My first post

[Link]

I don't see anything in there that demonstrates that God is a necessary being. You cannot just define necessity into existence. You have to demonstrate that there is a God and that it is necessary.

When we recall God properly, we see just by his sheer size amount that he is necessary. It's that simple. No possible amount of life can exist but found in him. Thus all life stems from him but more importantly, he is the necessary being, and his size proves he is as does perfection (it's a perfection) and greatness perspective from Anselm. I'm just talking about sheer size, because it's easier to see mathematically he is the necessary being from just that. Whether you see it or not, and whether he is necessary or not, is two different things. If you recall God properly you can't divorce the title "the necessary one" from him. No possible life amount but is found in him. This proves he exists, his life amount is such that he misses nothing and nothing can be absent from him.

 

[ppp]

When we recall God properly, we see just by his sheer size amount that he is necessary. It's that simple. No possible amount of life can exist but found in him.

Those premises are undemonstrated and therefore I reject them. Those are merely bald assertions.

 

[Link]

Those premises are undemonstrated and therefore I reject them. Those are merely bald assertions.

You mean you can't grasp God's Oneness. Okay, if you can, you should know God's Oneness proves his existence. If you don't understand how ultimate life amount means nothing - no life - can exist but depends on him, and that he would present in all possible worlds, including this one. It's not my fault.

 

[Link]

Ontological argument can't force you to look at God, but it proves God can't be a concept, he can only exist in reality.

 

[ppp]

You mean you can't grasp God's Oneness.

I mean that you are not constructing a sound argument. You are conflating the argument that your constructing with what you claim is a perfect god. They are not the same thing. A god could exist while your argument still fails to demonstrate that fact. Don't equate your reasoning with your god.

 

[Link]

I mean that you are not constructing a sound argument. You are conflating the argument that your constructing with what you claim is a perfect god. They are not the same thing. A god could exist while your argument still fails to demonstrate that fact. Don't equate your reasoning with your god.

I know you mean that. But I doubt you will ever grasp how remembering God proves he exists. This is a spiritual decision, even though logic proves it, people rebel against the ontological argument because they don't want to acknowledge God.

 

[paarsurrey]

Welcome.
Why does a prophet of God deny what another prophet of God said.
I am speaking of Muhammad denying what Jesus said, that He would be killed and rise from the dead?

Jesus never said it in first person.
If yes, then kindly quote from Jesus, please .
Right?

Regards

 

[ppp]

But I doubt you will ever grasp how remembering God proves he exists.

I do not remember any gods. I have no reason to believe that anyone does.

This is a spiritual decision, even though logic proves it, people rebel against the ontological argument because they don't want to acknowledge God.

So, its not that your argument is flawed, or that people do not find you convincing. It is that everyone secretly knows you have constructed a brilliant and masterful syllogism, yet they live their lives in abject rebellion to all you hold dear.

Right. Makes sense to me.

 

[Link]

Right. Makes sense to me.

God is treated especially unjustly by mankind for no good reason. It is what it is.

 

[stevecanuck]

If you think that addressing equality in religion means that the women should have the same abilities as the man, you will have a very difficult time finding any religion that is equal. As much as we want it to be, women and men were never created equally. Women are biologically different and have different roles emotionally and socially than men. Even if you would give the opportunity for a woman to marry multiple men in reverse polygamy, I don't know if there has been any evidence to suggest they would. Women biologically believe in commitment to one Man. Since you can't change the nature of man, you should never expect equality.

Islam defines these separation of roles pretty well. They provide women with the expectations pretty early on, where there isn't a need to think anything else. I would expect many Muslim women would be happy where they are at as holders of their beliefs.

That was one giant non-sequitur. I'm talking about rights, not physical ability or biological differences.

I deleted the preaching part of your post that followed.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

Hey, and sorry for the late response, got busy with life.

Before I respond, I just like to say that I’m glad to read that you admitted to missing it in the verse. I appreciate it.

“What it does not change is that Mohamed was in favor of the mass beheadings, enslavement, and theft of everything the Banu Quraiza owned.”

How are they innocent when they are the ones that broke the treaty? Treason is serious, and you can clearly research the laws of treason by the countries you love and you’ll see how serious it is. Life imprisonment is usually the case. Not too long ago, it was pretty much capital punishment. There was no such thing as an organized prison system in the 7th century.

Whether or not the Banu Quraiza broke the treaty is debatable, and I wouldn't mind discussing that separately, but doing so now would be a distraction from the main point, which is whether Muslims killed and/or enslaved innocent people.

Even if I were to concede that Jewish men aided the Confederates, the youth who only recently reached puberty certainly did not. BUT, they were all beheaded along with the grown men. The women and children who watched their men and brothers die before being taken as slaves were absolutely 100% innocent.

Do you really think they deserved that fate?

“Mod edit”

Not sure what this is honestly. Did you take half a verse again and add insults?

This was in reference to the fact that this charge is hypocritical (I worded it badly and got a slap). When you quoted 5:33 in a previous post, you redacted it to fit your purposes. YOU left out the phrase about fasad pretending it didn't exist.

I followed your criticism by explaining to you that reading all of 2:98 makes it worse by equating "unbeliever" with "enemy of Allah". That explanation still stands. I won't repeat it.

“"whoever is an enemy of Allah" as being a disbeliever”

An enemy of Allah and a disbeliever are two different things and this should be clear by understanding regular terminology. You’ll even notice that they (the enemies of Allah) break their pledges (2:100). The disbeliever never makes a pledge, to begin with. But a traitor… well if you’re intellectually honest, then you’ll know there’s a difference.

See above.

Concerning your comment on Slovakia, thank you for admitting it. But it seems like you are forgetting about the Uyghur Muslims, who are getting eradicated today . What about the laws in France? A girl can’t cover herself until she’s 18, but she’s allowed to get naked at 15. How is this logical?

As I explained before, the Uyghurs are being persecuted because they are religious, not because their religion is Islam. The same thing happened to the Falun Gong.

I see that yet again you have dodged my question about Asia Bibi. Is that because you agree she should have died? If you don't, it would serve you well to say so.

 

[ppp]

If you think that addressing equality in religion means that the women should have the same abilities as the man, you will have a very difficult time finding any religion that is equal.

Equality means that women have the same legal, educational, employment and societal accesses as men. That women are not bound to gender related legal or cultural restrictions.

Even if you would give the opportunity for a woman to marry multiple men in reverse polygamy, I don't know if there has been any evidence to suggest they would.

There is a lot. More than 50 societies last I read. Look at the work of Starkweather and Hames. Many more cultures were killed or corrupted by Christianity and Islam during their empire building phases.

When your religion considers humans as objects to God, like a light bulb and not as a Father or a being that desires a relationship with you. It only makes sense that you look at the world in a view of pure equality, that every person is as invaluable as the other.

And yet, said religions are deeply misogynistic.




Btw, there are women in the world with more ability than you in every way.

 

[Audie]

Equality means that women have the same legal, educational, employment and societal accesses as men. That women are not bound to gender related legal or cultural restrictions.

There is a lot. More than 50 societies last I read. Look at the work of Starkweather and Hames. Many more cultures were killed or corrupted by Christianity and Islam during their empire building phases.


And yet, said religions are deeply misogynistic.




Btw, there are women in the world with more ability than you in every way.

Its good to see the apologists perform their
act.
Its educational.

Id probably get booted if i said what i
think of " islam".

 

[stevecanuck]

Don't take any notice of @stevecanuck He cannot teach Islam.
He take's the side of satan.

Abdullah means 'slave of G-d'.
We are proud to be slaves.

Disingenuousness alert !!!!

The topic is people being held as slaves by other people. But you knew this. Got any comments that aren't meant to misdirect?
.
.
.
Didn't think so. If you could actually rebut me, you wouldn't have to resort to this sort of nonsense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, you have been "brainwashed" yourself, haven't you?

I always try to go by facts, not by belief.

 

[stevecanuck]

@icehorse

Concerning God hating disbelievers, interestingly, you will never see the words 'God hates disbelievers' in the Quran. Nor does it say God hates anything. Rather dislikes, or does not like.

Semantics. "Allah does not love disbelievers", and "Allah is the enemy of disbelievers" mean the same as "hates". Btw, you must have missed 35:39 -

Sahih International: It is He who has made you successors upon the earth. And whoever disbelieves - upon him will be [the consequence of] his disbelief. And the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them in the sight of their Lord except in hatred; and the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them except in loss.

Pickthall: He it is Who hath made you regents in the earth; so he who disbelieveth, his disbelief be on his own head. Their disbelief increaseth for the disbelievers, in their Lord's sight, naught save abhorrence. Their disbelief increaseth for the disbelievers naught save loss.

Yusuf Ali: He it is That has made you inheritors in the earth: if, then, any do reject (Allah), their rejection (works) against themselves: their rejection but adds to the odium for the Unbelievers in the sight of their Lord: their rejection but adds to (their own) undoing.

Shakir: He it is Who made you rulers in the land; therefore whoever disbelieves, his unbelief is against himself; and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers with their Lord in anything except hatred; and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers in anything except loss.

Muhammad Sarwar: It is He who has made you each other's successors on earth. Whoever disbelieves, does so against his own self. The disbelief of the unbelievers will only increase the anger of their Lord and will only cause them greater loss.

Mohsin Khan: He it is Who has made you successors generations after generations in the earth, so whosoever disbelieves (in Islamic Monotheism) on him will be his disbelief. And the disbelief of the disbelievers adds nothing but hatred with their Lord. And the disbelief of the disbelievers adds nothing but loss.

Arberry: It is He who appointed you viceroys in the earth. So whosoever disbelieves, his unbelief shall be charged against him; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in hate in God's sight; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in loss.


Besides, how many hundreds of times does Allah have to call unbelievers "wicked, evil, perverted, etc." before you get the message. Your god ..... hates us. Period.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are right, my mistake for the bad wording. What I mean is that they wouldn't be considered children.

That is right. None others (of the wives) were nine-year olds when their marriage was consummated (that excludes the female slaves that Mohammad's right hand possessed - Rayhana bint Zayd, and Maria_al-Qibtiyya, before she was given to Hafsa, and after Allah sent an Ayah that there is no bar on Mohammad not to have sexual relations with her).
Maria al-Qibtiyya - Wikipedia

"God has already decreed for you (O believers) on the breaking of your oaths (to do what is not just and right, and the expiation thereof). God is your Guardian, and He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." Qur'an 66.2

 

[stevecanuck]

The Quran is clear that marriage can't come until they reach the right age and are mature mentally. (4:6)

The verse you quoted deals with orphans who reached "the age of marriage" without defining it. So, it's of no real help.

However, Surah 65, which sets out rules for divorce, separates wives into four categories. It first gives rules for divorcing mature women who are not pregnant, saying they are to be treated fairly and kindly. Verse 4 then divides other wives into three categories, "Those who are past menstruation, those who have not yet menstruated, and those who are pregnant". Note the middle category. It clearly refers to prepubescent girls. Mohsin Khan clarified this by adding, "they are still immature", to his translation.

That is the standard used by devout Muslims to this day.

 

[stevecanuck]

This custom lasted until at least the 20th century pretty much all over the globe.

Cecile of France married at the age of 8 or 9 in 1106.

Marie of Ponthieu married at the age of 9 in 1208.

Joan of France married at the age of 9 to the duke of burgundy Odo IV in 1318.

Isabella of Valois married at the age of 6 married King Richard II and he was 29 in 1396.

Charlotte of Savoy married at the age of 9 in 1451.

Anne de La Tour d'Auvergne married at 8 in 1505.

Christina of Denmark married at 11 in 1533. Princess Luisa Cristina of Savoy married at 13 in 1642.

Marguerite Sédilot, married at 11 in 1654.

Landgravine Caroline of Hesse-Rotenburg, married at 13 in 1728.

Maria Teresa Cybo-Malaspina, Duchess of Massa married at 9 in 1734.

Justina Davis, married at 15 to Arthur Dobbs who was 73! in 1762.

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, married at 13 in 1837.

Frances Belle Heenan, married at 15 to Edward Browning who was 51 in 1926.

And how many of them were married to men who were meant to set the standard for all time?

Answer: None of them.

That was Mohamed's job and he set the bar at 9. Your coreligionists are marrying 9-year-olds to this day because of Mohamed.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Muhammad started having sex with one of his wives when she was only 9 years old, by Allah's grace.

I think it is fundamentally wrong to have sex with a child. You are taking advantage of the child by
- using authority to get sex
- betraying their trust
- relying on their inability to make I formed decisions
... I mean I could go on and on. The psychological repercussions on child molestation is well documented.

How do Muslims rationalize this?

For starters, by not judging the 7th century based on our current standards.

I'm not, I'm talking about Muhammad, the perfect human, and the all-knowing, all-powerful Allah. The Qur'an is supposed to transcend time and be as relevant today as in the 7th century or 1000 years from now.

Muhammad and Allah said having sex with children is okay. That's final. I think Muhammad was 41 at the time.

Furthermore, it is still prevalent in Islamic countries today. I'm judging immoral acts of Muslims in the 21st century who are following the lead of the Prophet.

Secondly, could you honestly tell me that you would be the only one at that time that would speak out against this custom? Or would you probably have gotten married off early like everyone else?

I'm not sexually attracted to children.... so hard no on the child bride.