Well I am glad you recognize that I did not agree with the position of the islamic website. I applaud the honesty here. I do however have a “position”. It’s the same one that’s been said over and over. Jesus pointed to the created order when discussing the issue of marriage/divorce
Actually I directly said your position does not agree with the bible. The references from the Islamic website are way, way back. You just got buried with many, many references from your bible to which you have zero answer. The stammering answers you have supplied are going to get the same treatment as your previous position and I’ll just continue to use your bible to do it. No need for any more outside sources. You are right, in your case? ROFL I cant believe I’m saying this. The bible turns out to be enough.
You are very smart to distract yourself with random, out-of-context Surah from the Quran. I did not reference the Quran however. I referenced the bible, the teachings of Jewish rabbis, and 17th century church law. To which you reply with a giggling set of random passages from the Quran. Can you answer for your position from your bible without your record skipping? You cannot. You cannot because your position has no basis. Hence your distracted ADHD record skipping. Mannnnn - Ima have some fun with you now!
So many misrepresentations!
Yes Jesus was outlining the only cause for divorce among whom? He pointed to the created order, the God ordained plan. That being one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship till death parts them. So easy even a cave man can do understand. Only muslims with an agenda to justify their religious ideology refuse to accept it.
It boils down to a ruling on cause for divorce. That is what was asked, and that is what was answered, and anything else is speculation on your part (well in your case you have built a whole doctrine from it). LOL
The historical and Talmudic quotations are irrelevant. They are often used by Islamic apologists. Apologists who either attempt to make a false moral equivalency, just as you have done multiple times or take them out of context, which you have done multiple times. It would appear that critical thinking skills are not valued among Islamic apologists.
If sin is declared it is my duty to search the Laws of God and determine if any Word, any Law, ever declared it a sin. Islam recognizes the original Laws as having been sent from God. As such I wished to determine if these laws or any decision built from these laws ever concluded a sin. I already know that Christian religious law never declared it so. Though searching through all of God’s law is irrelevant to you, it is not irrelevant to me. As I found no such declaration this is not a false but true moral equivalency. I actually care nothing for what you think about it. You couldn’t even find it.
In the created order there was one man and one woman created in maturity. Also, as mentioned so many times we looked at the text YOU brought up – Rebekah’s betrothal/marriage to Isaac. A quick examination of the TEXT reveals she was a mature young woman as the ESV interpreters reveal. BTW that is not a “subjective application”. It’s called exegesis using hermeneutical principles.
I wondered why you keep using Isaac and Rebekah until I realized that of all the biblical Prophets this is the ONLY marriage arrangement that fits your position. No wonder you won’t even reply to the specifically listed sets of other arrangements that constitute marriage in the bible, thus “biblical” marriage and you keep going back to that one.
Of course you are bringing up an example that came into the discussion after I provided this as an example of how Jewish religious leaders taught about marriage age. Now anything a Jew says that does not agree with your position makes him an “Islamic apologetic”. Man that is some serious irony.
So you are suggesting that Adam (one man) and Eve (one woman) were not created alone?
I am firmly declaring that the creation of Adam and Eve alone has no, zero, relationship with all of the marriage arrangements that were regulated, exampled, accepted, and blessed in the bible and I am declaring that comparing God putting Adam and Eve together to a marriage, any marriage, means that marriage is not to be taken lightly and divorce is not to be taken lightly. Could that be why there are very serious and specific restrictions in the bible on putting preference for one wife over another? Time for my favorite game - "fun with Pliny" LOL
Where have I heard about a rib being taken from Adam? Oh yeah, the Bible! LOL! Muhammad plagiarized the the Bible! Hmmm… One man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) were created. Perhaps you should study your own “holy book” some. It really makes you look foolish.
But then again, maybe it’s not your fault. After all the Quran contradicts itself quite often. Even in the creation account.
Let’s see Surah 11:61 states that “allah” brought humanity from the earth.
Surah 15:26 states humanity was created from dried clay…
Note: Humanity created from dried clay – check. Wait, that’s not what he said here:
Surah 25:54 And it is He Who has created man from water…
Surah 21:30 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Surah 24:45 Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs…
Note: Hmmm… Dried clay or water? He was as confused as you are! Maybe it would be better to say you are as confused as he was, since he was of an exalted character. Wait! There’s more!
Surah 3:59 Verily, the likeness of Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust…
Surah 30:20 And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa (Eve) from Adam’s rib…]
How silly right? You are truly a beacon of brilliance Pliny, shining your light for the whole world. Of course I’m a dumb simpleton and need a GED though. So I can get promotions and stuff. Took your advice and signed up for a couple classes here and there. Can you believe Biochem was an elective? I could have picked “religious history” or some such useless class.
Turns out, just now, I feel it was useful. Let me step down to “southern corn-pone” level so I can do some teachin’ can you gimme amen?
7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Science sez:
According to H.H. Mitchell, Journal of Biological Chemistry 158, the brain and heart are composed of 73% water, and the lungs are about 83% water. The skin contains 64% water, muscles and kidneys are 79%, and even the bones are watery: 31%.
Hmmmmmmm…………..You have exposed all of Islam. Mohammed plagiarized that too!
To be IMMEDIATELY filed under “Misc cool aquatic facts”:
Water is of major importance to all living things; in some organisms, up to 90% of their body weight comes from water. Up to 60% of the human adult body is water.
According to Dr. Jeffrey Utz, Neuroscience, pediatrics, Allegheny University, different people have different percentages of their bodies made up of water. Babies have the most, being born at about 78%. By one year of age, that amount drops to about 65%. In adult men, about 60% of their bodies are water. However, fat tissue does not have as much water as lean tissue. In adult women, fat makes up more of the body than men, so they have about 55% of their bodies made of water. Thus:
Babies and kids have more water (as a percentage) than adults.
Women have less water than men (as a percentage).
People with more fatty tissue have less water than people with less fatty tissue (as a percentage).
Mebbe your bible simply left out the water part Ace. Is this critical? Probably means something.
Let’s do some “logication”:
1. bible don’t say nuttin about no water
2. Quran sez dust and water
3. Dust iz “comprises” of elements
4. ALL living things iz “comprises” of elements AND water
THEREFORE I am "conclooding": Quran is plagiarized. Except for the water part. Its accurate, but I sure dunno WHERE that came from. Can't be from the church. Those crackers were still teaching that the earth was the center of the universe.
Could be the bible is only about 20%-40% right? Missed something? I know, LOL, it's a translation error. Where's a greek scholar when he's needed? "queen James" sure was a highly renowned scholar of the greek.
Back to Pliny-smacking.
Please and kindly add this to your Quran lesson about "not bringing 4 independent witnesses to prosecute a woman for adultery gets the accuser a lashing and this is bad for women" as a clear, easily ruled strike 2.
I believe if I were you br’er rabbit I would carefully screen my Quran references. This is wayyyyyyyy more fun than baseball.
TBC. Definitely. LOL
Last edited by Walks_in_islam; 01-13-2015 at 12:22 PM.
LOL, well, I'm afraid to tell you that if you can claim intellectual honesty with the Qur'an, then you definitely can do the same with the bible. I would also like to point out, that if many of so called Muslims can misunderstand the Qur'an and become deathly terroristic about it, then I suppose some so called Christians can do the same with the bible. I also suppose that there are some intellectually honest Mormons when it comes to the Book of Mormons.
Here is the kicker though, with Mormonism you have only 1 prophet that claims he is the sole prophet of his time. Thus 1 man started this religion. With Islam you only have the word of 1 man as well who also claims to be a prophet that starts a new religion. It would seem that the start of 2 new religions were started by one single man that never had a witness with them to claim that their faith was the new valid one.
Whenever the prophets of the bible had anything to say from God, they always had someone else to witness or back up the claim. Jesus was one man as well, but He had 12 disciples. How many disciples did Joseph Smith have? What about Mohammed? When you compare the integrity of Joseph Smith and Mohammed with that of Christ then that is where you see where the lie comes from.
I believe that Jesus was the exception not the rule in this regard.
The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah—the which We have sent by inspiration to thee—and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein:...
—Quran, sura 42 (Ash-Shura), ayah 13
How many disciples did Abraham have? Who was with Moses at the burning bush? How many disciples did Noah have? How many did Jonah have?
All are referenced in the Quran. Are you suggesting that Islam is a brand new stand-alone unique set of religious principles?
I need to smack Pliny around a bit. We will discuss however.
Last edited by Walks_in_islam; 01-13-2015 at 12:41 PM.
Islam is inherently political, Christianity isn't. In fact, Christians are to live peaceably within any culture they find themselves in. Christianity's statutes are only binding upon... Christians themselves. Islam inherently will seek to subjugate any culture or political system to it's demands and expectations. Islam also inherently desires to assert itself as a form of law over all, including unbelievers. For this reason, I believe we need to stop looking at Islam as though it is a "religion". Instead, we should see it as a religious "politic". Islamic communities should be viewed no differently than communist cells were viewed during the cold war or how fascist political groups were viewed during WWII.
Islam also advocates lying to one's enemies. Lying to do what? Advance Islam, it is part of Jihad.
Therefore, Islam is a political enemy. It isn't a religious enemy. Islam is a threat to the stability and social fabric of every nation it advances in. Even peaceful Muslims are advancing a faith that is inherently able to be radicalized. Therefore, peaceful Muslims and militant Muslims are the right and left hands of the same animal. Due do the political nature of Islam, it brings with it the inherent clash of civilizations. The radicalized groups within Islam pose the greatest danger to the world. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, they can set off a war that will blow the entire world back into the stone age.
Also, within the United States, Islam is the greatest threat to our liberties. Seeing that in order to defend our nation from home grown terrorist cells, the government is going to have to take measures that violate our ideas of liberty. A significant network of radical cells within our nation, conducting devastating and high profile attacks could lead to regional martial law. This is NO joke.
This threat is serious. Perhaps the most serious threat we've ever faced. Never before in human history could so few, privately pose a danger to the entire world. If someone cannot see this, they are blind to the facts and reality itself. How any liberty minded Westerner can continue to practice and believe in Islam is beyond me. In fact, I'm going to step forward and say that a liberty minded Westernized individual cannot be a Muslim. For to do so would mean to throw out the very notion of Sharia law, the foundation of Islam. Therefore, it might be safe to say that Islam is a threat to liberty, peace, and freedom of conscience.
We have to stop looking at it like a religion. It is a politic. It is a political enemy and must be dealt with as such.
"When there's this many bad apples, there's something wrong with the orchard." ~ Bill Maher
Surah 30:19 He brings out the living from the dead…
You are quite the student of the Quran.
Actually Surah 30 says more than that:
30:2 The Roman Empire has been defeated-
30:19 It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living, and Who gives life to the earth after it is dead: and thus shall ye be brought out (from the dead).
Hmmmmmmmm………..What's THAT supposed to mean?
I think you just hit another foul dude
Using your form of exegesis, as demonstrated above, I can understand your confusion. Muhammad could not keep his story straight. Except where he plagiarized the Bible.
Of course you can’t trust the quran for its reliability. After all it states that the sunset was found and that the sun was “setting” in hot water! ROTFL!!!
Surah 18:86 Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people...Y
You seriously do not recognize an allegorical reference to "the Great One", who “walled up the people of Gog and Magog”? Call your father immediately. Apologize for taking his money and wasting it on bible school. Sell all you have, and pay him back. Then do something else. I mean seriously. Anything.
LOL! I already said Moses allowed this. I also said Moses allowed divorce as well. That does not mean God endorsed it.
Your bible actually says Jesus did endorse divorce. Are you now claiming that all of this law that Moses said came from God actually did not? The bible says it did. That would invalidate a lot of your bible. Even I wouldn’t dare say that. You HAVE to attribute large portions of your bible to Moses because if you don’t, then you HAVE to admit that your position here has been wrong. Would it not be better to admit error and return to what the bible says rather than declare that what Moses said came from God did not?
Did you know Moses murdered a man? That does not mean God endorsed the murder either. Of course you probably know this already but could care less. So if you could care less what else will you lie about?
Whatever Moses did, the law that I laid out for you still came from God. So many of the Prophets sinned, however when they declared a message from God it was a true message. You are wrong, so wrong, in trying to invalidate the message because of the man because the message does not fit your beliefs.
As mentioned many times Jesus pointed to the created order of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship. Muhammad even plagiarized this portion of scripture. LOL!
Except for that troublesome water part, accurate but missing from any and all scripture. I believe in your shoes I wouldn’t actually have shared any of that.
LOL! It has been shown so often that the God ordained marriage is between one man and one woman that a person must wonder if you can comprehend anything that’s written. Apparently, it’s not just the Bible you cannot comprehend but the quran as well.
It was also shown that there are several other versions of God ordained marriage and I comprehended them better than you answered them.
There is much identified sin in the bible, not a single little passage where any of these were sin. Which is why you attribute it all to what “Moses allowed” while forgetting that many of these “arrangements” predate Moses. OOPS. Bible says “these words are from God”. Either you are wrong or the bible is wrong but you are not both right.
Again trying to understand the Bible with your Islamic paradigm. LOL! You used this before to try to prove prepubescent marriage and now you want to use it to demand it line up with islam, that women are forced into marriages. This logic is so ridiculous it has a name – an argument from silence. Note that it does not say she must be married to the man. See how simple and ridiculous your logic looks! LOL!
Let's read it together and see if a consensual marriage after 30 days sounds ridiculous in light of a captured woman whose husband has just been killed.
Note: Here it is supposed that this captive's husband, if she were before a married woman, was dead before, or rather was slain in this very battle, otherwise it would have been adultery in him that married her.
Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 4, Chapter 8, Section 23.
Yep, that's ridiculous. Next.
My background is the same as yours, except I’m from a little further south. I took a passage that ordered soldiers to take prepubescent girls for themselves then took the passage on what to do with captive girls and posted them exactly what they are. If a man can sell his daughter as a wife to another man in the bible do you really expect that you can make up “consent for a captive”? Do you even know what captive means?
I ignored your book? Know why? In the referenced passage there were no, zero, captives who had “husbands killed in battle”. If they “had husbands” they were killed too, and not in battle. So your book about “the happy end of widowed captives” was not even on the radar screen of relevent. I have no idea why you keep posting a happy little story about “captive widows” unless you are suggesting that the Israelites were “marrying” dead bodies. No wonder consent is not an issue! LOL
You are in error when you attempt to say there were more than one man and one woman created by God in the beginning. Apparently you don’t even know the quran! What else will you lie about?
If wrongly attributing quotes as per below is a lie I guess you just did it.
I know. You will lie by attributing a quote to me that was in reality from the Islamic apologetic site you appear to use. What else will you lie about?
You cannot deny that you posted it, which is why it was attributed to you. My error was in assuming that you posted it because you agreed with it. See how that works? Unlike the above where you claim that I in any way implied that there was more than one man and one woman created by God in the beginning.
I am positive that you can’t see the difference. Though a shining light in using your quick mind and rapid wit to expose the Quran you really don't come across as the brightest light on the street in matters of logical thought
LOL!!! So says the muslim apologist wannabe that struggles with reading comprehension. I will not “adjust” the truth or invent it as is the case with islam. Just as you have tried to invent more than one man and one woman in the Biblical creation narrative that Muhammad plagiarized. Oh well. No worries. Critics have come and critics have gone but the bible is still the standing. LOL!
I described many different types of marital arrangements in the Bible however none of them referenced creation. What else will you lie about?
Like I said, Moses allowed polygamy and even divorce. Moses, not God. That’s the problem with critics. They have no understanding of Hermeneutics or exegesis. They think they find a contradiction and they can’t get past it. You’re not the first critic and won’t be the last. Yet the Bible still says what it says.
Deuteronomy says “from God”. Polygamy predated Moses and you sure won’t touch that. LOL you skip Abraham, focus on Isaac, then skip Jacob, the father of the tribes. The Law passed down from God through Moses has rules about polygamy, but even though it says in the book “from God” in order to make it fit your case you replace that with “from Moses”? That's really sad dude.
It’s clear that you refuse to acknowledge truth in any form. You will argue against one man and one woman in the created order even when your quran affirms the same thing. I suppose you can argue you were just “inventing” information to support your religion. Where I was raised that was called lying. There is no intellectual integrity and only a desire to justify your religion by sacrificing truth on the altar of justification. Have at it. It’s your right.
Truth is in the words and the words were cut and pasted from your book. You call this lying. Is your book a lie then? There are many, many specific examples of marriages and laws about marriage and descriptions of marriage and it was all neatly spelled out for you. If those words, cut and pasted from the bible are a lie or “invented” then I guess we can conclude something from that can’t we. Except they are not. They are there, they were not changed, they were directly copied, and you declare this “inventing a lie”.
This "invented lie" copied and pasted from multiply biblical passages directly contradicts your message here. THAT makes you a poser, a pretender, and there are passages on that too. Should I get them? Innocently wondering.
It’s pointless to answer a fool according to his folly… (Proverbs 26:4)
You can change. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Start with trying not to declare His books a lie?
Last edited by Walks_in_islam; 01-13-2015 at 02:21 PM.
I believe that Jesus was the exception not the rule in this regard.
The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah—the which We have sent by inspiration to thee—and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein:...
—Quran, sura 42 (Ash-Shura), ayah 13
How many disciples did Abraham have? Who was with Moses at the burning bush? How many disciples did Noah have? How many did Jonah have?
All are referenced in the Quran. Are you suggesting that Islam is a brand new stand-alone unique set of religious principles?
I need to smack Pliny around a bit. We will discuss however.
Abraham had no disciples, neither did he have any miracles which were not witnessed such as the birth of Isaac to a very old woman. Moses on the other hand was the beginning of actual Judaism. No, Moses really didn't have a disciple, but he had a MULTITUDE which followed him and seen the miracles which were performed in Egypt and the wilderness such as water dividing, manna falling from heaven, water coming out of the rock, etc.etc. So the question of the burning bush may not have been seen by any other than Moses himself, but the following miracles would leave no doubt that God spoke to Moses in a burning bush. Neither Mohammed or Joseph Smith can make the same claim with any witnesses. Where are the miracles that either of them performed by the hand of God?
I heard that Mohammed was illiterate(although I can not say with certainty at this point), and if that is the case, the scribes which were with Mohammed could've simply come up with something different than what Mohammed actually taught. That to me would cause concern, because the Bible was written by men who could both read and write. Should that not cause concern for you as well?
WII To be fair, I did google this so feel free to take it with a grain of salt, lol.
Was Muhammad Illiterate?
For me that is not a very important question since Muhammad's illiteracy doesn't prove anything. The famous classical Greek poet Homer was blind and hence couldn't read or write either. But he composed one of the most famous pieces of literature.
Nobody would conclude that he was therefore a prophet. One can say anything orally that one could write by hand. One can hear anything read or narrated by others that one could read with one's own eyes.
Whether Muhammad had the technical ability to read and write or not, doesn't not imply anything about the source of his speech or the possibility of having been informed by others orally.
As such, taking this criterion as a proof of his prophethood is not very strong.
Also, Muslims tell emphasize that the Qur'an and the Muhammad in some hadith stress learning and to seek knowledge. The process of learning and growing in knowledge is certainly much easier if one can read and write.
If Muhammad indeed put such a strong emphasis on learning, why would he for all of his life insist to not learn himself? First of all: Not learn to read and write, second to use reading to learn more? Is he disobedient to his own exhortations?
Ten thousand people died last month (and every month before that) to advance some groups religious cause. virtually EVERY SINGLE DEAD PERSON died for someones view of Islam
Not one other religion has anyone killing for their god.
Furthermore, IF some christian nut were to kill someone, then face some mythical "christian court" they would be found guilty of murder.
On the other hand, if the killers of the Charlie Ebdo (sp) folk were to face an islamic court, they would be found INNOCENT.
in fact, the leader of ISIS would likely NOT be found guilty of ANY Crime if tried in an islamic court.
Simple reality. Not all muslims are violent menisis to society. but the number of muslims that are, is staggering and growing daily.
islam is a violent bloody religion unparalleled in human history.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Mohammed pillaged the inhabitants of Medina and built a gang. After building the 10000 member gang he then went back to his hometown of Mecca forcing the population to believe his version of a religion called Islam (which means to submit) cutting off their hands if they didn't turn to his idea of a new religion. Is this a peaceful religion really? The beginnings certainly do not appear to be so.
Ten thousand people died last month (and every month before that) to advance some groups religious cause. virtually EVERY SINGLE DEAD PERSON died for someones view of Islam
Not one other religion has anyone killing for their god.
Furthermore, IF some christian nut were to kill someone, then face some mythical "christian court" they would be found guilty of murder.
On the other hand, if the killers of the Charlie Ebdo (sp) folk were to face an islamic court, they would be found INNOCENT.
in fact, the leader of ISIS would likely NOT be found guilty of ANY Crime if tried in an islamic court.
Simple reality. Not all muslims are violent menisis to society. but the number of muslims that are, is staggering and growing daily.
islam is a violent bloody religion unparalleled in human history.
Ahmed Merabet, the police officer who died defending the right to ridicule his faith, was a Muslim.
At a minimum he and those like him are entitled to a nod of respectful acknowledgement.
Linear Mode
