ninetailschris said:
Jay520 said:
DaRev said:
Nope, truth is truth, there cannot be more than one truth, truth either agrees with truth or its not true or all the truth. You don't have to study every religion, pal, just study the true one. If you think the true one is, e.g. Islam, then go study that, which I'm sure if you did, WITH AN OPEN MIND you would run into some untruths. Christianity on the other is truth, study that WITH AN OPEN MIND, and I'm sure if you did you you will only find truth. Truth it is better to love your fellow man, truth!
Now, because Christianity is truth, there is no need study anything else, because you have already found the truth, so why look for it somewhere else? E.g if H2O = Water or E = mc2, why you going to look for that truth again, when you already found it?
|
Okay, a few questions.
1.) There are untrooths with Islam? How Do you know? Have you studied Islam to know if its true or not?
2.) If you have studied Islam, then what are the untrooths of Islam?
3.) I have studied Christianity with an open-mind and I think its false. Therefore, can I safely say Christianity is false?
4.) What if I study another religion with an open-mind and find that religion is true? How would I be able to know for sure?
|
1. The problem with Islam unlike The bIble is that it has things that directly go against historal truths on certain events. For example, in islam it says Jesus didn't die on cross. This is historial proven to not be true by scholars and historians. A man of name Jesus Christ of Nazareth was in fact killed on cross from reports. we even know who was the person that killed him on the cross EXACTLY.
2. The problems is that Islam Scholars themselves will admit that they haven't done any real research into the origins of the Islam. PLUS it known that Islam leader Muhammad got his information on Jesus YEARS LATER from actual events. Muhammad also got his source from third hand person basically hear-say.
|
To be fair, similar arguments can be made against Christianity. The bible as it currently is was collated in 325AD. There were many more texts that refered to Jesus but these were disregarded by a group of fallible humans with their own bias 325 years after he died. This is not even taking into account the material that may have been lost in translation. For instance, the virgin birth may not be as miraculous as orginally thought as the Hebrew word translated to "virgin" could also be used to mean "young woman".
The 4 gospels in the bible are also estimated to have been written 60-100 years after Jesus' death meaning a big gap in first hand knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles#Historicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
Every Religious text has inconsistencies with historical and archaelogical consensus. Singling out Islam when the bible contains inconsistencies is just plain wrong.
