Evidence for God from Science

Awesome revelations here in regards to the origins of Islam. If you're not familiar with this guy, here is what he does for fun at Speaker's Corner in in London: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-wOxG ... FkSxZOxq6w

With the rise of Islam in the western world, e as Christians should get familiar with the facts, and this is well worth the watch:

Wait, how is this "Aberrant Christianity"? This topic belongs to "God and science" (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewforum.php?f=6), I reckon.

IceMobster wrote:Wait, how is this "Aberrant Christianity"? This topic belongs to "God and science" (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewforum.php?f=6), I reckon.

Didn't know where exactly to put it. Watch the video until the end and you'll see why I chose this sub.

Muhammad/Islam did exactly what Joseph Smith/Mormon Church did: They attached their own lies to the truth of Scripture, and then pronounced themselves modern day prophets that were giving further, modern-day revelations that go beyond the completed canon of the Bible. How common the technique is - and still is. Scripture, then, already thousands of years old, already widely followed and correctly believed to be God's word, was a powerful hook to unbelievers who also latched onto these self-proclaimed prophets - both of whose writing no one could confirm - and without any miracles or other perceived prophets of God who could authoritatively confirm they spoke for the true God/Yahweh, or validate their writings with any facts. One cannot even validate geographic places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Their followers all had to simply believe, without evidences, that they were telling the truth about what was supposedly revealed to them. VERY different from the Prophets, Law Givers, Jesus, and the apostles who always validated that they represented God thorough accompanying signs/miracles/confirmed prophecies. And note that these many Bible figures spoke with one view of Who God was, what He wants, and His purposes. Beyond Smith and Muhammad, their followers often contradicted them or had differing versions of what they believed. Muhammad's offspring produced variations of belief and competing sects that, to this day, are at war with each other. Of course, Muhammad also effectively used the sword to convert - nothing like the threat of sharp steel over a tender neck to produce "true faith," eh?

Philip wrote:Muhammad/Islam did exactly what Joseph Smith/Mormon Church did: They attached their own lies to the truth of Scripture, and then pronounced themselves modern day prophets that were giving further, modern-day revelations that go beyond the completed canon of the Bible. How common the technique is - and still is. Scripture, then, already thousands of years old, already widely followed and correctly believed to be God's word, was a powerful hook to unbelievers who also latched onto these self-proclaimed prophets - both of whose writing no one could confirm - and without any miracles or other perceived prophets of God who could authoritatively confirm they spoke for the true God/Yahweh, or validate their writings with any facts. One cannot even validate geographic places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Their followers all had to simply believe, without evidences, that they were telling the truth about what was supposedly revealed to them. VERY different from the Prophets, Law Givers, Jesus, and the apostles who always validated that they represented God thorough accompanying signs/miracles/confirmed prophecies. And note that these many Bible figures spoke with one view of Who God was, what He wants, and His purposes. Beyond Smith and Muhammad, their followers often contradicted them or had differing versions of what they believed. Muhammad's offspring produced variations of belief and competing sects that, to this day, are at war with each other. Of course, Muhammad also effectively used the sword to convert - nothing like the threat of sharp steel over a tender neck to produce "true faith," eh?

One subtle difference in the case of Islam is, in light of the evidence in the video, that we have historical, eyewitness accounts for the existence of Joseph Smith (although the Mormons love to ignore those accounts as "not doctrinal"). Mohammad. It seems, might have been a legend or story that Uthman or another might have used to build Islam, adding Gnostic writings in the process.

Mohammad. It seems, might have been a legend or story that Uthman or another might have used to build Islam

Yes, seems "Mohammad's" existence is indeed rather a murky question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

IceMobster wrote:Wait, how is this "Aberrant Christianity"? This topic belongs to "God and science" (http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewforum.php?f=6), I reckon.

Since Islam claims to be the rightful successor of Christianity/Christ, you could argue that it's a form of aberrant Christianity. Really, really, really aberrant...

But don't muslims visit Mahammad's grave sight and his body is still in it?

abelcainsbrother wrote:But don't muslims visit Mahammad's grave sight and his body is still in it?

His body is in a structure called the Green Dome in Medina, Saudi Arabia. Muslims sometimes visit it, but it's not part of the pilgrimage. The Islamic view of Jesus is very strange (they claim that Jesus was merely a prophet who, apparently, faked his own death for some reason) but they do claim the mantle of being a successor to Christianity. So Islam may fall into the category of aberrant Christianity.