Keep looking for the truth, double, you're in the Bible, stay there....chew on the Gospel of John, nice and slow, as well as Ephesians, Philippians, Romans and I John. Great places to get questions answered, and it won't take you that much time.
Oh, and hey Shadow...quite a risk you're taking there, relying on only the "now" to define what is true. No serious minded person takes that chance, even secular historians will tell you that, i.e., remember Burke's quote, "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Modern fiction is also the lie you tell yourself to justify making up the rules that allow you to please yourself at the expense of others (and God, too, no?) Check it out: There is so much truth in the Bible, even on a common sense level (if you want to leave it at that and stay away from the spiritual aspect,) that it's pretty clear you haven't read any of it to know whether it's "fiction" or not. Our entire basis of Jurisprudence uses the truths of the Bible for its foundation. You also wouldn't have the capacity for "moral outrage" without it. Anyway, it's disingenous and hypocritical to criticize what you haven't read or aren't familiar with, so get crackin' man, do your homework, you're running out of the relatively short amount of time God has given you to figure it out for yourself...seriously....
No harm in debate, papa peg, Paul used O.T. scripture to debate his critics all the time (check out Acts 17.) There is an obligation to confront falsehood with the truth, even if it hurts. Anyway...seems like an honest, open conversation going on so far, I'm thinking, but differing opinions can be irritating depending upon how it they are taken.
Hey doublehelix, it sounds like you don't know what you actually think. If you can't recogize why you have to actually take sides for one or the other (in other words, making up your mind,) you're insecure in your belief. Go study some more, pray some more, these two religions are not compatible, one of them is truth, not both. Making a choice is the definition of "taking sides" :0) Can't mix Islam and Christianity.
Good grief, now I've heard it all. With all due respect, using the Quran to attempt to prove the veracity of the Bible is a heretical, ridiculous exercise in futility. When it comes to the unique messsage of Christinity, the Bible tells that story, not the Quran. At any rate, the outcome is emphatically not same for both "books," and their purposes are antithetical to one another. In the Bible, Jesus is the story, not Islam. At no point in the Quran is Jesus acknowledged as God Incarnate, the only hope of reconciliation between sinful man and God, the only pathway to salvation through propitiation of sin. And that's just for starters.....whoever you are, stick to your Islamic faith if you must, but be intellectually honest enough to admit these two messages will never mix. Even the most committed Universalist understands that one.
Islamic expansionism, in all of its forms, stops at the foot of the Cross.
...but Jesus repeatedly stated in the Gospels, and often alluded to Old Testament prophecy to bolster his argument, that he was appointed to die to redeem sinful man (that means you and me) by the shedding of his own blood, "a lamb led to slaughter," and to rise again three days later. So, if you have enough faith to believe in the supernatural, i.e., that God would miraculously implement a plan to take him instead of someone else, then at least have the intellectual courage and honesty to examine what Jesus said about himself, and the specific role he came to play. Here's the choice we have with Jesus: we can't say he is a wise teacher and the best example of mankind, and at the same time deny what he said about himself. That is faulty logic. As C.S. Lewis points out, he is either exactly who he said he was (God in the flesh), or he was a liar, or as crazy as a guy who claims he is a poached egg. There is no in between. So check it out, read the Gospel of John, and make your own decision about what is believable about Jesus. Only at that point will you understand why he couldn't have (wouldn't have wanted to have,) a "stand-in" for his own sacrifice on the Cross.