Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineygirl
Your historical proof is similar to that for Jesus.
The earliest biography of Muhammad was written by ibn Ishaq -- 120 years after Muhammad's death. And any non-Islamic sources were not written until decades later.
In fact, if you believe the Q'uran as more historically correct than the New Testament, then you must believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Muhammad got that straight from God Himself. And he wrote it down word-for-word, in a text where "each word remains exact today" (again, not much different from the Scriptures).
I think you just delight in being an iconoclast, attempting to destroy the firm, happy beliefs of others. There are some people who believe that it's intellectually superior to always question and never come to a conclusion.
I respect those intellects who are able to amass information, synthesize it, test it, and then come to a conclusion that they consider factual. That's how our leading scientific intellectuals do it, after all. Although even some of them appear to confuse theory with fact.
|
I never said that I believe that the Quran is more historically accurate that the New Testament.
As for your assumptions of my personality, I do not delight in anything other than the conversation. I doubt in my wildest attempts that I could destroy any firm belief that others have, so I delight no even in the effort, but in the exchange of thoughts and ideas. I am more a Taoist than anything else, and work hard on my spirituality and my humanness. I used to be just like you, in thought and action, and it took the love of a friend to get me to see things from all sides. Her challenges to my thought process made me think beyond my borders, and my life experiences allowed me to see things from all sides.
One must understand that a firm belief should only be as firm as the facts that the belief is based on. When I am presented with facts that shake my belief in something, I review the belief. Your allusion to science is a perfect case in point, as science once believed that the earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around it. In fact, opinions to the contrary often were view as heresy, punishable by, you guessed it, death. Yet, when facts were bravely presented to science, that firm belief was reviewed and changed to fit the reality.
So there is nothing wrong with shaking firm beliefs, and that can only be done through challenging them.
I do understand that our reality is based in opposites. Without dark we have no light, without failure we have no success, without short we have no long. Bad needs good and good needs bad. We cannot appreciate life without death, we cannot appreciate health without illness, and we cannot appreciate the sun without the rain. That's why we need to deal with the bad, as to gain an appreciation for the good.