Was Muhammad a good man?

[I.S.L.A.M617]

In no way is what we eat as important as where we spend eternity. You and I both know that, the problem is you have made the false claim that pizza or beans is more important than heaven, hell, ultimate meaning, ultimate purpose, origins, and foundations of morality and instead of admitting food is less important as you should you are stuck inventing strange methods for trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious. BTW the Bible talks plenty about food and eating.

Heaven is only important to people that believe it exists. I am not one of those people; I don't believe we spend eternity anywhere. So yes, eating is a lot more important to me than being "good enough" to enter this fantasy land...

This is an evidence fallacy. First there is thousand of examples of people who clamed to have experienced life after death. I even knew one. However even if there exists no evidence that does not mean that either the concepts in the Bible as concepts do not claim to do so (so unless KNOWN to be false are more important than lunch), nor that you should have any more evidence than you do. The most famous person who ever walk the Earth is said to have risen from the dead. Until you show some actually reason to believe life after death is untrue then the issue is of the very highest importance.

Let me get this straight... I don't take the superstitious babbling of ignorance from millenia past as the absolute truth based on insufficient evidence, and because there's as small a chance of it being true as there is of finding a unicorn, I'm the one with the fallacious logic?:areyoucra
PS- Michael Jackson certainly did not rise from the dead.

If Christians had not done what they have done the world would be far worse off than it is. Hundreds of hospital, public education systems, foreign aid, the red cross, heck they created the greatest nation on Earth (over 90% of our founding fathers were Christian). If Christianity did not exist then they would either not exist or would not have had the impact they did for good. There is only gain in having a book that suggests love and self sacrifice is the greatest of virtues.

This is just an overall ridiculous statement... Public education and hospitals existed LONG before Christianity did. Charities that don't do things "in the name of Jesus" are just as effective as those that do. The US was NOT built on Christian ideals, regardless of the religions of our founding fathers (who were more culturally religious than actual practicing Christians), and to say it was is false.

As I said what you are concerned with deals with a vanishingly small moment in time. What I mentioned deals with it all. No mater what words, bad arguments, and ridiculous logic you use eternity is more profound than a blink of geological time. It would do you more credit to have edited your claims that to go down with the ship by defending the indefensible. Pride is not anyone's friend.

And again, eternity only matters if you're going to live for eternity. Until it's proven that there is in fact an afterlife to prepare for, real life issues are definitely more important. I don't see what's so ridiculous about believing the only life I'm guaranteed to have should be lived in comfort and as much happiness as possible.

I do not think so. I almost always debate issues not people. The guy who argues for imposing death on a fetus without it's consent can't turn around and complain when someone has the unmitigated gall to force you respect that human being's life (born or not). Even if I had argued for what you state here I would have been for "imposing life" you are for "imposing death". To make it worse the one imposing death is telling the one who may or may not be imposing life that he is out of bounds. Good night nurse, is that is messed up. It is bad enough that secularism creates moral chaos but it becomes obscene what it is not admitted and chaos is redefined as good. That is of course what happens when morality is ripped from it's Godly foundations. It becomes as ambiguous as the opinions it is now based on.

The one telling me to respect human life should want equal rights for everyone that's alive... Just saying.
And "godly foundations" for morality only exist in the minds of people who believe in God. I regret to inform you that your god is not actually the final authority on anything.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Was that really worth typing?

You totally just made it worthwhile

 

[1robin]

You totally just made it worthwhile

I see. So the amount of work that your posts can make someone else respond with and not effectiveness as it applies to the argument is your goal.

 

[garrydons]

shalom. I dont want to say any comment about Mohammed but try to study for yourself if who really he is. th
ere are lots of references.

 

[1robin]

Heaven is only important to people that believe it exists. I am not one of those people; I don't believe we spend eternity anywhere. So yes, eating is a lot more important to me than being "good enough" to enter this fantasy land...

Whether you believe in something has nothing to do with that subjects importance. What is important to you was not the point. What subject is the most important in general was.

Let me get this straight... I don't take the superstitious babbling of ignorance from millenia past as the absolute truth based on insufficient evidence, and because there's as small a chance of it being true as there is of finding a unicorn, I'm the one with the fallacious logic?:areyoucra
PS- Michael Jackson certainly did not rise from the dead.

Whether you believe in something has nothing to do with that subjects importance. How did Michael Jackson become relevant to your case? Was the kitchen sink unavailable. There is no basis for declaring spirit truths have little chance of being true. Christianity grows by the equivalent population of Nevada each year, it is hardly a faith of only millennia past.

This is just an overall ridiculous statement... Public education and hospitals existed LONG before Christianity did. Charities that don't do things "in the name of Jesus" are just as effective as those that do. The US was NOT built on Christian ideals, regardless of the religions of our founding fathers (who were more culturally religious than actual practicing Christians), and to say it was is false.

First I was discussing this country. Second it does not matter what occurred first. Third Christianity is a component of the MOST charitable demographic in the most charitable country on Earth. Fourth the US was most certainly built on faith based ideals. What did Jefferson say was the only basis of our rights God or atheist psychobabble?

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
- John Adams
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
― George Washington
What about the most famous speech ever written?
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Lincoln
Gettysburg Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On what basis can the nation who has scripture carved into the walls of it's capitol be said to be non-Christian?

And again, eternity only matters if you're going to live for eternity. Until it's proven that there is in fact an afterlife to prepare for, real life issues are definitely more important. I don't see what's so ridiculous about believing the only life I'm guaranteed to have should be lived in comfort and as much happiness as possible.

That is as ridiculous as saying a cure for cancer is only important if you believe in it and it is proven to exist. You must think a debate is similar to tennis, as long as you get something (no matter how ineffective) across the net you are still alive. What you believe has nothing to do with what is important and I never said anything about your comfort not being important (however by your logic it isn't because it is not important to me).

The one telling me to respect human life should want equal rights for everyone that's alive... Just saying.

What on Earth inspired you to type this? We have not been discussing rights.

And "godly foundations" for morality only exist in the minds of people who believe in God. I regret to inform you that your god is not actually the final authority on anything.

You can't know a single thing you stated here even if true. God is the final authority if he exists. As a concept he is the final authority. It is your turn to say whatever is necessary to lob a meaningless shot back over the net. This however is getting way off the subject and talking with a person who will not concede the slightest and most obvious point never ends.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I see. So the amount of work that your posts can make someone else respond with and not effectiveness as it applies to the argument is your goal.

Exactly what kind of response were you expecting from this?

 

[illykitty]

Can this actually return to the subject of Muhammad? The few last posts are a bit off topic, no?

I think he was a great man, totally going against his culture to make things better. He had great courage that's for sure.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Whether you believe in something has nothing to do with that subjects importance. What is important to you was not the point. What subject is the most important in general was.

Because whatever's most important to you is obviously the most important thing in general ... I think starving children would be more excited to see a bag of food than to hear that they might go to heaven if they're good.

Whether you believe in something has nothing to do with that subjects importance. How did Michael Jackson become relevant to your case? Was the kitchen sink unavailable. There is no basis for declaring spirit truths have little chance of being true. Christianity grows by the equivalent population of Nevada each year, it is hardly a faith of only millennia past.

Believing in something has everything to do with its importance. Michael Jackson was the most famous person to ever live. Bet you can find more people that know the words to 5 Michael Jackson songs than know 5 things that Jesus said. There is plenty basis to say "spirit truths" have little chance of being true, as there is absolutely no evidence to prove them, and only anecdotal babbling to support them. The number of people that believe in ancient superstition doesn't change the fact that it was written thousands of years ago when people didn't know anything.

On what basis can the nation who has scripture carved into the walls of it's capitol be said to be non-Christian?

On the basis that there is no official national religion, and that there are just as many quotes by founding fathers denouncing religion.

That is as ridiculous as saying a cure for cancer is only important if you believe in it and it is proven to exist. You must think a debate is similar to tennis, as long as you get something (no matter how ineffective) across the net you are still alive. What you believe has nothing to do with what is important and I never said anything about your comfort not being important (however by your logic it isn't because it is not important to me).

Cancer is proven to exist. More than you can say for an eternal afterlife.

What on Earth inspired you to type this? We have not been discussing rights.

I was referring to your condemnation of homosexuality and abortion. You speak of the value of life, then say gay people don't deserve sex lives and women don't deserve to decide what happens to their bodies. I'd show you where you said these things, but I know you'll invoke forum rules and get the post deleted to save face.

You can't know a single thing you stated here even if true. God is the final authority if he exists. As a concept he is the final authority. It is your turn to say whatever is necessary to lob a meaningless shot back over the net. This however is getting way off the subject and talking with a person who will not concede the slightest and most obvious point never ends.

The operative phrase being "if he exists". If cows are sacred you shouldn't eat beef. Are you supposed to drop your hamburger in shame upon seeing this statement?

Then why expect anyone to accept God and his morality as the authority on anything?

 

[1robin]

Exactly what kind of response were you expecting from this?

If you can't be effective I insist you be humorous and you have done so. I prefer this to your argumentation. It is a funny picture but is there anything beyond that. I do not get the relevance of the cat.

 

[1robin]

Can this actually return to the subject of Muhammad? The few last posts are a bit off topic, no?

I think he was a great man, totally going against his culture to make things better. He had great courage that's for sure.

I agree it is off topic. I have the bad habit of going where the discussion leads but if you will notice I mentioned the fact it was getting off topic in my last post to I.S.L.A.M. BTW I have posted exhaustive accounts of Muhammad's all too human killings in many posts here. No one has even attempted an effective response. Care to try? Courage is not a rare commodity and certainly not proof of goodness. How much courage does it take to behead bound Jews until your exhausted anyway? How much courage does it take to kill female and elderly poets who wrote unflattering things about Muhammad? It does take extreme courage to forgive those that are killing you on a cross as Christ did however.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you can't be effective I insist you be humorous and you have done so. I prefer this to your argumentation. It is a funny picture but is there anything beyond that. I do not get the relevance of the cat.

That is Grumpy Cat. He is one of the most popular memes on the internet. His real name is Tartar Sauce and he is dwarf cat which left his face sort of disfigured giving him a permanent frown

 

[Sha'irullah]

I agree it is off topic. I have the bad habit of going where the discussion leads but if you will notice I mentioned the fact it was getting off topic in my last post to I.S.L.A.M. BTW I have posted exhaustive accounts of Muhammad's all too human killings in many posts here. No one has even attempted an effective response. Care to try? Courage is not a rare commodity and certainly not proof of goodness. How much courage does it take to behead bound Jews until your exhausted anyway? How much courage does it take to kill female and elderly poets who wrote unflattering things about Muhammad? It does take extreme courage to forgive those that are killing you on a cross as Christ did however.

I love the contradiction between ahadith and Qur'an. The fact you base your understanding of Muhammad from these chains of idiotic tales is humorous.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If you can't be effective I insist you be humorous and you have done so. I prefer this to your argumentation. It is a funny picture but is there anything beyond that. I do not get the relevance of the cat.

I could have God come down from the sky and tell you he agrees with me and you'd still drum up half a page worth of text as to why it was ineffective. In the end we'll just have to agree to disagree on, well... everything.

 

[1robin]

Because whatever's most important to you is obviously the most important thing in general ... I think starving children would be more excited to see a bag of food than to hear that they might go to heaven if they're good.

To the first no it is not. To the second they receive thousands of tons of food based on faith alone so you are caught coming and going. I know missionaries that do this in Africa. They have all but given it up because every well they dig is full of human waste when they return. The local gang kingpins steal the food that we give and the non-theistic liberals won't let us kill them. What does get through has only made the population we have to feed grow three times larger. So food is only making the problem worse. Even a prominent non-theist (forget his name) said these people need the gospel, not food. So if you think what is increasing the problem more important than what built the greatest nation on Earth (which is feeding them) then that is your burden to bare out.

Believing in something has everything to do with its importance. Michael Jackson was the most famous person to ever live. Bet you can find more people that know the words to 5 Michael Jackson songs than know 5 things that Jesus said.

That is not true. Christ in the most well known person in history. I think even Muhammad Ali is more well known than MJ. Not that any of this makes any difference.

There is plenty basis to say "spirit truths" have little chance of being true, as there is absolutely no evidence to prove them, and only anecdotal babbling to support them.

That has no application on whether they are true or not even if what you said was true, which it isn't. Exactly what probability does healing the blind have and how where did you get the number? I have had three semesters of probability and there exists no equations for that purpose. It is a waste of time to give evidence to someone who's views are based in preference but I will give just a few. Science is said many times to be the effort to decode the intelligence from nature. Who put it in there? The Fibonacci series appears constantly in nature. Is it more likely blind chance built natural mechanics based on exact and explicit mathematic relationships or that an intelligent and intentional being did? Is it more likely nature produced it's self or that something beyond nature did? If you type in documented miracles you get 1,630,000 hits. Far from no evidence. How about instead of your preference based opinion on Gospel testimony we use the official determination of two of histories if not histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst). They draw the opposite conclusion from yours and unlike yours are imminently qualified to make them.

The number of people that believe in ancient superstition doesn't change the fact that it was written thousands of years ago when people didn't know anything.

On what irrational basis did they not know anything? They had laid out much of the mathematics for planetary motion, built pyramids using algebra 2000 years prior to Christ, and those ignorant Hebrews knew that channels and springs lie at the bottom of the ocean and sanitation combats disease (something most modern scientists did not know in the 1800's and tens of thousands died because of it).

On the basis that there is no official national religion, and that there are just as many quotes by founding fathers denouncing religion.

I gave quotes by the most influential people as it concerns our foundations indicating specifically that their faith was the basis for the systems they created to govern and their governance themselves. No quote you refer to even if there are some has as great an impact or relevance as the ones I gave.

Cancer is proven to exist. More than you can say for an eternal afterlife.

I was not discussing cancer but in keeping with your errant analogy Cancer and guilt are both just as real. The remedy for both whether it even existed or not would be profound though the cure for eternal guilt by far the most important. So even in your misuse of my statements you still have no point.

I was referring to your condemnation of homosexuality and abortion. You speak of the value of life, then say gay people don't deserve sex lives and women don't deserve to decide what happens to their bodies. I'd show you where you said these things, but I know you'll invoke forum rules and get the post deleted to save face.

I never used the word deserved in either context. Deserve has not the slightest thing to do with anything. Things are either based on sound moral logic or not. Things either produce massive suffering without any corresponding gain that justifies their practice. When your views require you to defend the right to kill unborn human lives in the hundreds of millions or to defend a practice that causes massive increases in suffering and costs billions you might want to rethink that view. It those are defended by your views what couldn't be? Is anything wrong enough that even if desired it would still be condemned in your view?

The operative phrase being "if he exists". If cows are sacred you shouldn't eat beef. Are you supposed to drop your hamburger in shame upon seeing this statement?

Your side actually makes a very similar claim. You claim human being have a right to eat cows even though without God there is no basis for that claim. Can you defend you right to basically enslave then kill and eat another biological anomaly that is of no less "value" that you are without God? That is not morality it is speciesm. With God everything works and moral justification actually exists for morals you simply assume without any basis are true. With God we have harmony and a coherence of nature.

Then why expect anyone to accept God and his morality as the authority on anything?

Where exactly did I ask anyone to do that? I am arguing for what the most morally responsible decision on abortion is or what foundation morals have given world views.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

This is what you're doing to me...

 

[1robin]

That is Grumpy Cat. He is one of the most popular memes on the internet. His real name is Tartar Sauce and he is dwarf cat which left his face sort of disfigured giving him a permanent frown

Well he certainly is a funny looking feline but what applicability does he have concerning Christ or is what is seen the sum total of what is available? It is funny but I was wondering if there were more to the story?

 

[1robin]

I love the contradiction between ahadith and Qur'an. The fact you base your understanding of Muhammad from these chains of idiotic tales is humorous.

You need to explain further. What contradiction is there between the Quran and Hadith and what does that have to do with me? Are you saying there exists another and better source of information than the Quran and Hadith for Muhammad. He has not been the source of much in secular history but what exists is far less flattering than the Quran. Would you prefer it instead? I swear it is impossible to figure what is ok to use to critique Islam. I have even seen a Muslim apologist say one part of a sentence was reliable but the other was not. It seems that for Islam whatever is convenient is reliable and whatever isn't is not. I have even heard two Muslim debaters say as much as for what parts of the Bible are corrupt. Some scholarship.

 

[1robin]

This is what you're doing to me...

I see posters have taken the place of even the attempt at argumentation. I had someone use nothing but emoticons for replies to several people once. So you don't get the coveted worst argument title, yet. But good effort though.

 

[1robin]

I could have God come down from the sky and tell you he agrees with me and you'd still drum up half a page worth of text as to why it was ineffective. In the end we'll just have to agree to disagree on, well... everything.

Why did you bring up something that will not happen (and can't happen given your views) to illustrate how unreasonable I am? Strange tactic. In the end we may disagree but your side will still be erring on the side of death and mine life for abortion and arguing for a practice that leads to massive increases in suffering and costs billions (even for those who do not practice homosexuality) without any corresponding gain in return so I feel very comfortable on my side of the impenetrable barrier you claim exists. Oh and Muhammad was not a good man IMO (to satisfy the thread police).

 

[Sha'irullah]

You need to explain further. What contradiction is there between the Quran and Hadith and what does that have to do with me? Are you saying there exists another and better source of information than the Quran and Hadith for Muhammad. He has not been the source of much in secular history but what exists is far less flattering than the Quran. Would you prefer it instead? I swear it is impossible to figure what is ok to use to critique Islam. I have even seen a Muslim apologist say one part of a sentence was reliable but the other was not. It seems that for Islam whatever is convenient is reliable and whatever isn't is not. I have even heard two Muslim debaters say as much as for what parts of the Bible are corrupt. Some scholarship.

You can find peace with other religions in the Qur'an and war in the ahadith or a mixture of both. You can state Muhammad did this or that yet any narration can alter this.
I would not even remotely call anything based from 10-15 generation narrations accurate .
I can started pulling out some nasty ahadith right now based from primary books of the Kittab al-Sittah collection Sahih Bukhari.

Are you even aware of the time lapse between the collections?