Is Islam true?.

[total relism]

Not really,
Some great teacher in Christianity mentioned: Remember... The fruits, not the roots. Should one even start to consider the origins of e.g. the Bible, or the obscurity of its founders - Christianity would have been thrown out as dross a long time ago.
You shouldn't mix their private life with their prophetic missions... you would have to do a "Tu quoque" without the ad hominem part.

So you think bible should be thrown out because? you think it was written by men with bad fruits? Not sure what your saying,

And I'm asking what makes one religion more true than other religions.

As sated that is for another thread, happens to be my fav topic.

The bible is a compilation of texts written by normal folks, usually the folks at the Council of Nicaea grabbed the texts they had that were supposedly written by the Apostles. So they discarded the ones they didn't like very much, or it didn't agree with their religious dogmas back then, and put in the ones that made sense for them, and meshed them all together in one big book or set of books. As is obvious, different people usually have different accounts and write different things and remember different details (Or most probably it wasn't even the Apostles themselves that wrote the Gospels but rather were made up or written by students or students of students, or someone completely unrelated who just forged their accounts to give legitimacy to their preaches) that make them contain a lot of contradictions over what happened when, what exactly Jesus, God, or someone else said or did. And so, since the bible is a book written by normal people, edited further by other normal people to adapt to whatever they wanted it to become canon, with gospels accepted, edited or rejected, and then different churches since the dawn of Christianity dispute over which gospels were more and less accurate, then it is simply the work of men. As with all manmade accounts and books, the contradictions and inaccuracies are in the bible. And since the bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be 100% true.

Brennus was kind enough to give some examples, but it really goes without saying.

So what got use here, was your claim the bible made false profacies, I asked for your best 2. You have given me none. So you than go on a completely baseless devoid of all evidence, and contradictory to all manuscripts claim that the bible was edited by the council of Nicaea. This amazes me people truly believe this stuff there told. I challenge you now to support any of the above claims with evidence.. You have alot of problems with the claims you make, first is we have manuscripts from all over Europe/N Africa/middle east in diffident countries diffident times. How could a council of nicea find all these mansuripts in the desert and other places [many not found until 2000 ad etc] and rewrite all these manuscripts without leaving a trace.

we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product...Path=HYPERLINK "http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=42&products_id=288"42HYPERLINK

Besides we can reconstruct the entire bible but 11 verse from early church fathers quoting the bible from before the council. So another challenge to you I present, give me one example of were a doctrine from the original bible has been changed by man at the council of Nicaea or otherwise, give me one "gospel" that should be in the bible that is not, or any other book.. You cannot support your claims with any evidence.


You also have not given one exsapmle of a contradiction, please post your top 3. Brennus has given not one,read my responses.

You say how so, but then immediately afterwards, you answer yourself. You have people believing in an invisible and unprovable higher force, saying your invisible and unprovable higher force is more true than the others invisible and unprovable higher force(s). It's a comedic behaviour. Religion is something utterly personal and mostly irrational. Since it is so, trying to argue that other religions are fakes while yours is the true one is folly, as your religion, from a neutral perspective, is itself in exactly the same situation as the others you posit as fake.

I disagree i every-way, only if we are to assume as you do, start with your bias/presupistions that belief in god is "irrational" than can we make your above claim. Also are you claiming that if something is not seen it is irrational to believe in it?