09-21-2006, 04:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2006, 04:27 PM by Steve Consilvio.)
Perhaps a question to be asked is why does Muhammed scorn the prohet Jesus, and then speak of the dangers of scorning others?
"Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son."
Man is always putting his own limitations on God. A Prophet is a prophet, and while God may speak through him that does not mean he is not subject to error.
How much blood has been spilled because of this claim? It is all the dark one needed to confuse the righteous and to sow fear and distrust.
Also, claiming Muhammed as the authority essentially renders God meaningless. God is no longer speaking for himself and making his own decisions. If Jesus is only a prophet, then why woud he describe himself as the Son of God, and be capable of miracles?
How can they both be prophets if they contradict each other? In fact, you have given Muhammed the mantle of "infalibility," which is the same thing that the Popes erroneously claimed. So rather than questioning the concept of trinity (which is okay to question) it seems to me that the bigger thing that needs to be questioned is both the infallibility of Muhammed, and those that think they are infallible in their reading of scripture.
It is God that is all-knowing, not man.
This line of reasoning I am using, recognizing mislogic, is exactly what Socrates used, and what got him in trouble. People cling to a mistaken idea as dearly as they cling to the Truth. Muhammed stated something that he possibly did not know, and the insistence that he is right diverts you away from questioning your own ideas. When Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living," he was questioning both his own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. The fact the trinity is hard to understand does not make it wrong, but the similar claim of infallibilty sheds equal light on how easy it is to be wrong and think oneself correct.