, John 4:22-23).

Mohammed's Tomb: OCCUPIED! Christ's tomb: EMPTY!

Islam must be received, or you can be killed for rejecting it:

The Faith offered by Jesus Christ is for "whosoever will" to receive, and all men are permitted to reject it. (Revelation 22:17, John 3:16).

Those who leave Islam are killed in most Islamic nations; Those who leave the true Church of Jesus Christ are allowed to do so with no revenge.

Now, is a Muslim submitted to Allah and Islam because he loves Allah? NO!

He dare not leave Islam, and he is loyal purely out of fear.

The true Bible believer is loyal to Jesus Christ purely out of love. 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (John 4:19) We love him, because he first loved us.

This concept is 100% alien to Islam -- There is no love in Islam -- Only fear and hate.

http://www.gospelweb.net/mohammedvschrist.htm

Creating religions is as natural to the human species as building houses to live in.

The search or compelling quest for the “ultimate” is within our genes....that cannot be denied.

If one were to examine every single trait of every single species of biological life we would find the perfect design for that species to thrive within its environmental range.

Every facet of the biological architecture of every creature is minutely formulated down to the molecular level and beyond to assure “the survival of that species”.

And it goes without saying, that nature does not do anything of a superfluous nature when constructing or evolving a species........all aspects of the design and all biological energies are focused and mandated by the biological imperative.....”will this construct enable the species to survive?”

There are obvious things that help a particular animal to survive, for example.....a bird’s wing.......a fish’s fin.........a cat’s claw.........a human’s brain........etc.

And there are some no-so-obvious things that help an animal to survive........a porpoises invisible sonar system.........a dog’s ultrasonic hearing and scent tracking ability.......bird’s unseen migration navigation system.

All of these aforementioned things......directly enable a species of animal to survive.

There is no biological energy wasted or spent on illogical designs.........all is within perfect harmony within its particular environment.

Except for the human species’ propensity to create religions that search for answers to unknowable questions.

This characteristic, unique to the human species, begs the scientific mind to search for the link of “the creation of religions by humans” for “the survival of the species imperative”.

Does creating a religion that has a codified system of behavior within its creed enable that particular group of humans to survive?

Is the answer yes or no?

Although there are the extreme examples of whereby creating a religion was to the detriment of people (Jim Jones at Jonestown) and there have been religious wars fought since the dawn of humanity whereby millions of people have been slaughtered and died, but these numbers pale in comparison to the number of humans that have survived long enough to procreate another generation by virtue of it’s groups harmonious lifestyle that was brought about by adherence to it’s religious creed or tenets.

How many lives have been saved since the concept of “Thou shalt not kill” has been inculcated into the human consciousness? More then one, I might say.

Most creeds of many of the main stream religions have codified rules of behavior that are completely logical and have a sense of correctness about them.

And this my be the reason why I don't outrightly condemn all religion.

I believe that the primary problem with most religions is the administrators of those religions and their inability to adhere to their own creeds.

Hypocrisy is the Achilles' tendon of all religions.

And all main stream religions are jam-packed with hypocrites.

The earliest Christians had more to lose than they did to gain by lying about Christ being the Son of God. They were constantly persecuted, otracized and killed for professing their beliefs.


That is no proof at all that they were right. At the most it makes it more likely that they believed they were right.

Why would they put their lives in jeopardy, unless they actually believed Christ was the Son of God? This seems like the most reasonable explanation for their behavior.

Yes, just like many others have suffered for their beliefs, many of which have been false.

One of the reasons they believed Christ was the Son of God was because they witnessed him, among other things, perform miracles before their very eyes.

You have no way of knowing that. They could make that up in order to make their sect more impressive to others. Just like countless religions have had their own witnesses to miracles.

Christ didn't spread his message through coercive means. Muhammed did.

Well, Jesus didn't have an army at his disposal, so we'll never know what he would have done if he had....
And what I wrote was not that Jesus had done it, but that Christianity has been spread through the edge of a sword countless times. And as a sidenote, although Muhammed led his people in wars, he didn't actually force people to convert as I recall it. He simply preached to them and they converted themselves. But even if he had forced people to convert it wouldn't be proof of that he lied about the archangel Gabriel teaching him. Nor does it prove anything that Jesus never used violence. (at least he didn't according to the accounts of his loyal followers, who decided what should be in the Bible)


You're joking, right? The illusion of raising oneself from the dead is a feat Harry Houdini would have found difficult to perform.

I didn't mean a magician like Houdini; I meant an actual user of magic. Not that I believe any such exists, but it sounds just as likely that a man would have supernatural abilities on his own as that he would get them from some deity.

Christ didn't use his powers to advance Satan's agenda.

How do you know that? Are you smarter than the devil? Anyway, it wouldn't have to be the devil, as I wrote: it could be any god. The universe could be full of them, or full of creatures who are powerful enough to make you think they are gods. How would you know the truth? So even if Jesus did do something supernatural, it doesn't prove a thing. And actually, the only proof we have of that is the book his followers wrote; they, who have an interest in using any means to make people believe what they want them to believe.

Much more is needed to make Jesus's story more believable than Muhammed's, than his followers' talk about supernatural events. I hardly think those events are what make people say that yes, apparently Jesus must be right, then, and the Mussies wrong.

Modern terrorists derive their inspiration from Mohammed and carry out their despicable atrocities in the name of his god; Christians derive their inspiration from the One who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9).
. . .
Modern day disciples of Mohammed respond to the terrorist attacks by cheering in the streets; Modern day disciples of Christ are deeply grieved at past atrocities carried out by those who were "Christians" in name only (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).
. . .
Mohammed allowed that a Mullah, Imam, or Mufti of Islam can be a terrorist and an amoral animal like Osama bin Laden; The Bible requires that a leader in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must be above reproach, and when this is not true, Christians demand such a fallen leader be removed from leadership. (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 5:19-20).

I expect every White Nationalist to know the four motives al Qaeda had for organizing the struggle against American influence in the Middle East: the American support of Israel against the Palestinians, the sanctions against Iraq, the presence of American troops and military bases in Saudi Arabia where many holy sites are located, and American support for corrupt governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and so on. They then use religious terminology in their propaganda, just like American politicians have done countless times, and Western media then pretend that The Base is only motivated by religion.

Max Power, you included these quotes about terrorism without comment. Do you really agree with this neocon-view of the world?


Islam calls on its followers to observe Five Pillars, while all other aspects of life can be vulgar and not affect the Muslim's prospects in Paradise. The Bible calls on the Christian to submit to the total change of his life by the Spirit of God -- NO area of life and thought is the choice of the follower. (Romans 12:1-2).

For an onlooker not caught up in any religion it sure sounds like Islam would be more relaxed here, while Christianity comes off as creepy. If things had been the other way around, I'm sure the author of that text would have used it to Islam's disadvantage as well.

The Bible believing Christian looks forward to being with Jesus Christ and is delighted with that. (2 Corinthians 5:8).

The Bible believing Christian is told that he will "receive tenfold" what he has given away in life. Selfish motivation, just like in Islam. He is also told that he will have eternal bliss, a perfect body, etc. Again, selfish motives. Not to mention that he will get to watch his enemies in life fry in hell. So I don't see any more altruistic motives in the Christian motivation than in the Islamic one.

Mohammed ordered death to the Jews (see A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press [1975], p. 369); Christ ordered that the gospel be preached "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16).

Interesting, to say the least. Do you have a comment to this, Max Power?

The Koran (Qu'ran) is a terrorist manual which condones fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam

Come on, now. Do people really believe this stuff?

Mohammed's Tomb: OCCUPIED! Christ's tomb: EMPTY!

Doesn't that show that Muhammed's god is powerful enough to keep grave robbers at bay, while Jesus's god is not?

Those who leave Islam are killed in most Islamic nations

False, of course.

This concept is 100% alien to Islam -- There is no love in Islam -- Only fear and hate.

It's obvious that this is propaganda produced to support the neoconservatives. It even shows a positive attitude toward Jews; much like the Christian school in my town that teaches children to worship the Jews and Israel. Max Power, surely you don't mean to say that you support the authors' views? Is your religion more important to you than your race?

Re: Fredrick Haerne

You sound like an apologist for the mud religion of islam.

It might help if you knew something about that religion before you defended it like a jackass.

Muslims are believers of the most twisted creed of any religion known to man. They make Scientologists and Moonies sound “mainstream”.

Here’s a lesson from your Uncle Brutus: “ If three billion people believe in a stupid thing.........it’s still a stupid thing.”........duh!

Islam is a barbaric death cult and the principal religion of the world’s dirty little brown people.

Why do think the niggers in American prisons embrace it? Are you so stupid to think that incarcerated niggers have chosen islam as their religion of choice because it looks kindly upon White people?

Let’s get something straight, Pinhead.........White people follow Christianity because most White people are inherently sheep.......brown people follow islam because brown people are inherently violent and stupid and in islam’s creed it advocates the murder of White people.

And just because the muslims kill a few jews with car bombs............doesn’t make them a friend to the White man.