Why Muslims Don't Believe in Concept of Trinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my yourself. I'm not emotional, and, like others here, I'm getting weary of how you fabricate these personal insults.

I addressed your obvious disappointment that people didn't follow your links and immediately convert to Islam because, you clearly said, allegedly we and many seminarians lack "fortitude."

I explained the very rational reasons--emotion has nothing to do with it--why the trinity issue is a small part of the big picture. The big picture is this: Islam's values are inconsistent with many Christian values about women, how to treat your enemy, and much more.

Please provide the statement I made where I expressed "disappointment" that people did not convert. Waiting....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody refuted the death to apostates rule in Islam. They said it exists but isn't always applied historically. Adk the Yazidis whether it exists, though.

Oh yes, the world, particularly the Muslims put credence in what ISIS is doing. Practically every Muslim nation and numerous organizations have roundly denounced ISIS' actions as they are not in accordance with Islam. Christian crusaders spilled more blood than probably any other religious group in history, does it follow that Christianity orders killing?

Are we on that track again? That what fanatical or extremists do is symbolic of the actual religion? It is not.

The world puts credence in the fact that shariah is followed by the vast majority of Muslims. In addition, PP provided an "authenticated Hadith."

You personally may not follow shariah or accept this Hadith.

You cannot possibly argue, however, that centuries or shariah development, or the Islam practiced by the vast majority of your co-religionists, is "in-authentic."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my yourself. I'm not emotional, and, like others here, I'm getting weary of how you fabricate these personal insults.

I addressed your obvious disappointment that people didn't follow your links and immediately convert to Islam because, you clearly said, allegedly we and many seminarians lack "fortitude."

I explained the very rational reasons--emotion has nothing to do with it--why the trinity issue is a small part of the big picture. The big picture is this: Islam's values are inconsistent with many Christian values about women, how to treat your enemy, and much more.

How God himself is perceived is a crucial part of any religion. You can not deny that. That Christianity today makes God out to be a man is foreign and rejected by Judaism and Islam. Now we know from original manuscripts it was a man made doctrine. Christianity WAS similar to Judaism and Islam in the early era after Jesus died. But it was changed and it got off track. You say one can reject trinity yet still be typical Christian. Can they? How does a Christian reject trinity, which symbolizes that Jesus is God also, but still think he is adhering to mainstream Christianity? He is not. If he rejects trinity, it means he rejects the divinity of God too. So he is no longer a mainstream Christian but an atypical one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody refuted the death to apostates rule in Islam. They said it exists but isn't always applied historically. Adk the Yazidis whether it exists, though.

Oh yes, the world, particularly the Muslims put credence in what ISIS is doing. Practically every Muslim nation and numerous organizations have roundly denounced ISIS' actions as they are not in accordance with Islam. Christian crusaders spilled more blood than probably any other religious group in history, does it follow that Christianity orders killing?

Are we on that track again? That what fanatical or extremists do is symbolic of the actual religion? It is not.

The world puts credence in the fact that shariah is followed by the vast majority of Muslims. In addition, PP provided an "authenticated Hadith."

You personally may not follow shariah or accept this Hadith.

You cannot possibly argue, however, that centuries or shariah development, or the Islam practiced by the vast majority of your co-religionists, is "in-authentic."

No, no, no. You are not understanding. Cant blame you. You are not Muslim. You do not know how to read the Quran in Arabic. And you have never confirmed your understanding with reputable scholars today. The Sharia is most certainly not 100% wrong. What was repeatedly explained is that its not infallible. Any document or text or fatwa or utterance from any scholar is not infallible. Thus parts ofthe Sharia may be true, in fact, and based on the Quran. But parts may not be. So it is wrong to read fatwas, the word of a scholar only, or the Sharia, and claim they must be 100% representative of the Quran.

Stoning for adultery is in some Sharias. But how can that be when the Quran never prescribed such a punishment for adultery? Here, the sharia deviated from the Quran. The sharia is wrong on this point.

Apostasy is punishable by death in some Sharias. But how, when the Quran never prescribes death for apostasy? Death is only for apostates who committed treason.

So you see, relying on the Sharia 100% as representative of Islam is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Similarly, the Bible today deviates from the original manuscripts, and as such, it is not 100% reliable. Sad thing is thats its your holy book and yet its not 100% the word of God now. But the good thing is, original manuscripts are available for those who wish to follow the original Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody refuted the death to apostates rule in Islam. They said it exists but isn't always applied historically. Adk the Yazidis whether it exists, though.

Oh yes, the world, particularly the Muslims put credence in what ISIS is doing. Practically every Muslim nation and numerous organizations have roundly denounced ISIS' actions as they are not in accordance with Islam. Christian crusaders spilled more blood than probably any other religious group in history, does it follow that Christianity orders killing?

Are we on that track again? That what fanatical or extremists do is symbolic of the actual religion? It is not.

The world puts credence in the fact that shariah is followed by the vast majority of Muslims. In addition, PP provided an "authenticated Hadith."

You personally may not follow shariah or accept this Hadith.

You cannot possibly argue, however, that centuries or shariah development, or the Islam practiced by the vast majority of your co-religionists, is "in-authentic."

No, no, no. You are not understanding. Cant blame you. You are not Muslim. You do not know how to read the Quran in Arabic. And you have never confirmed your understanding with reputable scholars today. The Sharia is most certainly not 100% wrong. What was repeatedly explained is that its not infallible. Any document or text or fatwa or utterance from any scholar is not infallible. Thus parts ofthe Sharia may be true, in fact, and based on the Quran. But parts may not be. So it is wrong to read fatwas, the word of a scholar only, or the Sharia, and claim they must be 100% representative of the Quran.

Stoning for adultery is in some Sharias. But how can that be when the Quran never prescribed such a punishment for adultery? Here, the sharia deviated from the Quran. The sharia is wrong on this point.

Apostasy is punishable by death in some Sharias. But how, when the Quran never prescribes death for apostasy? Death is only for apostates who committed treason.

So you see, relying on the Sharia 100% as representative of Islam is wrong.

Prayer movements are also not in the Quran. Can I show up in a mosque and pray sitting cross-legged in a chair, and then say what you people do isn't in the Quran so don't tell me what I do is wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Similarly, the Bible today deviates from the original manuscripts, and as such, it is not 100% reliable. Sad thing is thats its your holy book and yet its not 100% the word of God now. But the good thing is, original manuscripts are available for those who wish to follow the original Christianity.

You present a false dilemma. Disappointment in Christianity doesn't at all mean an automatic turn to Islam. There's plenty of other things on the menu, including a very logical conclusion that all religions and their books are made up.

[Anonymous]

Also, consistency with original form of something doesn't mean that that "something" has been right to begin with. It's possible to have a wrong thing and preserve it through the centuries, you know (if you forget all about the book-burnin' party Mr. Uthman has thrown).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

+1.

a more typical reaction to reading ancient biblical texts is to simply give up religion all together. It's all so obviously stitched together by ancient people with limited knowledge of the world

Yes. I have that same reaction every time I read both Testaments and the Quran.

"Someone believes this stuff??"

[Anonymous]

Whatever. It's equally ridiculous to rely on this one guy Dirks and to claim he represents the only possible view on the trinity.

OP, it's equally ridiculous for you to claim you read one guy and now you understand the trinity better than any of us.

Get it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, these documents are persuasive to some who see them, but if they do not convert it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't compelling. It would take a kind of fortitude not common to most people to actually leave Christianity because of what they've seen. If every seminarian converts, it would certainly shake up the Christianity faith and thats a monumental burden few people have shoulders broad enough to bear.

Illogical. There are no consequences for leaving Christianity. Besides, logically if every seminarian converts, the "monumental burden" on the shoulders of each individual seminarian is greatly diminished. Safety in numbers, ya know. Could it be they were simply unaffected by what they read?

anonymous wrote:
And other researchers have also come to the same conclusion as Dr. Jerald Dirks that Trinity is a man made concept, and not from the original manuscripts. Here's a research article that concludes, "Research, therefore, proves that even the concept of the Trinity, as taught by Christian religions, did not exist, and could not have existed, during all of Biblical history. The deduction, by factual research and logical reasoning, is that there is absolutely no evidence or proof that there is a Trinity. The evidence, in fact, proves the opposite -- there is definitely not a Trinity." Source: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

The words "evidence" and "religion" do not belong in the same sentence. Religion requires faith, not evidence. If it required evidence, it'd be called science. All religions ask you to believe things that scientifically couldn't possibly be true.

anonymous wrote:

Trinity is such a critical part of Christianity and Muslims are sometimes asked by Christians why they do not believe in it. It is incomprehensible to Muslims that God Almighty would turn himelf into a man. It is a difficult concept to grasp if one believes God is above man. However, if Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were, in fact, man made concepts developed because of geo-political issues at the time, it confirms to Muslims that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam truly deliver the same message.

Actually it is a lot more common that Muslims take it upon themselves to tell Christians they are wrong to believe in trinity. Everything in religion is a made-up concept.

The belief that Christians are eligible to enter heaven is not common in Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my. There you go getting emotional again. Why did you make this thread about you again? I post why Muslims have various beliefs to clarify and you think my post is an unabashed attempt to bring you over to my religion.

The trinity concept (and divinity concept) are probably the two aspects of Christianity that are incomprehensible to Muslims. This is why I think so few Muslims convert. I think another PP who is not even Muslim did her own research and wrote a well written answer refuting the death to apostates theory you and your islamophobes have tried so hard to advance.

Why am I even discussing the Muslim rejection of Trinity? To show interested readers that Christianity (crucial parts of it) have been made up or altered, that in the original manuscripts Jesus did not mention trinity or divinity, and so if you take away the man made "add ons" to this great faith, Christianity is remarkably similar to Islam. This would show that Gods message, sent to mankind at different periods throughout history was one and the same. Thus, we, Christians, Muslims, Jews are brethren. No need to fight amongst us, and no need to proselytize. We are the same. Its a unifying revelation, no?

I am truly interested in the unscientific verses from the Quran. Please share with all of us.

And I do not wish for you to convert. If you remain Christian, Muslims still believe the gates of Heaven are open to you, despite the fact that parts of Christianity were created by man.

There are enough differences in Christianity and Islam even if you discount trinity.

A more logical path for someone who rejects trinity is to reject religion completely. Not all Muslims believe the gates of heaven are open to non-muslims. This is a point of great uncertainty and debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its better for those who want an answer to that question to simply view the link. Post Dr. Dirks answer here and the islam haters will react like a shark smelling blood. Its evident he is an intellectual and well read. He is a soft spoken man. He said he felt like he was betraying his congregation standing up on the pulpit after he read the original manuscripts. He says these documents are not seen by everyone, but very good seminary schools will have them. He was lucky enough to attend Harvard.

No one is going all shark on him. He's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. I sense that you're expecting that his conversion will shatter minds, and it is simply not a factor that you hoped it would be. Someone converted. So what?

You are making this entire thread all about you. It's not. It was intended to be about why MUSLIMS do not believe in the Concept of Trinity. Dr. Dirks is but one person who converted after seeing original manuscripts. Readers of this thread may find this fascinating regardless of whether it "shatters minds."

Actually, I think you've explained very well about why MUSLIMS don't believe in trinity (which no one questioned to begin with), and you are trying to make the thread about why NO ONE should believe in trinity and should just believe in Islam instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my yourself. I'm not emotional, and, like others here, I'm getting weary of how you fabricate these personal insults.

I addressed your obvious disappointment that people didn't follow your links and immediately convert to Islam because, you clearly said, allegedly we and many seminarians lack "fortitude."

I explained the very rational reasons--emotion has nothing to do with it--why the trinity issue is a small part of the big picture. The big picture is this: Islam's values are inconsistent with many Christian values about women, how to treat your enemy, and much more.

How God himself is perceived is a crucial part of any religion. You can not deny that. That Christianity today makes God out to be a man is foreign and rejected by Judaism and Islam. Now we know from original manuscripts it was a man made doctrine. Christianity WAS similar to Judaism and Islam in the early era after Jesus died. But it was changed and it got off track. You say one can reject trinity yet still be typical Christian. Can they? How does a Christian reject trinity, which symbolizes that Jesus is God also, but still think he is adhering to mainstream Christianity? He is not. If he rejects trinity, it means he rejects the divinity of God too. So he is no longer a mainstream Christian but an atypical one.

They are ALL manmade doctrines. Don't pick on the trinity. I don't think it's up to you to make a judgment whether or not one adheres to mainstream anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The world puts credence in the fact that shariah is followed by the vast majority of Muslims. In addition, PP provided an "authenticated Hadith."

You personally may not follow shariah or accept this Hadith.

You cannot possibly argue, however, that centuries or shariah development, or the Islam practiced by the vast majority of your co-religionists, is "in-authentic."

No, no, no. You are not understanding. Cant blame you. You are not Muslim. You do not know how to read the Quran in Arabic. And you have never confirmed your understanding with reputable scholars today. The Sharia is most certainly not 100% wrong. What was repeatedly explained is that its not infallible. Any document or text or fatwa or utterance from any scholar is not infallible. Thus parts ofthe Sharia may be true, in fact, and based on the Quran. But parts may not be. So it is wrong to read fatwas, the word of a scholar only, or the Sharia, and claim they must be 100% representative of the Quran.

Stoning for adultery is in some Sharias. But how can that be when the Quran never prescribed such a punishment for adultery? Here, the sharia deviated from the Quran. The sharia is wrong on this point.

Apostasy is punishable by death in some Sharias. But how, when the Quran never prescribes death for apostasy? Death is only for apostates who committed treason.

So you see, relying on the Sharia 100% as representative of Islam is wrong.

You are saying, "death for people who leave Islam is in some peoples' version of Islam but not in mine. Stoning for adultery is is some peoples' version of Islam but not in mine."

Why do you post as though your Islam is the only Islam? You can't say that the millions of people who do follow sharia are merely "extremists" like ISIS.