ArchivedCONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURANAfter visiting the Museum of Natural History, and their "proof" of human evolution that can date back millions of years, I was shocked to notice that God does not exist. The same way how we "supposedly" have no proof that these gospels did come from Mark, it can also be said that we have no proof that it did not come from Mark. The same can be said on the Qu'ran. We have no proof whatsoever that the Qu'ran was given to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel. We can play the skeptics game all day. Also, how would you like it if I blamed all of Islam for what certain Muslims do? If a Muslim read a certain passage in the Qu'ran in which someone was slayed, and they go out and slay someone, would you say they got their teachings by reading the Qu'ran in its context? The same can be said with the Christian cults who use poisonous snakes in their worship. If you doubt something that does not necessarily mean it is not true. Athiests doubt their is a God, but do you? Like I said before, we can play this back and forth game, but the best thing to do is start from the beginning. We are not athiests here, therefore we are not going to argue whether God exists or not. That means I do not have to start all the way in Genesis to prove my point. You, however, are a Muslim, and I am a Christian. The best place to start our dispute is the account for Jesus' death and the prophecies of it. If you are going to ignore the starting point, then there is no need to go on the middle road to the endline. That's like if I try to read the end of my Claculus book without getting down to the very first chapters. First give me prophetic proof that the Messiah was not to die, then you can be skeptical. My Muslim friend, can you make up your mind? First you say it is doubtful that Mark wrote his gospel. Then in this quote, you say he didn't. How does one go from the doubtful list to the IR in just a few seconds? Great, now we go from the IR to the NA list. First you say doubtful, and that MAYBE I can understand. Then you get absolutely sure of yourself without giving the sufficient evidence you claim "to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible." All these changings happened a few sentences from each other and there was no proof to back up each of them. I have to admit, at first I thought you made a very fair argument concerning God and Ishmael. But then I realized in verse 19 God said He would make an "everlasting covenant" with Isaac and his seed. Surely, if God forsaked Isreal as His people, that would show us that God does not keep His promises. According to Muslims, first God broke His promise with the EVERLASTING covenant between Him and Issac's seeds, then God broke His promise by not allowing the Messiah to die. Wow, I wonder what promises God is going to break next! Finally, you took Isaiah 43 WAYYYYYYYYYYYY out of context. God in no way said He was leaving Isreal for Ishmael. In fact, in that SAME chapter, on verse 25, God claims, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." How does God go from not remembering the sins of Isreal to complete abandonment of Isreal in the same chapter? Better yet, how does God go from an eternal covenant to complete abandonment? You took those verse out of context Ms. Fatima. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame