we are not talking about a god linked to a religion, infact I clearly say that hereWhat god, muslim's allah or the christian trinity ?
Interested to see some evidence that either exists, or existed.
so now the issue is explaining how a sentient force or entity has something to do with the inception of the universe, if such an explanation is even possiblebut my view is that there is no point looking at Islam if you are an atheist. I would suggest first trying to reconcile the existence of a creator of everything, without looking at religion.
Um no, I have no problem with the concept of some sentient force (e.g. nature) or entity having something to do with the inception of our universe.
The koran most likely has some truth, but its source is fictitious, and the evidence of this can be demonstrated.exactly my point, so as long as you consider the koran to be fictitious, asking if its content is true makes no sense really edit: or engaging on any of its issues
if you do not even understand the difference between "relative" and "general", or "little scriptures" and "good news" then I wish you all the best with your reconciliation, but I doubt you will be able to get very far.Is it against forum rules to bump up an old thread even if the content is still relevant?
I see the Trinity thread has been locked and would've liked to get Christian and Muslim viewpoints on this.
I mean, is there a way to reconcile the 2 opposing beliefs?
You are not qualified to know exactly which parts are fiction or which parts are non fiction, so it doesn't fall in either category, for instance historically, we know verse 17:1 is fiction.the Quran can either be considered a book of fiction, or non fiction
there is no in between, your comment is a red herring
It is quite tiresome and sad that you constantly feel the need to nitpick in order to prove a point.if you do not even understand the difference between "relative" and "general", or "little scriptures" and "good news" then I wish you all the best with your reconciliation, but I doubt you will be able to get very far.
like I said, if you do not appreciate the significant difference between the two, then I'm not the one with the problem hereIt is quite tiresome and sad that you constantly feel the need to nitpick in order to prove a point.
Life under Saddam was relatively peaceful
I then said "quoting" you:
Life under Saddam was generally peaceful
The koran speak of Muhammed whom we know was a factual historical figure but goes on to say he flew a creature from the nearest mosque to farthest mosque (which didn't exist at the time) rendering it fictitious.parts?
a book is either fiction or non fiction
And its interesting that you put it this way because that's exactly what the Koran is - a work of fiction where the "author" is Muhammed himself. Now, since the source of the "revelations" are fabricated in response to events which might or might not be true, you cant classify it as either.whether Mohammed existed or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Quran is fiction or not
theres nothing stopping an author today writing a work of fiction where they reference themselves in the book
so after that long winded exchange, you now have conceded that you are of the view that Koran is a work fiction and the author is Muhammedthat's exactly what the Koran is - a work of fiction where the "author" is Muhammed himself.