Yemeni child bride dies after internal bleeding on marriage night

[Monotheist 101]

I think you have proved your bias well enough with you words, I need make no argument to show that you are biased.

Highly biased I might add.:yes:

 

[1robin]

Highly biased I might add.:yes:

I would expect nothing less from a response from your side. The whole world is biased against poor old Islam I guess.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Your fighting an fighting an uphill battle with no gun Rick

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick
I'm still waiting for you to explain why God's promise to Haggar is lesser than God's promise to Abraham.

Do you really believe any of God's promises are greater than others?

From Abraham and Sarah we have Jesus.

From Abraham and Haggar we have Mohammad.

I guess I just thought 1robin might read all of the Bible and understand if the Bible is perfect, then he would realise that Allah and God the creator are one and the same. Jesus called his father Allah.

I was also hoping he might read Genesis 20 - 22 and realise that Mohhammad came from Abraham just like Jesus came from Abraham.

Two promises where made by God back then. :slap:

If the Bible is perfect and God/Allah, (one and the same) are perfect, then so are ALL of Gods promises.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You know the Bible was not originally written in English right 1robin?

Jesus did not speak English right?

You cling to the King James version, you know that bi-sexual dude who made it possible for you to even read what Allah and Jesus even said.

 

[1robin]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick
I'm still waiting for you to explain why God's promise to Haggar is lesser than God's promise to Abraham.

Do you really believe any of God's promises are greater than others?

From Abraham and Sarah we have Jesus.

From Abraham and Haggar we have Mohammad.

I guess I just thought 1robin might read all of the Bible and understand if the Bible is perfect, then he would realise that Allah and God the creator are one and the same. Jesus called his father Allah.

I was also hoping he might read Genesis 20 - 22 and realise that Mohhammad came from Abraham just like Jesus came from Abraham.

Two promises where made by God back then. :slap:

If the Bible is perfect and God/Allah, (one and the same) are perfect, then so are ALL of Gods promises.

Oh, sorry I forgot Rick. I will tell you what I remember. If you wish to get into details we can get far more technical. The original covenant was made with Abraham and his chosen offspring. Ismael was a child of sin and not the line that would inherit that covenant. God in his mercy did not deny Ishmael for what sins his parents committed and did bless him but not with that covenant. It was what the Jews called the left hand blessing. The right hand blessing was usually given to the first born but as Ishmael was not legitimate (not sure what the right word should be) it passed to Isaac. The right hand first son issue was very important and as Esau found out. Ishmael's blessing was not a covenant in the way Isaac's was. It was more of a blessing and promise of a nation arising from him. Isaacs was that plus issues concerning revelation, prophets, and the Messiah. Notice also that Ishmael's people were to be wild and would trouble their brothers for a very long time and have done so. Notice also the line of prophets did not go through Ishmael but only Isaac. I will wait to see what you disagree with or add before giving verses and details. Ishmael did not receive the covenant established through Abraham.


I have no idea what you mean by a greater promise. Some of his promises concerned greater things yes. They were equally true if that is what you mean.

I know Muhammad claimed to be from Ismael's line but I have never seen any proof that was true and it is not much help if it is. Ismael's people were to be a great nation (they might be considered that) and they were to be a wild *** of a people and trouble their brothers continuously and they have been that.

I do not believe there is the slightest chance that Allah and God are the same being. For goodness sakes they can't even agree if Jesus died on the cross. The Quran and the Bible have countless mutually exclusive claims to absolute truth. It is impossible both are right by the laws of logic. I regret very much you think this as it can't be true.

I have no reason to deny Muhammad came from Abraham nor any reason to think that even makes possible his prophet hood or means he was good, of God, or anything but a common tyrant with a theological bent.

Yes two promises were made. No they were not equal.

The last sentence is based on a very false premise so is incorrect in my and many others view.

 

[1robin]

You know the Bible was not originally written in English right 1robin?

Jesus did not speak English right?

You cling to the King James version, you know that bi-sexual dude who made it possible for you to even read what Allah and Jesus even said.

Oh come off the derogatory insinuations Rick. Not what I expect from even a former reverend. I use more arguments that concern original language use than anyone I personally have debated. I have insisted countless times that a first stop should always be a concordance. Just review what I have posted. I do not cling to any version and have do not have any special affection for the king James (I actually like it less than most). In fact I almost always post NIV because it is listed first in the Biblical versions at the sites I use. I have not the slightest idea what caused you to post a single thing you did here and am very disappointed in what they seem to be motivated by. Let me ask you something and of course you have the right not to answer. Are you born again? Why do you think so or not? I take it you used to be a reverend, what caused that to come to an end?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Allah and God the father the all creator are one and the same. Jews and Muslims see eye to eye right up to Noah's flood.

You believe Noah spoke to God as do the Muslims. I'm sorry, but Allah is God the father.

Where we have issues is, I believe Jesus is the son of God, not God himself.

Please tell me how you sit at the right hand of yourself, or cry out to your father saying, "Forgive them father, they know not what they do. Jesus was worried what his father might do.

Would you call out to yourself worring what you might do yourself?

Jesus and God are at one together in heaven and when you pray to Jesus, he is an intersessor to the father.

Muslims pray straight to the father. They call him Allah which is what Jesus called his father.

Lastly, I still am a Reverend, please tell me you are not judging me.

Thanks for replying 1robin.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Another way to think about it, "No one comes to the father but through the Son"

Can you say, no one comes to me but through me?

An Additional way to ponder, "Don't pray to me pray to me!"

1+1+1 does not equal 1.

Lastly, why would God the father not want to be worshiped any more or prayed to? Yes, we can pray to the Son or in his name, but God still hears our prayers and would not take offense to being prayed to directly.

I believe having a relationship with God is important. Jesus did not remove this relationship.

 

[nash8]

Do you mean to say only Quranists are Muslims?

No true scotsman?

No, you can follow Hadith and still be a Muslim, but if you used Hadith to justify something that is not strictly supported in the Quran, then that doctrine which you are supporting with sources outside of the Quran, is not an Islamic Doctrine.

And as far as the Scotsman goes, I am more arging "no Scotsman" as opposed to no true scotsman. If you have no criteria to judge whether someone is or is not something, other then by what they claim to be, the a true Scotsman would be any person who claimed to be a "true Scotsman", and in that regard, I am a nuclear physicist.

I would provide what you asked if we were discussing the Bible. These posts are already too long and this thread is about Islamic issues or has been. My thinking the Bible is more accurate is part scholarship and part faith. The point is you have no basis for insisting I use the Quran as the most reliable source unless you can prove it is more reliable than the source I actually used. I would never do that with someone who criticizes the Bible unless I demonstrate why their source is invalid or less valid. I have to spend far too much time in a Islamic debate talking about the Bible. How does that always happen. It is one long I know you are but what am I debate.

I was not insisting that you used the Quran, I'm insisting that Muslims use the Quran. And that it is the most reliable source for all things regarding the religion of Islam.

Only a lazy or incorrect person uses an emoticon where an argument is supposed to be. I and many debaters I know have found that the amount of emoticons and abbreviations for pop cultural sayings corresponds with the lack of merit in claims that seldom even appear. Have you ever seen professional scholars using emoticons or LOL's?

Well I am admittedly a tad bit lazy, but you will notice that I always issue an argument before my emotion use.

I forgot you were the masterdebater, and I can't use LOL in my responses. I just wan't to demonstrate how humurous I find many of your arguments.

Have you ever heard of the term Mut'ah'? Include what follows as part of my response to Muhammad and Aisha's age thing.

Yes, and I don't see how the term relates to anything in this debate.

The only shortcoming with the above analogy is that the Quran does allow for the raping and divorcing of young, prepubescent girls. It even has the audacity to call this marriage:
O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God's bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass… As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint for him, of His command, easiness. S. 65:1, 4 Arberry
The waiting period for the divorcing of women who haven’t even menstruated is three months, showing that these aren’t even women but are young girls who haven’t even attained puberty! Now a woman can only be divorced if she was first married, so it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married and divorced and remarry before they reach puberty. Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she is to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this verse presupposes that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual intercourse with them.

This article starts off by claiming that the Quran allows rape of young girls, then says in the same paragraph that the Quran "presupposes" it. Last time I checked allowing and presupposing something are not the same. Also, I don't see that these verses say anything about childe marriage, nor raping girls. I see it lining out the rules for a divorce, which I beleive to be pretty decent considering the treatment of women during the world at that time.
Surat At-Talaq - The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

Al Bukari is the primary source on Aisha's age, as he claimed was given be her herself. Do you not accept his work?

Honestly, I probably do think Aisha was younger than we would accept today. Hell, it was ok for girls to get married at age 12 100 years ago in America. I am arguing that if it is not explicity written in the Quran, it is not Allah's revealed word, and is therefore not a part of Islam.

Yes it is. If you wish to get into textual criticism I can list the many ways why it is pathetic. I can debate Muhammad, the Quran, Aisha the Bible or the gnostic and heretical texts if you wish. I will not debate them all at the same time. I did not violate my rules. I said when used against the Bible I tell why it isn't as reliable. You have not done so, as I am the one that brought up the GOT. So no rule was violated at all. If you had used GOT I would have posted far more than emoticons in explaining why it is not as reliable as the Bible, you didn't. If you keep up this level of hostility and frustration you are not going to make it to the end of the debate.

I would love to debate you on the "heretical texts".

I didn't know LOL, was the consensus sign for hostility and frustration. Oh, if I can only make it through the rest of this debate.

Sura 5:50:"And let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious."

Judge what? The weather, sports, or what Muhammad had created.

You judge everything by what God has revealed, if you follow that faith.

No I have studied that Gospel quite a bit and it is almost universally termed not to be inspired. There is a graduate student in this forum I can find if you want more info or I can post it.

Wow, so there's actualy people that decide what was inspired by God and what was not. Yeah get that graduate student, and will debate on the criteria for defining what is and what is not inspired by God.

Look I can get deep into GOT, or any one of the other issues you bring up. However when I have to go fix a hundred very complex engineering problems my lab generates all day I can't find time to debate half a dozen and do any of them justice. Just pick one and we can get deep into it. I feel like I only have time to barely get a point or two out for each thing you bring up before time constraints compel me to move on. That is not how I like to debate. Pick you best or worst and we can stick with it until resolved or no hope exists for it to be resolved. I just can't halfway discuss ten topics.

Not my fault your to busy to discuss these things, you brought em up not me. I'm just arguing that if it's not in the Quran it's not an inherently Islamic doctrine.

That sounds like some philosophers paradox tongue twister or something. It also sounds like it says it doesn't. I am not saying you have to use the Quran but if you don't it says your wrong. That is circular. Pick a favorite and we can get into it but I just can't bounce around this much.

Well I am a paradoxical philospher so it would make sense that you took it that way.

I do not know about Muslims but there are true Christians. If there exists a objective line that separates Christians from non-Christians as most of the Bible emphatically suggests how can Scotsman fallacies be relevant for Christianity at least. Islam is an intellectual consent to a historical and theological proposition so I can see the ambiguity there but Christians are made that way by God in an instant of time. Scotsman are not.

What is the line that seperates Christians from non-Christians? Islam is an intellectual consent to a historical and theological proposistion, yet Christianity is not. Lol, wow. Best refutation of the true Scotsman argument I have ever seen.

Highly biased I might add.:yes:

Nah, never.

 

[1robin]

Allah and God the father the all creator are one and the same. Jews and Muslims see eye to eye right up to Noah's flood.

You believe Noah spoke to God as do the Muslims. I'm sorry, but Allah is God the father.

Where we have issues is, I believe Jesus is the son of God, not God himself.

Please tell me how you sit at the right hand of yourself, or cry out to your father saying, "Forgive them father, they know not what they do. Jesus was worried what his father might do.

Would you call out to yourself worring what you might do yourself?

Jesus and God are at one together in heaven and when you pray to Jesus, he is an intersessor to the father.

Muslims pray straight to the father. They call him Allah which is what Jesus called his father.

Lastly, I still am a Reverend, please tell me you are not judging me.

Thanks for replying 1robin.

If they do think the same up until Noah's flood that leaves almost every important point out. The only difference necessary to know they are not from the same God is that one says Christ died for our sins on the cross and the other says he did not. It is impossible one benevolent God said both. One malevolent God could have. There are almost an infinite amount of discrepancies left unmentioned but only that one is necessary. I am not morally judging you, I am trying to figure out why it is you think differently that the vast majority of Christians yet claim to be a reverend. I am unqualified to make moral judgments of the kind you were thinking. I make judgments about truth. I can debate any of your comments you wish but as only the one I mentioned is enough let's start there. By the way are you choosing not to answer my born again question of forgot? Either way is fine but you are confusing.

 

[1robin]

Another way to think about it, "No one comes to the father but through the Son"

Can you say, no one comes to me but through me?

An Additional way to ponder, "Don't pray to me pray to me!"

1+1+1 does not equal 1.

Lastly, why would God the father not want to be worshiped any more or prayed to? Yes, we can pray to the Son or in his name, but God still hears our prayers and would not take offense to being prayed to directly.

I believe having a relationship with God is important. Jesus did not remove this relationship.

Is this a Trinitarian argument? Is it intended for me? Why? Were you satisfied with my covenant post?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If they do think the same up until Noah's flood that leaves almost every important point out. The only difference necessary to know they are not from the same God is that one says Christ died for our sins on the cross and the other says he did not. It is impossible one benevolent God said both. One malevolent God could have. There are almost an infinite amount of discrepancies left unmentioned but only that one is necessary. I am not morally judging you, I am trying to figure out why it is you think differently that the vast majority of Christians yet claim to be a reverend. I am unqualified to make moral judgments of the kind you were thinking. I make judgments about truth. I can debate any of your comments you wish but as only the one I mentioned is enough let's start there. By the way are you choosing not to answer my born again question of forgot? Either way is fine but you are confusing.

Yes, I accept that, I am confusing.

I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior as a child. I follow Jesus so I call myself a Christian. I work hard to save souls which is my ultimate goal in life, to bring people to Christ.

That said, I do not think the written word of man is perfect. In other words, I don't believe the Bible is without error.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus and I believe Paul lied about his experience on the road to Damascus. Everything Luke wrote others told him, so it is all second hand experiences.

I follow James, Peter and John mostly. I don't believe God wants us to ignore the law.

Do you really want to be eating a pork chop when Jesus returns?

I believe we are saved by grace and I know my best works are nothing but filthy rags, but the law is still the law. We should try to observe the law, but when we stumble, Jesus paid the price for our sins and we are forgiven.

I don't believe the Muslims are perfect and have everything right either. I do however know they are praying to the Father, that is the biggest point I was trying to make.

Man has been perverting religion almost from the very beginning to achieve their advantages.

I pray to God to lead me in the right direction.

Right now in so many churches people are divorced and remarried. That is directly ignoring what the Bible says but is swept under the rug.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Is this a Trinitarian argument? Is it intended for me? Why? Were you satisfied with my covenant post?

I don't' believe we are under a new covenant, I believe Jesus died for our sins and paid the price. God did not change the rules other than we do not have to sacrifice to be forgiven any more.

God gave his only Son proving he is not a hypocrite when he tested Abraham. Jesus is Messiah IMHO.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I accept that, I am confusing.

Well that is refreshing. Logic is a rare commodity.

I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior as a child. I follow Jesus so I call myself a Christian. I work hard to save souls which is my ultimate goal in life, to bring people to Christ.

I will operate in the understanding you sincerely meant this and were born again. Thanks for the answer.

That said, I do not think the written word of man is perfect. In other words, I don't believe the Bible is without error.

Neither do I. I believe the revelation was perfect but Man made mistakes along the way. 5% at the worst and we know virtually all the mistakes that exist.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus and I believe Paul lied about his experience on the road to Damascus. Everything Luke wrote others told him, so it is all second hand experiences.

I agree about Luke. I do not agree about Paul. We can't know for certain but the vast majority of the evidence is in Paul's favor and everything he ever did is consistent with it.

I follow James, Peter and John mostly. I don't believe God wants us to ignore the law.

I do not ignore the law. It actually got amplified in the NT. I strongly disagree with your rejection of Paul. However the law was to point out our failures and has no power whatever to save. Grace and grace alone can do that.

Do you really want to be eating a pork chop when Jesus returns?

I do not think about pork very much. Many OT injunctions had practice and temporary reasons. Pork could not be cooked properly back then and it has a unique disease when not cooked thoroughly. I will be saved when Christ returns even if I am is a pool of BBQ ribs. He forgave all sin not all sin but pork. That sound like the "look busy Jesus is coming" joke. BTW what law was nailed to the cross?

I believe we are saved by grace and I know my best works are nothing but filthy rags, but the law is still the law. We should try to observe the law, but when we stumble, Jesus paid the price for our sins and we are forgiven.

I agree 100% but Islam doesn't.

I don't believe the Muslims are perfect and have everything right either. I do however know they are praying to the Father, that is the biggest point I was trying to make.

If that father said Jesus did not deny on the cross that is a perfect example of what the Bible claims will be true about the anti-Christ and is 100% contradictory to what the Bible says. There are hundreds of these mutually exclusive claims Islam makes. They can't possibly be from the same source or that source is unworthy of worship.

Man has been perverting religion almost from the very beginning to achieve their advantages.

However God is able to keep that which is necessary in tact. Not one central doctrine in the Bible contains one of the errors I mentioned above. A large part of the Quran is almost word for word from pagan, heretical, and gnostic texts that existed before Muhammad. These are not equal texts even if they both contain error.

I pray to God to lead me in the right direction.

Nothing wrong there, maybe this is an answer to that prayer though I feel very unworthy if it is.

Right now in so many churches people are divorced and remarried. That is directly ignoring what the Bible says but is swept under the rug.

That has been hotly debated for a long time and I do not have the answer. I have never done either so I have little interest. I am not a big fan of many churches and even Christians. I defend God and the Bible and condemn that which it does primarily.

 

[1robin]

I don't' believe we are under a new covenant, I believe Jesus died for our sins and paid the price. God did not change the rules other than we do not have to sacrifice to be forgiven any more.

God gave his only Son proving he is not a hypocrite when he tested Abraham. Jesus is Messiah IMHO.

King James Bible
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

26:26-30 This ordinance of the Lord's supper is to us the passover supper, by which we commemorate a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. Take, eat; accept of Christ as he is offered to you; receive the atonement, approve of it, submit to his grace and his government. Meat looked upon, be the dish ever so well garnished, will not nourish; it must be fed upon: so must the doctrine of Christ. This is my body; that is, spiritually, it signifies and represents his body. We partake of the sun, not by having the sun put into our hands, but the beams of it darted down upon us; so we partake of Christ by partaking of his grace, and the blessed fruits of the breaking of his body. The blood of Christ is signified and represented by the wine. He gave thanks, to teach us to look to God in every part of the ordinance. This cup he gave to the disciples with a command, Drink ye all of it. The pardon of sin is that great blessing which is, in the Lord's supper, conferred on all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings. He takes leave of such communion; and assures them of a happy meeting again at last; Until that day when I drink it new with you, may be understood of the joys and glories of the future state, which the saints shall partake with the Lord Jesus. That will be the kingdom of his Father; the wine of consolation will there be always new. While we look at the outward signs of Christ's body broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sins, let us recollect that the feast cost him as much as though he had literally given his flesh to be eaten and his blood for us to drink.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
Hebrews 8 NIV - The High Priest of a New Covenant - Now - Bible Gateway

All Biblical covenants are ratified by blood. Jesus' blood established the new and current covenant.