Actually, all religions are mass delusions, and as such not fit to deliver valid answers todays. Let's get rid of them, thereby disarming the warmongers of all camps. But since they are around, one can compare them according to their plausibility. Where Christian dogma is just implausible, ridiculously so. The holy trinity, with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Apparition, the Son born to a Virgin and He died on the cross to cleanse us from our sins. If you dig deeper how and when the New Testament was actually created, some of the valid four gospels one hundred years later, and how many hundred gospels telling the story of Jeshua were omitted and destroyed by the catholic church because they jeopardised it's political agenda, it becomes totally confusing. Many of the New Testament claims have also been disproved by science.
Compare that with the simplicity of Islam. Along comes Mohammed, no Messiah, no Son of God, not born under suspicious circumstances, but a simple messenger telling there is but one God. Telling that people must recollect to the roots, to the original faith of Abraham.
BTW, did you know that the Vatican in Mohamed's time regarded Islam as Christian heresy?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Your "4 Gospels" history is false. All 4 accepted Gospels were circulating before 100 AD. Lots of extra Biblical references for that in history.
The non canonical "gospels" began circulating late into the 2cd century. Thomas,Judas,etc.
No, religion is not a mass delusion. A person's church may have untrue dogma - but the faith held by that person is honestly held. The faith to believe in religion is a human psychological mechanism and will always exist. The drive to prove one's religion is also ingrained. Bad religion fails because the doctrine of that religion fails and the promises of that faith do not come to pass. What most often happens is that those who wear their apostasy on their sleeves live unhappy lives. They proselytize their atheism and agnosticism with all the fervor of a true believer. Many substitute a political agenda for religion - believing their politics is good vs. "disgusting".
The faithful who works to reconcile their religion with reality do not necessarily believe they are the end-all and be-all to existence. They may have self-doubt and question their own beliefs - but such self-tests is positive.
The truth is we all have a faith. Mine is in Christ,Quad's is in himself,a Muslim's is in the veracity of Mohammad,Hindus in 330 million gods,Buddhists in Suddhartha,etc.
Pagans had theirs in Isis,Artemis,Appolo,etc. Jews in Yahweh.
Believing in yourself is no less religious or a faith than anything else.
There is no human,including Christopher Hitchens/Joe Stalin,who is not placing their faith perception in someone or something.
Was reading this article and came across ole Quad's post here. He probably was right, the Catholic's did see Islam as a Christian heresy. Maybe for good logic:
Did anyone read the URL, it's super interesting?
I wonder how Luxenberg has slid under the radar so far, and is still alive.
I wonder if Q is still living in Thailand/
I think I'm gonna have to read the book. The mention by Q of the ancient Catholic view on Islam would tend to corroborate the research efforts.
That idea about Mohammad not being a personal name reminds me of the word, "satan". We Christians tend to use it as a proper name, but, it isn't. It is a noun meaning "accuser" and in english needs "the" placed before it.
God exists, independently of what any humans may think. The universe could not exist if it were not created. It could not create itself. The universe also must have Someone to maintain natural laws and constants, so they do not change randomly from moment to moment. Otherwise the scientific method of repeatability in experiments would not work. The idea that existence of any kind without a Creator God is possible, is simply irrational. The mechanistic materialist is reduced to the absurdity of believing that in the beginning there was nothing--no space, no time, no energy, no matter--and then suddenly nothing exploded, and became the highly ordered universe. Who would even try to defend such a worldview? Who could even think it is intelligent to believe this?
Who is trying to do that in this thread?
Quadrat, who said "all religions are mass delusions." My point is that even if they are, God's existence is independent of all human religions. Reality is reality, no matter how much false imagining is heaped on top of it by humans trying to use religion to control others.
And historically, there is a valid point to the idea that Islam began as a Christian heresy, since in many ways it is clearly a reaction against Christianity (such as denying the divinity of Christ, while still acknowledging Him as a prophet).
Oh, OK. That original post was so old I had forgotten it.
I agree with your view.
According to Thayer's Bible Dictionary, the word "Satan" means: "adversary, one who withstands"
This is the definition given for both the Hebrew term and the Greek term.
Most scholars use the definition "enemy." Though it could be understood in the forensic context as an accuser. In Rev. 12:10, he is described as "the accuser of our brethren." He is also the accuser of God, in the context of "theodicy"--"a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of "disgusting"." Theodicy has also been defined as God on trial. God permits Satan to have a time to demonstrate the true nature of his rebellion, so his accusations against God can be refuted in the minds of all the intelligent beings in the universe. God's willingness to sacrifice Himself to save His creatures on earth, and His willingness to exalt the least deserving of His creatures to share a place on His very throne (Rev. 3:21), are the ultimate refutations of Satan's accusation that God is selfish.