Augustus
…
True dat... but I've rarely seen anyone with less of an appreciation for context and historical details than you
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
True dat... but I've rarely seen anyone with less of an appreciation for context and historical details than you
outhouse
Atheistically
EXACTLY
You have to have knowledge and be familiar with biblical text if your plagiarizing it.
And obviously these people found some value in the text, if they TOOK the foundation of the Abrahamic traditions and plagiarized it.
Augustus
…
I love the way you arbitrarily dismiss one of the world's leading critical scholars in the field of Islamic studies with such a well reasoned and forceful deconstruction of his arguments, capital letters are especially useful in lieu of any actual arguments or evidence.
Somebody who has no understanding of history and has never read a single academic article on the subject that feels qualified to scathingly dismiss one of the most well respected scholars in the field fully deserves to be acknowledged as the equivalent of the YEC guy in the science thread. Congratulations! The title is yours
outhouse
Atheistically
No I did not.
I dismissed your use of it, as you quote mined an paragraph that is non sequitur to the application in context to plagiarized text.
outhouse
Atheistically
Keep up with the personal attacks. It shows your desperation as you are not able to refute my statements, so you attack the person instead.
Augustus
…
Beats your appeal to ignorance. It's been thoroughly refuted by more than 1 person, it's just that you ignore all of the evidence and stick to your own fantasy world where you are a knowledgable history lecturer and studying a topic is not needed in order to become an expert at it.
Like the YEC guy who complains that people are using 'science, reason and evidence' to disprove claims that the world is 6000 years old and children played with dinosaurs.
Pointing out someones obvious lack of knowledge on a subject is not a personal attack. It's just a fact that you have never read anything substantial on the subject so you have no understanding whatsoever. If someone takes pride in their ignorance then there's no reasoning with them.
Anyway, you've turned back into the recursive grammar 'Outhouse generator' again that just repeats stock cliches that have no relation to the reality of what is going on. If scholarly articles used in context are 'quote mined rhetoric' then you aren't capable of reasoned discussion.
There's absolutely no point in continuing. Somebody who didn't arrive at their opinion through reason will not be moved away from it through reason.
See ya
outhouse
Atheistically
Sorry your trying to say this is not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology
Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[1] and Ibrahim (Abraham)[2] form parts of Islam's scriptures.
This simply means islam TOOK biblical mythology, and claimed it as their own
Which we all know means plagiarized mythology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology
Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[1] and Ibrahim (Abraham)[2] form parts of Islam's scriptures.
This simply means islam TOOK biblical mythology, and claimed it as their own
Which we all know means plagiarized mythology.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I believe you .. he seems to know better than everbody else. There is not even a mention of Moses on the wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
You'd think that there would be if historians knew overwhelmingly that he didn't exist in a historical contest
Oh no .. wait .. the abscence of evidence is NOT evidence that the story of Moses is fiction.
.. perhaps he's in touch with God .. no, more likely a 'companion of satan' told him
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. we don't all know. It's just your saying with your mouth. Myths can be true or false.
This means that your conclusion is based on false premise
outhouse
Atheistically
We have evidence that Israelite cultures formed from displaced Canaanites.
This goes against the exodus mythology.
You might want to try the actual moses page on wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses
Biblical minimalists such as Philip R. Davies and Niels Peter Lemche regard all biblical books, and the stories of an Exodus, united monarchy, exile and return as fictions
The overwhelming modern scholarly consensus is, according to William Dever, that Moses is a figure of myth, not of history
outhouse
Atheistically
Exactly, your view does not explain why islam TOOK previous mythology
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
All that means is that there is no evidence of Moses existing historically.
So .. yes, apart from Scripture which might or might not be accurate, you could say that he was a 'mythical figure'
It all boils down to belief or disbelief of God, then
I believe he existed and you don't. I believe the myth, and you don't
Now stop whining!
Shad
Veteran Member
You didn't understand what I am talking about. The various texts still contain knowledge of the area. Dan was a city, Jerusalem was a city, Jericho was a city. It is the story that is false not that these places never existed.
Shad
Veteran Member
All that means is that there is no evidence of Moses existing historically.
So .. yes, apart from Scripture which might or might not be accurate, you could say that he was a 'mythical figure'
It all boils down to belief or disbelief of God, then
I believe he existed and you don't. I believe the myth, and you don't
Now stop whining!
No it boils down to evidence supports a view that these stories are false. It has nothing to do with God. Your argument is nonsense. It would be like says Bob murders Jim only if you believe in God regardless that there is evidence Ted murdered Jim.
Shad
Veteran Member
Thus he was an editor
You have yet to demonstrated he didn't believe in these tradition
Context you ignore.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Great debate, guys. Just remember the rules when posting. Ok?
3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:
1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.
2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.
3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.
3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:
1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.
2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.
3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.
outhouse
Atheistically
Collector does not mean redactor
outhouse
Atheistically
Who cares what he believed in. Non sequitur to the plagiarism of previous traditions that belonged to Judaism and Christianity.
When we talk about jesus it is blatant plagiarism. They take the original story and rewrite it changing many events. None of which a single historian would sever use in the whole world for anything historical.
Shad
Veteran Member
Remember the claim that religious texts are as corrupt. Consider the heretical views that were pushed to the fringe after canonization along with the elimination of various groups in the late Roman period along with the anti-chalcedonian views in Syria. Islam has a quasi-Arianism mixed with some Docetism. Jesus was a divine creation as per Islam but not a literal part of God.
The above is a better example of making an argument for your claims. I have to acknowledge that the above can be used by both of us. You should have done this rather than posting a wiki. If you actually knew the argument you are making rather than just the conclusion it we could have a dialogue. However you didn't. So in the end it seems like you know nothing about Christianity nor Islam. I have to make your argument for you....
I might as well debate myself as at least my opponent would actually knows what they are talking about.