/lit/ - Literature

>>22448530
The Qur'an is a very short read. I can summarize it here:
>God created humanity to know and worship Him
>He gave humanity free will and reason to choose between the straight path or the path of Satan, while God also predestines the end of every human through His absolute Will
>Satan wishes to prove man to be unworthy of heaven and of being viceregents of God, so Satan wishes to whisper into man's ear to lead him into ruin by neglecting worship, drinking alcohol etc

>Humanity always forgets their purpose, so God sends prophets from the line of Abraham. Before this, only the sons of Israel became prophets, but the Jews kept murdering prophets and worshiping idols, so when Allah sends Jesus to save the Israelites, they attempted to kill him, so Allah forsakes the Children of Israel for the Children of Ishmael

>Muhammad is a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael, the last prophet who shall spread his teachings throughout the whole world without discrimination, to warn about the End of Time, when Satan would delude humanity into worshiping the Antichrist, it would be the greatest trial of humanity. Jesus Christ would descend from heaven and kill the Antichrist, bringing the Kingdom of God to earth.

>All of humanity will be resurrected and would be judged by Allah to be worthy of paradise or hell, or the boundary between them

>You can't enter paradise and see God through labour, but only through God's mercy, that you try your best and repent your sins

>Morality is only determined by God

>>22448530
>angels, devils, free will, heaven, human nature, soul, prophetss, miracles, morals
>bells and whistles for mancildren
Just go out in the streets and kill children in the name of Moloch alreadt BC its good BC I told you so.
Fucking sage.

>>22448568
Disgusting

>>22448557
>The Qur'an is a very short read.
It's 400+ pages
>the rest
That just sounds very basic and simplistic

>>22448586
The Qur'an repeats itself a lot. Reading only the second chapter is sufficient

>That just sounds very basic and simplistic
You know what they say about idiots and complexity

>>22448593
I don't know what they say and I don't care. If you want to answer all hard questions of the world, you need a lot more details. Why is there evil in the world? Do they have a fall like in Christianity/Judaism? What happened before prophets? Is there both a Day of Judgement and a parttcular after personal death? Do they have Sacraments? Who decides on the correct interpretation? Ca you pray for the dead? Why does Satan exist? How do you repent? What about baptism? Ecclesiology?

>>22448602
>Why is there evil in the world?
To test us

>Do they have a fall like in Christianity/Judaism?
Yes, but the Qur'an makes it clear that Adam repented and a son does not inherit sins from the father, so no original sin

>What happened before prophets?
Adam was the first prophet, before adam, animals roamed the earth and incorporeal jinn who originally came from paradise

>Is there both a Day of Judgement and a parttcular after personal death?
Everyone will be judged on the Day of Resurrection and eveey deed will be made apparent. Before then, the dead or either in the grave or in heaven, those who died during war

>Do they have Sacraments?
Not in the Christian sense, a person enters Islam by acknowledging Allah as his God and Muhammad as his Prophet. Prayer is simply done and sometimes you can sacrifice animals and feed the poor with the meat

>Who decides on the correct interpretation?
The personal conscience of particular scholars. You are free to choose between them if you are a laymen, but if you yourself are a scholar, you can arbitrate yourself and pray to God you do not commit a mistake

>Ca you pray for the dead?
Only for the muslim dead

>Why does Satan exist?
He was one of the angels/jinn of paradise. Allah ordered the angels to prostrate themselves towards Adam, but Satan thought himself better than Adam because he was made from fire. So Satan made promise to God to prove that humanity isn't worth the dignity God has given them.

>How do you repent?
Be remorseful and ask for forgiveness to God in private. no need to tell everyone.

>What about baptism?
Jesus did do baptism, but it's not a part of Islam. You wash yourself 5 times a day before prayer, this is called ablution. Bathing after sex is mandatory to do pray

>Ecclesiology?
A strict hierarchy is not needed. You follow the caliph and if there isn't one (like now), just follow which scholar you think is best

>>22448623
I should also mention this: In understanding Islam, no one person or organisation has a monopoly on the truth. you should not follow a scholar who does not provide evidence and reasoning. Failing to do this and only blindly following, especially in theological matters, is sinful. Seeking knowledge is obligatory

>>22448623
>To test us
Why? He already has presciece about us anyway, why not just create us bettter and more resistant to temptations?
>Yes, but the Qur'an makes it clear that Adam repented and a son does not inherit sins from the father, so no original sin
But he still introduced death and sickness and altered human nature? We are just left with broken human nature forever now?
>Only for the muslim dead
I heard that in Islam prophets or people love by God can even save people from hell even if God condemned them?
>Allah ordered the angels to prostrate themselves towards Adam,
Why? Why is this not in the OT?
> So Satan made promise to God to prove that humanity isn't worth the dignity God has given them.
But Satan and his host of jinns will go to hell right? Why doesn't he repent?
> just follow which scholar you think is best
What a mess, sounds like the worst of protestantism. Everyone can do whatever.

>>22448636
>evidence and reasoning.
Judged by the falled nature of post-Adam man? Reason can fail you. Also is God transcendent or immanent or both? How do you deal with the essence-energy distinction? Does God only speak through prophets? There's no Holy Spirit, no energies, no direct mechanism for intervention?

>>22448661
>why not just create us bettter and more resistant to temptations?
The angels asks this question to God in the Qur'an. Allah says: I know what you do not know. Here's my speculation: We can only be so close to God, to be able to see and know Him, only because of the possibility of us falling to sin and ruin, without the negative, there wouldn't be the positive

>We are just left with broken human nature forever now?
The Qur'an says, when the Day of Resurrection comes, your life would feel as if it were just an hour in length, like waking up from a dream. All pain is to test us, make us rely on God, it rids us of sins and is a means for us to be forgiven.

>I heard that in Islam prophets or people love by God can even save people from hell even if God condemned them?
Only Allah has authority over that. There are many muslims who believe in intercession, but I'm inclined to say that it doesn't fit with the message of the Qur'an and hadith

>Why? Why is this not in the OT?
Becuase man was created in the image of God, he has been given free will to choose between good and bad, and we have the potential to be even closer to God than the angels. The angels have no choice. We on the other hand must choose the path of God on our own volition

>Why is this not in the OT?
Many possibilities. God only knows

>Why doesn't he repent?
That is Satan's nature. He is arrogant, he is the opposite of good, following him example instead of the example of the prophet will lead to hell, so Satan can only ever go to hell as the angels go to heaven.

>Everyone can do whatever.
Not exactly. If you believe or do something wrong, and a Muslim bro inquires you about it, your arguments will be btfo. Islam is like open source, because the discourse is so free, it's already in the best possible understanding it can be, starting from scratch will only make you look like an idiot. There is much disagreement, but these are negligible.

>>22448681
>Here's my speculation
>many muslims who believe in intercession, but I'm inclined to say that it doesn't fit with the message of the Qur'an and hadith
So people pick and choose what they believe regarding critical things about salvation
>The angels have no choice.
Sound like they did have a choice to refuse to bow to Adam...?
>That is Satan's nature.
Satan's nature, created by God, is evil? God created evil?
>Islam is like open source, because the discourse is so free, it's already in the best possible understanding it can be
So is Christianity and there's dozens of big faiths, so this argument doesn't hold.

>>22448666
>Reason can fail you
Yes, which is why the Qur'an was revealed in a simple language and understanding

>Also is God transcendent or immanent or both?
I'm not sure what you mean by these. But Allah does sustain everything continuously

>How do you deal with the essence-energy distinction?
I'm not learned on the matter, but it seems like a spook. God is just God

>Does God only speak through prophets? There's no Holy Spirit, no energies, no direct mechanism for intervention?
We are in a time when there are no prophets any more and no clear miracles. The only thing left of prophecy is dreams of glad tidings from Allah. We are led to believe, by the sahih hadith, that indeed God does still inspire through the Holy Spirit, the Angel Gabriel, as He inspires people to call to Islam and in writing of poetry.

Other than that, every single thing is in Allah's control at every time. So things that come at the right time that benefit you is Allah's glad tidings. Good omens are fine. Bad omens however are not a part of Islam, nor is astrology.

>>22448696
>So people pick and choose what they believe regarding critical things about salvation
Islam is based on reason and revelation. If you believe what you believe with no quarter to these two, you are sinful and a mere follower of your own desire.

>Sound like they did have a choice to refuse to bow to Adam...?
The issue of the free will of Angels and Satan is of dispute. It seems that the will of angels and Satan is less of that of humans. God knows best. What we know is whatever happens, it is God who ultimately decided, His Will is absolute

>Satan's nature, created by God, is evil? God created evil?
Yes, as God created darkness and light

>So is Christianity and there's dozens of big faiths, so this argument doesn't hold.
Christianity is not "open source". There is church authority, papal authority, ecumenical councils, church canon of which there is hardly any objective basis. Christianity does not like to be scrutinized.

>>22448704
>So things that come at the right time that benefit you is Allah's glad tidings.
What are glad tidings if not miracles? Why not still do miracles?

Ibn Tamiyyah Expounds on Islam is an anthology of fatwas by him. It's useful because it contrasts the multiple views on topics like divine command theory and occasionalism so it will give you a more textured view of Islam than most single volumes will

As for Jews, the book Jewish Literacy is generally the go to

>>22448709
>Islam is based on reason and revelation. If you believe what you believe with no quarter to these two, you are sinful and a mere follower of your own desire.
You said yourself people have different interpretations of a ton of things.
>The issue of the free will of Angels and Satan is of dispute.
Here it goes.
>It seems that the will of angels and Satan is less of that of humans.
So angels and ginies have a degree of free will then.
>What we know is whatever happens, it is God who ultimately decided, His Will is absolute
So they DON'T have any free will. This is just going in circles and it's definitely not based on reason.
>Yes, as God created darkness and light
Amazing, the God who is GOOD created Evil. I doubt that's Muslim theology, you must be misunderstanding your own religion. You keep posting contradictions and the claim it's all clear and logical.
>Christianity is not "open source". There is church authority, papal authority, ecumenical councils, church canon of which there is hardly any objective basis. Christianity does not like to be scrutinized.
Ever heard of Protestantism?

>>22448712
>What are glad tidings if not miracles?
They are little miracles, not those like the prophets'

>Why not still do miracles?
Because they attribute it to the person instead of God. Islam makes it clear that Jesus healed the sick only with God's permission. There are many 'healers' and 'miracle-workers' in both Christianity and Islam, I hardly see the followers of these people worship Allah, and attribute their good fortune to God, but to their saints and gurus, which is against Islam and some parts of the NT

>>22448720
So God decided to only do little miracles so people don't get dazzled?
>I hardly see the followers of these people worship Allah, and attribute their good fortune to God
All Christians attribute miracles to God (not to Allah). No one thinks Saints can do miracles without God, that's called magic and it's condemned.

>>22448718
>You said yourself people have different interpretations of a ton of things.
Any interpretation that is based on reason and revelation is fine if it is earnest and not too crazy. That is not to say that truth is subjective. There is one truth, but Islam naturally offers leniency in some parts of the religion by making some things ambiguous.

>So they DON'T have any free will.
Free will is not absolute will. Absolute will only belongs to God. Humans will, but are subject to the wills of others and of God. This does not mean the human doesn't will

>Amazing, the God who is GOOD created Evil
"God created everything". Thinking cancer comes from Satan or 'free will' is denial and cope. Everything is in God's control

>Ever heard of Protestantism?
This is just a reaction of Christianity's over institutionalization

>>22448729
>All Christians attribute miracles to God (not to Allah)
God is Allah. But that's good. We just don't agree that Jesus, a human, is God

>>22448732
>Any interpretation that is based on reason and revelation is fine if it is earnest and not too crazy.
So you don't care much about correctness then?
>Free will is not absolute will. Absolute will only belongs to God. Humans will, but are subject to the wills of others and of God. This does not mean the human doesn't will
We were talking about angels/genies... By the way what are genies? When were they created? Are they in OT? Are they related to angels or is it a completely different nature? Are they like the fallen angels/devils in Christanity in any way?
>"God created everything". Thinking cancer comes from Satan or 'free will' is denial and cope. Everything is in God's control
Cool, so God created evil creatures such as Satan which He'll punish for being evil (by design)?
>This is just a reaction of Christianity's over institutionalization
Irrelevant, it's "open source"
>>22448737
>We just don't agree that Jesus, a human, is God
You don't agree with a lot of things. You don't agree that God is good as you think he created evil, you think God doesn't do miracles anymore, you think human nature never got reconciled with God after the fall and we're all left to suffer death because Adam disobeyed, you seem to introduce a new type of beings (jinns), etc. I appreciate your answers though. I will have to leave for a bit.

>>22448557
>He gave humanity free will and reason to choose between the straight path or the path of Satan, while God also predestines the end of every human through His absolute Will

the logical fallacy in this sentence is wonderful

>>22448530
Check out Peter Adamson's history of philosophy with no gaps podcast. He has a whole section on Islamic theology and philosophy and covers a bunch of Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria (start here for the Jews) and Maimonadies. He doesn't really cover modern Jewish philosophy, but some stand outs are Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas. Judith Butler is also a Jew... of sorts, although her philosophy is hardly Jewish.

If you want to just read theology and philosophy, just read Avicenna, Ibn Arabi, and al-Ghazzali. Those are the three most influential in the Muslim world. For Jews, Philo and Maimonides as well as the Zohar.

>>22448789
>Philo
But that's already late Jewish philosophy heavily syncretized with Hellenism

>>22448789
>podcast
This is /lit/ bro are you lost?

>>22448530
The Message of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad (Leopold Weiss)

>>22449237
Most of us here read audio books bro

>>22448623
based warmonger obama, getting off scot-free

>>22450350
Edgy

>>22449665
>read audio books bro
go back 2 reddit

>>22448718
> Amazing, the God who is GOOD created Evil.
>>22448753
> You don't agree with a lot of things. You don't agree that God is good as you think he created evil,
Your confrontational posts sometimes suggest you’re speaking as a Christian (which I am unsure of, you might not be, but there are parts which seem as if from a pro-Christian anti-Islam perspective), but if it’s so in this case, it seems you made a misstep, as even in Isaiah 45:7 we read:

>I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

>>22448729
> All Christians attribute miracles to God (not to Allah).

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God.

>>22448753
NTA
>So you don't care much about correctness then?
We do, but there is only so much we can be certain for, so in these situations we go with the best that minds can offer, only Allah knows everything.

>Cool, so God created evil creatures such as Satan which He'll punish for being evil (by design)?
Yes, but the design isn't necessarily evil but a free will that chose evil

>You don't agree with a lot of things. You don't agree that God is good as you think he created evil, you think God doesn't do miracles anymore, you think human nature never got reconciled with God after the fall and we're all left to suffer death because Adam disobeyed, you seem to introduce a new type of beings (jinns), etc. I appreciate your answers though. I will have to leave for a bit.
We do think God is good, but we don't see evil as some standalone evil detached from anything and without source. Besides, God is above notions of good and evil as applied in a human sense.

>>22450461
NTA
>Isaiah 45:7
If you assume the polar opposite of good is evil then the polar opposite of God is Satan. So that isn't the case since the Father is all good. The 'evil' - comes from the Hebrew 'ra' which can be seen as adversity, or calamity in other verses and/or translations - that God creates is the judgments against the nations, and against people who sin; who turn to pagan idols, and turn away from Him. So the Lord brings peace (to the righteous) and brings calamity (to the unrighteous), according to His judgement.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary says, in regard to Isaiah 45:7:
“There is no God beside Jehovah. There is nothing done without him. He makes peace, put here for all good; and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment. He is the Author of all that is true, holy, good, or happy; and evil, error, and misery, came into the world by his permission, through the... apostacy of his creatures... (that) must not expect salvation without righteousness…”
That's basically the TLDR version of this:
https://www.eternalgod.org/q-a-14342/

>Allah is simply the Arabic word for God.
Allah is not the same as Almighty God in Christianity. See how Muslims have a lying tongue (permissable by taqiyya), hands that shed innocent blood, feet that be swift in running to mischief, false witness that speaks lies (also taqiyya), and he that sows discord among brethren. All of this was spoken of in Proverbs 6:16-19 as things the Lord hates and are abominable unto Him.

Goebblins got cucked by Hiter btw. No wonder he was into Christcuckery as well.

>Christianity is not a religion for the masses. Such a simply quote yet so retarded and braindead at the same time. Is that how he managed to cope with being part of the cattle? Is that how he coped with worshipping a dead jew on a stick?

>>22450461
>Isaiah 45:7
Let's stick to talking theology, not badly interpreting the scripture. So your God created evil. What are the Qu'ran verses confirming it?
>Allah is simply the Arabic word for God.
But we're talking in English, aren't we?

>>22450658
>but we don't see evil as some standalone evil detached from anything and without source.
Yes, the source is Allah, right? Do you have the Qu'ran verses confirming it?

>>22448769
This is just one of them. Im ex muslim so i know well. Did you know that Mohammad was flying on donkey and visited Allah? He fucked his stepsons wife. He married child. He recieved quran through psychosis but before that he tried to kill himself because he didn’t want to become that one schizo dude in neighbourhood…
Just by believing in all this religious bullshit you are a walking logical fallacy.

>>22448557
>MFW when I realize that alcohol disproves Islam
Surah Al-Imran Ayat 3 (3:3 Quran) - He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
Surah Al-an’am Ayat 115 (6:115 Quran) - And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
>Let's see what the Bible says about alcohol
Ecclesiastes 9:7 - Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
1 Timothy 5:23 - Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

lol

>>22451115
Don't Muslims say all the Bible stuff is corrupted?

>>22451146
The word of the Father is uncorrupted. What does the Quran say about the Bible? It says thay it's the previous revelation of God, it says that it's true and to believe it. Muslims say that the Bible is corrupted, but when asked "what does the Quran say about whether the words of Allah can be corrupted?" They'll say it cannot. That's the problem. If the Quran is true, the Bible is true. And because the Bible is true, the Quran is false.

>>22448586
>It's 400+ pages
That's pretty short

>>22451190
Well Mohammed wrote it down, Jesus didn't

>>22448530
Nobody really cares about Islam and Talmudic Judaism that much because they're false.
>Islam says kill or tax the infidels.
>Talmudic Judaism says non-Jews aren't even human.
It's obvious neither are from God.

>>22448623
Christianity doesn't have original sin, read Ezekiel 18. Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.

>>22450461
The evil God brings is a judgment against a people. You have to read in context.
Joel 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he [is] gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

>Allah is simply the Arabic word for God.
Stop being a sophist retard. Whenever anyone says "Allah" especially in the English-speaking world, they're referring to god of the quran which the quran shows is satan. Midwit retards like you should be castrated.

>>22451975
>pic
Bad argumet, Christ says call only Father good, that he doesn't know when the parousia will be, asks God why he abandoned him, etc. Embarrassing for Chriistians to resort to dishonest arguments.

>>22451956
>mohammad wrote it down
You got a source for that buddy?

>>22452043
That's ther theology idiot, this is a thread about theology not retarded interpretations from non-Muslims.

>>22451190
Do Muslims have the same concept of covenants that Jews and Christians have? Like they think that God has a singular plan that he holds humanity to, either just the one pact with the Jews or the Jewish-turned-universal pact of Christianity?

>>22452015
You can't earn heaven.

>>22452070
Wrong.
No Muslim claim mohammad wrote it down. It was recited and common Muslim thought holds that uthman collected what was written by various people across the caliphate.

>>22452070
>no source
Didn't think so.
They are similar
We only know what mohamamd said based on people heard from other people who heard from other people who were there

Similar to the bible. The gospels are written accounts of what somebody supposedly heard Jesus say.

>>22448530
>have easy and free access to the primary sources that are easy reads
>I rather read secondary sources
Are you a doofus?

>>22452097
>just read the primary sources bro
>every fucking modern retard is qualified to interpret thousands year old sacred books
>trust me bro look at what we achieved
Protestantism is a failed demonic religion.

>>22448530
Islam,
The Qu'ran comes closest to good instruction in human behavior (i.e. coming close to meeting the Roman Stoics) in things like "prohibition against backbiting and talebearing (i.e. gossip, libel, slander, false accusation)," which is significant (i forget whether this is Sura or Hadith, as it's been years since I've read it and don't have that bookcase within arms distance).

Islam is "okay" in that it's far closer to the original Roman polytheism (better in 'some' ways and worse in others) and was formed after witnessing the abuses of the Christian administrators (and the problems of forced conversion) when they took over the Roman Empire (there is a reason all Spain and Africa and Asia left the Romans) but its voluntarily adopted all of Judaism as its "spiritual ancestor" for no reason whatsoever, and so inherits all the same flaws and madnesses as the other two ugly faces of Abramism. Put to sword in Roman Spain or Roman Africa I wouldn't think twice about breaking the local Christian Eunuchs neck and joining the Mahdi; given the choice between multiple wives, infidels paying me rent vs. chronic misrule by mentally ill pseudo-elitist incels who "hear voices from god" sometimes.

Theology is the wrong approach to Islam, as: it's real strengths were always political. I have to laugh at the muslims who think professing their believe in the god of the jews is impressive to me; these are the same mental inferiors of you own people who LARP as catholics one day. literally the same thought processes and social patterns.


anyway,

Judaism,
who gives a fuck

>but its voluntarily
but it voluntarily

btw, derka derka muhammut to the ottoman readers

>>22448530
fuck islam

>>22448530
even moooslimes realize that islam is a pile of shit

>>22448530
and the founder was a violent crazy murderer

>>22452469
>>22452474
>>22452477
>These hecking modern opinions prove a centuries old spiritual tradition is bad!
When will modern hylics learn?

>>22448530
Islam was jewed from the start

>>22452537
>I literally cannot refute anything so I'll do a red herring instead
Concession accepted, you are a fool.

Nicene Christianity and Islam are both more similar than different in their shit.

>>22452726
any references to support that claim?

>>22452477
>>22452474
>>22452469
good infographics Jimmy .. er.. or do you go by Minister Yakob ben Negev nowadays? haha

>>22452557
There are cases against Islam but Aquinas makes very poor ones... e.g. Aquinas has left the gene pool for being a celibate, his stake in the universe died with him - as with all celibates, this is stupidity since the philosophy allows yourself to be outbred by anybody. His case rests, then, unsurprisingly on the sticking point of "carnality" which bothers him for reasons just given.

He then says that Mohammed gave no "supernatural proofs," ... meaning... what? He would only be believed by men of a scientific disposition? This quote aged badly.

>>22452756
>good infographics
thanks I have been busy
here is another

>>22452748
Both accept a disgusting rabble-rousing Jew from the Levant, who destabilized the Roman empire, as having a divine revelation and being a part of a lineage of Levantine hucksters starting with Abraham. Christcucks just call him God and Mudslimes a prophet.
Both worship an angry, jealous god and cannot coexist with local ancestral pagan traditions due to obsession with idolatry. Europe should be renamed to Proto-Israel.
Nicene Christcuckery just leans more towards self-loathing tendencies due to St. Augustine's Original Sin whereas Pisslam leans towards autistic legalism and boorishness.
Both are universalist and proselytizing, but reduce the mystical center of the world into the Levant.
It's actually more pathetic that NW Europeans became Christian because new research is showing that Central Asia had more steppe admixture. This means that even Buddha was ancestrally closer to NW Europeans than even Jewsus. Europeans are ancestrally cucks.
Both Jewsus and M*hummad were equally bad and may have not even existed. The first one is just a bit more oversocialized, like a hypocritical hippy with ulterior objectives, whereas the latter is more like a Genghis Khan.
The endless conflict between Christcucks and Mudslimes is a narcissism of small differences. I'd say ideally you should both be wiped out for maximal world stability.
I would actually argue Europe lost more of its Pre-Christian heritage than select pockets of the Middle East (e.g., Yazidis and Zoroastrians in unbroken patrilineal continuity survived in Yazd but we see nothing like this for Druids or other pagans in Europe).

>>22452777
Christians do not worship yahweh the oppoosite in fact
rome fell because of comets, read heinsohn

>>22452785
You do, indeed, worship YHVH and no amount of cope will change that, retarded cunt. You basically accept the Judaic framework but add your spin to it.
Btw, both Christcucks and Mudslimes chopped down sacred pagan trees due to idolatry. You're like mirror images of each other. Christcucks are just much more pompous and Mudslimes are more boorish.
I'm fine with both of you being exterminated, including the women and children. You demon worshipers will suffer for thousands upon thousands of kalpas.

The Holy Spirit is a daemonical force of pure destruction. Jesus was an idiot.

Allah is an angry, jealous, and merciless god, and I put superior idols before him. Muhammad and Ali were idiots.

Moses and the Torah are shit, and I curse YHVH/Elohim/Jehova..

Every single Abrahamist deserves a slow and agonizing death. Eat shit and die, icchantika.

not that I'm shamelessly plugging a dead thread or anything but, >>22450732 the origin of all of these religions is garbage.

>>22452800
No they literally do not, the former pope benedict and biblical scholar; stated this publicly.

>>22452800
>Christcucks are just much more pompous and Mudslimes are more boorish.
They're virtually identical in the conversos and "born again" follower, the same glazed look in the eyes; the brain shutting down when they make a contradiction, it's like talking with a drunk person. I'm convinced that the religion is just a profound narcotic of egotism, as the "good people" who follow the religion culturally or nominally are embarrassed to talk about it and privately admit they don't believe any of it.

>>22452800
You're a damn kaliest aren't you?

>>22452807
>pope said
wait, what? No opinion of one guy can overturn the word of God in the OT, this kind of shit just goes to show you don't really believe in any of this.

>>22452821
Are you a mouth breathing ESL or something?
The words of a scholar who studied the book all his life have infinitly more weight than your spluttering assertions.

The OT is a weird book and much of its meanings have either been lost in translation or actively censored by the various groups that oversaw it.
priests tried to smear different beings together to add prominence to one to push their clique but a few remain.

>>22448753
I'm back in this thread, the origin muslimposter. One of the greatest signs that Islam is correct is the labour that apostates and enemies of islam take just to discredit it.

>You don't agree that God is good as you think he created evil
The Christian God also kills thousands, both in Biblical stories and through His will right now. It is not evil men who sends hurricanes and tsunamies and if evil men cause evil, it is God who allows it to happen. Like God letting Satan bring ruin to Job in the Bible.

In the Islamic point of view, everything that happens, the pain and misery of this life, pales in comparison to the joy and bliss of eternal heaven, that all that happened before matters not. it is pain that transforms us and beautifies us with fear of God

>On the authenticity of the Bible
Focusing on what the Qur'an says about the Bible, whether it is reliable or not, is besides the point and grasping at straws. The Bible has already been proven to be unreliable and corrupted and anyone who denies this has not looked at the evidence in earnesty. And I cannot see how the Bible being changed over time lessens Islam's truth.

From the Qur'an:
"They write the Bible with their own hands"
"They twist their tongues(languages) while reciting the Bible"
"They distort words from their proper places"

All this we have seen and proven

>>22452843
>OT is a weird book
That you "believe" is literally the word of the creator of the universe, but you can't be bothered to read it and you think that it's changeable based on some mortal humans interpretation. laughable, man.

>>22452878
The fuck are you talking about?
There is no text that contains the literal word of any creator.
Maybe the chaldeans could have had something but the best the bible contains is what was written down by people.
The more you try to look into this stuff the more you realise how everything is distorted, even the so called chronology seems to have been constructed to hide things than reveal the blindingly obvious.
We have fragments of knowledge and even that's a nightmare to piece together through the active disinformation around them.

>>22452767
>Aquinas has left the gene pool for being a celibate
Ad hominem and red herring. Your focus on the material and carnal is a concession that you have no say on the spiritual, philosophical, and supernatural. As seen in the following paragraphs you made:
>"supernatural proofs," ... meaning... what?
>by men of a scientific disposition?
Point proven. Literally read that pic again or even the actual source, Aquinas refutes your claims before you even posted such nonsense.
Also, there has been many great thinkers that died virgins. So what even is your point?
scribe.rip/@alexanderdance/10-famous-people-from-history-who-probably-died-as-virgins-5f91a823146b

Tdlr - tripfaggot is moronic. Shocker.

>>22452927
why do christians assume the immaterial is better than the material? this isn't biblical

>>22448636
>>22448681
There is nothing in the quran stating that the books themselves are corrupted.
quran 4.47 demolishes any notion that the Bible was corrupted.
If there has been a corruption it would have occurred after the death of muhammad. By the 7th century there were thousands of copies of the Bible all over the Christian world and it would have been literally impossible to corrupt the Bible. As a matter of fact we know that several heretics attempted to corrupt the Orthodox Christian Dogma and they all failed.
Sadly for you muhammad also followed the heresies our Holy Church managed to defeat. For example muhammad rebranded Docetism and Gnosticism as islam.
We know there has been zero corruption in the Bible apart from minor scribal errors. Nothing as serious as the Sanaa Manuscript.
The quran has been corrupted to such a degree that corruption itself has become canon via the introduction of the ahruf and qiraat. Corruption of the quran was so rampant that the muslims accepted it into their dogma as intentional.
To top it off, the idiots who wrote the quran realized at some point that it is extremely nonsensical and self-contradictory and thus came up with verse 3.7 which states "...and no one knows the quran's [true] interpretation except Allah..."
So, here we have a book that is supposedly guidance and light for humanity, and at the same part of that book [which part exactly we do not know] is by design impossible to understand.
In other words part of the quran is absolutely useless to us and we will miss nothing if we were to throw it away.
I say we throw away the whole thing. It;s nothing more than a badly written plagiarized collection of old tales and myths.

>>22452917
you said (paraphrasing) "if the pope says (the OT means this) then (the OT means this)" didn't you? if that wasn't you then why the fuck did you jump in? I'm spoiling for a fight with a christian damn it lol fuck off

>>22452927
>Ad hominem and red herring. Your focus on the material and carnal is a concession
No, that's not a correct use of either of those phrases, and that's a rhetorical turnabout since Aquinas argument was 70% carnality. Responding to it on point by mentioning that he's a permavirgin talking to incels and monogamous persons is not an ad hominem against him lol ... his argument, in first place, is an ad hominem: as if people who have sex and own property are crazed nymphomaniacs ... as you immediately accuse me of.
>you have no say on the spiritual, philosophical, and supernatural.

The remainder 30% of Aquinas argument was about the lack of unverifiable proofs for Islam, I mentioned that this aged badly because we know that something being unverifiable is not a proof of it being true.


>Aquinas refutes your claims before you even posted such nonsense.
Of course he does, he's using circular sophistry; he and you already know what to say to dismiss the refutations or flaws in the argument: just accuse them of being 'carnal' or materialists. It's not convincing to a person who isn't an illiterate peasant living in medieval Italy, however.

>>22452989
I said according to one of the most highly respected biblical scholars and it's not just his word for it, other scholars agree, christians don't have anything to do with yahweh.
That blood thirsty circumciser is for jews and muslims

>>22452958
because studying the material universe, that they profess to believe god created, would require them to become unbiased scientists. whereas (see: plotinus) basing a thing upon something that doesn't exist (immaterial) allows them to make-up anything they like about anything they like and remove the problem of proof; it appeals to two certain mentalities; lazy children and con-artists.

incidentally the Muslims ran into this problem at the end of the islamic golden age; they decreed that science was not worth studying because god could change the principles of reality whenever he liked so it was futile to even try to figure anything out.

abramism, go figure how it always comes to a bad end.

>>22453000
oh, I get it from that perspective; Benedict was probably talking about the Monad diety. Pretty hard to hold that position though, given that christianity is simplified judaism for gentiles.

>>22453004
>become unbiased scientists

>>22453014
As far as I'm aware it's more to do with what the various words like "EL", "Elohim", "El Shaddai", etc are actually referring to. and why they tried to cover them up, if you read it that way the bible takes on a very different interpretation instead of just repeating lord for the whole thing.

>>22453004
>science good
islam is not abrahamic

>>22453020
mmmmm no they were still motivated by absurdism; they believed in the ethnic supremacy of japanese people.
/funny joke

>>22453041
Islam is judaism 2

>>22453026
not being lazy but >>22452093

>>22452777
Take your meds, wojakshitter.

>>22453050
Does ellis use ad chronology?

>>22452958
>this isn't biblical
Romans 8, Galatians 6:8, 1 Peter 4:6, Jude 1:19, 1 John 2:16, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 7:14 and 25, etc all state otherwise. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>22453045
There is nothing connecting islam to Abraham.
If you accept islam is Abrahamic, then you must necessarily accept mormonism and scientology are also Abrahamic

>>22453062
Yeah. I added those dates for sake of clarity.

>>22452989
>Aquinas argument was carnality
Because it's a critique of Islam, since it focuses on such carnal desires. Islam is like: "have many wifes now or die for our god and receive more wife later" it's purely sexual, carnal, material. This apparently went over your head. Him being celibate has nothing to do with the correct critique, that's why it's an ad hominem.

>lack of unverifiable proofs for Islam
What unverifiable proofs? He's referring to the Quran explicitly saying that Muhammad performed no miracles apart from the alleged inspiration he received for the Quran, which insists that the only miracle brought by Allah to Muhammad is said religious book. He, and it's explicitly stated in that book, performed no other miracles. Even Christians that came after Muhammad, performed more miracles than him. The Quran says he's only a warner.
Thus, Aquinas is correct when he says
"He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth."
This is literally written in the Quran. See below for the source:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm

>just accuse them of being 'carnal' or materialists.
Can you justify the promise of carnality in the afterlife not being inherently material - that of the flesh?
The accusations are based sorely on facts. The Quran itself describes little about the specifics of the afterlife, but it does note that believers will find huris, or maidens “of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.” (Every believer can end up in heaven; martyrs just get there faster.) Respected commentator Al-Tirmidhi said in a hadith that every man will have six dozen huris in heaven, but very few commentators enumerated the rewards for women. From the 9th through the 12th centuries, Muslim scholars described paradise as a place of sensual delights for men.
Taking this into consideration, how can you possibly say it's not a carnal, material promise?

>>22453004
>because studying the material universe, that they profess to believe god created, would require them to become unbiased scientists.
Christians are the only unbiased scientists since they consider lying a sin and worthy of hell and death. The "scientists" you want to trust say man came from fish, life came from nonlife, and boys can become women. Your whole argument itself appeals to lazy children an con artists. It was Christians who pioneered science, knowing a rational God created a rational world full of order and logic and systems and laws, and it could be rationally studied. If atheistic naturalism is true, there's no reason to believe you can rationally study a rational world, but arguments like this always go over the minds of "lazy children" and "con-artists" like you.

>>22453041
>>22453079
People who use the term "Abrahamic" are typically uneducated pseuds. It's obvious the groups they lump together don't all worship and serve the God of Abraham.

>>22453178
I'll even give you a tldr 8 minute video. Islam's "paradise" is basically a virgin brothel.
youtu.be/36pSKs1yRgw?si=DsoTr_fZSCmOeYVV

>>22453208
Lmao churchill calling anyone a warmonger.

>>22452557
None of the images you posted made arguments against Islam. There are introductions to an essay/site against Islam, so it doesn't say anything substantial.
Please actually read about Islam for what it is: its rites, the life of Muhammad and most importantly its metaphysics. No, 4chan screenshots do not count. This is needed for every religion btw.

>>22453221
Must mean a lot if even someone like Churchill says it.

>>22452984
What you don't understand is that Muhammad never truly claimed that the writings of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Mazdeans were corrupted. On the contrary
>Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O People of the Book! You have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” 5, 68
This is to be understood in an esoteric way. But Islam must justify this for the majority by saying the scriptures were corrupted.

>>22453178
>Because it's a critique of Islam, since it focuses on such carnal desires.
That's why it's an ad hominem; "all (people of any religion not my own) are depraved and immoral!" change the record lol this is shit

>Thus, Aquinas is correct when he says
>"He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way,
"Thus" does not follow from that.

To a person who understands miracles are lies that are either made-up to delude simpleminded people or are simple misunderstandings about natural things (e.g. solar eclipse) you are not providing a good case 'against' islam by highlighting that,
>(Mohammed himself), and it's explicitly stated in that book, performed no other miracles.
You make Momo sound like a pioneer of secular reasoning here; a veritable Thomas Jefferson in his study.

>>just accuse them of being 'carnal' or materialists.
>Can you justify the promise of carnality in the afterlife not being inherently material - that of the flesh?
My only point there was that Aquinas and yourself were using circular sophistry to preemptively dismiss any refutations as if being made by nymphomaniacs; much of what you say in this paragraph is also believed by Christians about themselves when they die and go to heaven and get to have sex with babies and drink crap beer or whatever infantile lusts these saps go through life thinking about, so this is knowingly hypocritical on your part - to feign outrage about the other cult whilst ignoring the same beliefs in your own cult.

>how can you possibly say it's not a carnal, material promise
That is Heaven in most peoples comprehension; living like a King with whisky on tap, etc. , slaves on hand, etc. and seeing people you personally don't like suffering in hell, as if a spectator in the Roman Games. The demented part of this is that you call this immortal IRL.

>>22453081
AD chronology is bullshit though, everything before maybe 1100 is either guesswork or intentionally obfuscated

>>22453202
The Israelites of the OT and the Orthodox Christians worship the same God.

> immortal*
i mean ..immoral.

>>22453202
Yeah you may be onto something with this, I could see a science religion utterly focused on scientific proven truths with mad powers of prediction and planet shaping in the future.... but i think 'religion' and its built-in dogmatism (tho by no means a thing exclusive to religion) is always going to be an impediment to this.

I mean, from the get-go here:
>Christians are the only unbiased scientists since they consider lying a sin and worthy of hell and death.
...a lie is being redefined as an irrefutable case you don't like. Let's talk about Eden for 30 seconds and see how long it takes lol - let's not

>"Abrahamic"
I agree with this, rather: "Abramic" (ab+ram*) is the correct version of this But even this is more accurately Adamite or Edenist, since the laws in each 'abramic' cult stem back to the insanity of Eden and belief in 'that' version of the God.

*malformed testicles

>>22453299
Excuse me but do you consider yourself an atheist?

>>22453202
sorry, lemme explain this better:
>i think 'religion' and its built-in dogmatism (tho by no means a thing exclusive to religion)

I mean here that 'religion' is not about finding god in the natural world it's about sticking to a man-made book for socio-political reasoning, this is dogmatism (consensus) over truth, and always ends up in stagnancy and defeat by third parties who don't impede themselves in the same regard.

>>22453304
>do you consider yourself an atheist?
not particularly, I'm more like this: >>22453310 but I see no reason to call "Science" "God," as some people do.

>>22453222
I only posted the one that you replied to, and you have no refutation. Typical of muslims. I already know Muhammad was a pagan, warmonger, pedophile, that got killed by his own god.

>>22453246
>"all (people of any religion not my own) are depraved and immoral!"
Nowhere does it say this midwit. Another red herring. In fact, Christianity is against depravation, degeneracy and immorality.

>To a person who understands miracles are lies that are either made-up to delude simpleminded people or are simple misunderstandings about natural things
Why are you discussing religions and its miracles from an atheistic rethoric? You haven't once directly refuted anything. Neither do you understand the miracles that have eyewitness accounts. Accusing delusion is a projection of yours.

>You make Momo sound like a pioneer of secular reasoning here;
I'm commenting on what Aquinas is saying m because you're too dumb to understand him. Muhammad's only supposed miracle was a book, and once confronted with this (because the true prophets did many miracles), it's said in that book that he's only a warner. He has no capability of the miraculous because he didn't possess the Holy Spirit within him.

>much of what you say in this paragraph is also believed by Christians about themselves when they die and go to heaven and get to have sex with babies and drink crap beer or whatever infantile lusts these saps go through life thinking about
This is a complete lie, none of what you said is Christian nor is believed by Christians. What the fuck are you on about?

>That is Heaven in most peoples comprehension; living like a King with whisky on tap, etc. , slaves on hand, etc. and seeing people you personally don't like suffering in hell
Lying again, that is not Heaven in Christianity. Only in your deluded, feeble mind. Zero introspection or contemplation on the spiritual. Nowhere in Scripture does it say ANYTHING about Heaven being the deranged things you're speaking.

>>22453433
>Nowhere does it say this midwit. Another red herring.
Literalism. You're just a liar doing sophistry.

Hahaha, and you literally do this as you accuse others of it, look at what you said to the other guy,
"I already know Muhammad was a pagan," wait faggot, nowhere does the Quran say that(!)

Very low IQ behavior that you think you can lie this blatantly in front of people.

Then more of the same accusations: you cite "miracles" as "proof of prophets" (just not wanting to understand how stupid this is) then accuse 'others' of being 'delusional' for .... e.g. knowing of and predicting a solar eclipse, and not believing god put his finger over the sun.


> you're too dumb to understand him.
> midwit.
>atheistic rethoric
>delusion is a projection of yours
>Lying
>lie
> your deluded, feeble mind

Wow. You need to be held down and have your spine battered out with a belt buckle for saying all of that -with no provocation whatsoever on my part to warrant that.


> In fact, Christianity is against depravation, degeneracy and immorality.
I disagree, you're walking proof against all of that being true; your methodically crafted sophistry, all in knowing bad faith, and vicious abuse in only three posts have destroyed your religion absolutely.

While I hate all of Abrahamism (F on my tier), Nicene Christianity is obviously worse than Islam when you look at the history as a whole. Gnosticism is better than both though.

Nicenes are some of the most duplicitous faggots in all of history. Literal subhuman tier.

>>22453536
If I'm doing sophistry, then explain where is the fallacy. Because you're the one doing the fallacies.

>look at what you said to the other guy,
>"I already know Muhammad was a pagan," wait faggot, nowhere does the Quran say that(!)
Muhammad's birth place was pagan, his family was pagan, he grew up pagan. These are historical facts retard.
As a youth heparticipated in worshipping all the 360 pagan gods in the Kabahin Mecca owned and operated by the Quraish tribe to which Muhammad was member in good standing. As Muhammad grew up, he wasinfluenced by Christians (monotheists) who condemned the polytheismat the Kabah. At some point in Muhammad's life, he was convinced by the Christians that Polytheism was wrong and sought to reject the 360 pagan gods he had grown up with. Muhammad was converted to the concept of monotheism through the influence and teachings of Christians. However, being aproud "nationalistic cultural Arab",bent to preserve his traditions, he decided to "reform" his native pagan religion, rather than adopt a completely different religion like Christianity. So Muhammad took the top pagan god of the Kabah in Mecca (calledHubaland/orAllah) and chose it to be his new monotheistic god. This god was already considered the top god among other gods at the Kabah. Muhammad's strategy was simple. Rather than converting all the Arab people to the monotheism of Christianity, he merely banished the other 359 pagan gods and chose the one remaining to be the one and only god — what Muslims refer to today as "Allah". Thus Islam was born.
Very low IQ behavior that you think you can speak firmly without any sort of knowledge on this subject.

If you're not a liar, then surely you can prove that the Bible and Christians say what you claim about Heaven.
Another projection of yours comes to mind here
>Very low IQ behavior that you think you can lie this blatantly in front of people.
Prove it then. Prove that what you said about Heaven is true. Back up your claims with facts. A blatant liar pointing fingers is all you are.

How would prophets making miracles be stupid? You say it's because of eclipses? Lmao. Your projection fits you like a glove "just not wanting to understand how stupid this is". Empty claims all over, just say le sophistry without any sound refutation. Like the average midwit atheist.

>>22453732
1
> surely you can prove that the Bible and Christians say what you claim about Heaven
Nigga what? Jesus himself espouses "material comfort" in paradise, his disciples and popes espouse how much fun it'll be to watch their enemies being tortured for eternity. There's no difference here between muslims and christians because they all inherit that impotency from the hebrews with their overflowing revenge fantasies.

You're incredibly bad faith because you can't possibly not know this.

2
>How would prophets making miracles be stupid? You say it's because of eclipses? Lmao.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Are you brain damaged? ZERO OF HUMANITY believes in FUCKING MAGIC TO EXPLAIN NATURAL PROCESSES ANYMORE, do you think they do?

e.g. eclipses:
A solar eclipse and a meteor was considered a sign from god, ancient romans were able to predict these and weren't floored by them because they understood science, dummy.

I said that you and Aquinas making Mohammed sound good by pointing out the 'absence' of "supernatural unverifiable" evidence to "prove" himself to others, as those things are not actually proofs and only "convince" people who are either full-on or half-retards.

3
>(mohammed was pagan because he was born pagan)
Dumb argument. This contradicts every single human who has ever converted to christianity. But again, that not my point. Again, my point was 'your' hypocrisy there and the circular sophistry of Aquinas argument, which you've only been able to defend so far with hypocrisy and gas-lighting:


I said, Aquinas's and Your circular sophistry consisted of preemptively accusing any naysayer of being "carnal", which you did to me. Then you said "nowhere does 'it' (you meant 'he') say this", which was more sophistry; hyper-literalism, in those instances.

e.g. "all (people of any religion not my own) are depraved and immoral!"
...is what Aquinas is saying, okay not verbatim then, but in an underhanded and sly way; which makes him sound even worse. You've even affirmed this by your responses here towards others, demonstrating that you fully believe this of your own accord - yet you pretend to dispute this being said openly by Aquinas. I doubt Aquinas would even disagree with this, of course he would think any religion (or interpretation) other than his own brand of christianity was depraved and immoral lol he was a catholic in medieval italy who was alive during the inquistion and converso days. If he had said otherwise he'd have been killed and you'd not know his name, like the rest of the nameless dead.

god damn i hate conversos, such ignorance.

>>22453905
>Jesus himself espouses "material comfort" in paradise, his disciples and popes espouse how much fun it'll be to watch their enemies being tortured for eternity.
Stop making shit up little buddy, Jesus Christ loved even his enemies so that's not His doctrine. I'm once again asking for proof of what you say in Scripture. And again asking for proof in scripture in what you said here:
>when they die and go to heaven and get to have sex with babies and drink crap beer or whatever infantile lusts these saps go through life thinking about
You literally cannot do this because it simply doesn't exist, you are a liar making shit up.
"How can you not know this" is not a source.

>with their overflowing revenge fantasies
In the Bible, God literally says that revenge is His and He will repay. So Christians don't take revenge nor need to, but Muslims do. Christianity is not the same as Islam, putting them together is moronic and in bad faith. Funny how you accuse me of what you are doing.

>ZERO OF HUMANITY believes in FUCKING MAGIC TO EXPLAIN NATURAL PROCESSES ANYMORE,
Ad populum and red herring. If the miracles happen because of le natural causes, then explain the resurrection, the parting and crossing of the red sea, the flood of Noah's time (something that many separate cultures talk about).

>ancient romans were able to predict these and weren't floored by them because they understood science
Another lie. The Greeks and Romans believed that the appearance of comets, meteors and meteor showers were portentous. That they were signs that something good or bad had happened or was about to happen. The arrival of a comet could herald the birth of a great figure, and some people have even argued that the star in the sky which the Persian Magi followed to Bethlehem to see the newborn Jesus was actually a comet.
In the spring of 44BC, a comet that appeared was interpreted as a sign of the deification of Julius Caesar, following his murder. Caesar’s adopted son Octavian (soon to be the Emperor Augustus) made much of the comet, which burned in the sky during the funerary games held for Caesar. This portentous event was frequently celebrated in the ancient sources. In his epic poem, the Aeneid, Virgil describes how “a star appeared in the daytime, and Augustus persuaded people to believe it was Caesar”.
There goes your "science" to superstition. As the anon >>22453202 says, Christians were the ones that pioneered science. So you're making shit up again and your false information is easily refuted. Go read a book retard.

(1/2)

>>22453905
>I said that you and Aquinas making Mohammed sound good by pointing out the 'absence' of "supernatural unverifiable" evidence to "prove" himself to others
It still lacks evidence. For example — Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Paul all did miracles. Others for example had their God-given prophecies. I already told you that Muhammad did no miracles apart from the alleged inspiration he received. This inspiration is at the very least dubious, because it contradicts what the Bible says.
Here's the long, more thorough explanation of that:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm

There's also the satanic verses, where Muhammad mistaken for divine revelation saying he was tricked. Those verses praise 3 pagan gods btw, so it's another reason to be at the very least be doubtful about his legitimacy.

>This contradicts every single human who has ever converted to christianity.
By saying he was a pagan? Dumb argument. I just pointed out a historical fact that you foolishly denied. So I BTFO your argument once again.

>circular sophistry of Aquinas argument
I already told you why that isn't the case so where is the fallacy in that argument?

>preemptively accusing any naysayer of being "carnal"
Aquinas is rightly acusing Muhammad of being carnal and seducing people to it. Not any naysayer. Can you read properly? You also didn't answer my question. If it's not carnal and material than what is? Can you justify the promise of carnality in the afterlife not being inherently material - that of the flesh?

>"all (people of any religion not my own) are depraved and immoral!"
You're making the same circular arguments. Already disproved this. It's a critique of Islam and not a critique of every religion like what you're trying to do. Even a child could understand this.

Can someone tell me where in the Quran it says God created eviil creatures?

>>22454038
1:
>>when they die and go to heaven and get to have sex with babies and drink crap beer or whatever infantile lusts these saps go through life thinking about
>You literally cannot do this because it simply doesn't exist,
lol no that single obvious joke isn't in scripture, you alcohol baby, who would claim that was in the fucking bible? That's the most dishonest thing in the world to take that and claim "i'm a liar".

I was talking about shit addled psychos like you and the pedo priests and failed drunks who never get over having a drink who become christians, dumb fuck, and the christians who are gay and crack smokers in secret, like other priests.

2:
one moment
>NAW jesus said LOVE enemies (so christians don't have renvenge fantasies)
>u r liar
then next moment
>GOD LITERALLY SAYS HE WILL REVENGE HIMSELF ON THEM ALLL

NIGGA U LITERALLY HAVE A RVENGE FANTASY THAT THE '-------CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE=========== SHARES IN YOUR REVENGE FANTASIES
how do you not comprehend this?!

3:
>>ancient romans were able to predict these and weren't floored by them because they understood science
>Another lie. The Greeks and Romans believed that the appearance of comets, meteors and meteor showers were portentous
You're just fucking ignorant of history and human knowledge, during the Pontic War the Roman commander predicted a solar eclipse and explained it wasn't an omen, his foreign auxiliary troops therefore didn't flee at the sight of the sun and won the battle. And nobody called him a prophet over this, despite his achievements surpassing all the hebrew prophets in that he predicted something and it happened.

>There goes your "science" to superstition.
simple-minded child

4
>As the anon >>22453202 says, Christians were the ones that pioneered science.
he doesn't say that, - should i call you a liar now?

5
>It still lacks evidence. For example — Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Paul all did miracles. Others for example had their God-given prophecies. I already told you that Muhammad did no miracles apart from the alleged inspiration he received.
cretin, that you 'claim' a miracle happened does not make it so. your brain can't seem to comprehend this, again as I said earlier: >>22453905
>I said that you and Aquinas making Mohammed sound good by pointing out the 'absence' of "supernatural unverifiable" evidence to "prove" himself to others, as those things are not actually proofs and only "convince" people who are either full-on or half-retards.

6
>>circular sophistry of Aquinas argument
>I already told you why that isn't the case
You've just denied the evidence I've given; and as it also applies to 'you' as well as Aquinas, and as you've continued to use bad faith sophistry, and gas-lighting PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE in every response. That you CONTINUE TO DO THIS IN PLAIN SIGHT is a PROOF THAT YOU ARE USING SOPHISTRY/DECEPTION AND ARE YOURSELF IMMORAL AND EXTREMELY BAD, you FUCKING retard

7
8
9
10
run out of room and patience

4
oh wait, that anon did say that. well, he's incorrect. as anybody knows.

all this shit is bad off topic btw

>>22454038
>the resurrection,
people can survive being crucified, like Prince Issus of Edessa did
>red sea
tide withdrawl and rapid return, aka a tsunami from volcanic activity, as evidenced allover the world
>flood
yes many cultures have a story about a flood, atlantis is one of them, prove the jews hold a monopoly on it.

>ad populum
no cretin, a 'miracle' is either a misunderstanding of a natural thing by primtive people or it's a fairy story. nobody believes in miracles 'as' explanations when they have people who can make predictions about all of those things and they happen, like a TV weathergirl - nobody thinks a weathergirl is a magical shaman, etc.

Therefore when Aquinas says Mohammed isn't basing himself on "miracles" it's not a point 'against' mohammed, as it makes him look like a secular rationalist who didn't need a crutch of fantasy to gain followers.

it's kind of a joke, you know.

>>22448530
Study the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible. Islam is only understood as a Judeo-Christian heresy that consists of a half-baked oral retelling of Biblical tales, while Judaism is a rejection of the fulfillment of the prophetic witness of the Old Testament. And by study the Bible, of course I mean in line with Church Fathers.

Islam has no priesthood, no sacrifice, no liturgy, yet it claims to be the same religion of the Old Testament and the Apostles of Jesus

>>22452984
>We know there has been zero corruption in the Bible apart from minor scribal errors. Nothing as serious as the Sanaa Manuscript.
Pericope Adulterae
John 15-17
Johannine Comma
Matthew editing Mark despite being a disciple
Differing geneologies in Luke and Matthew
Dubious authorship of the gospels
Dubious authorship of many Pauline letters

You're delusional, as I said >>22452866

>>22452984
On The Qur'an saying:
>"None can change the Word of Allah".

We say this:

The interpretation that the Bible is wholly reliable and has not been corrupted conflicts with numerous other verses quoted here >>22452866.

Therefore, the interpretation is incorrect. The correct interpretation is this: though the biblical authors write scripture with their own hands and claim it is from God, the Word of God does not change. They do not change the word of God, but only the beliefs of the people.

The true prophecies left in the Bible, the known and unknown thereof, shall doubtless come true despite how they corrupt the Bible

>>22452984
>>22454358

Whenever they speak of the Qur'an, you can hear them insisting that the Qur'an is mere "bullshit", "badly written", "heresy", "impossible to understand" while being "too simplistic" like these phrases mean anything

One must notice the lack of logical thinking in their reasoning. A person never rejects Islam for rational reasons, only for emotional ones.

We do not believe in the Prophet and Our God for reasons such as the Church said so, the Holy Spirit inspired such and such person and we are inclined to believe him. The faith of Christians is very weak.

Allah tells us the Christians are most affectionate to the Believers, yet we receive abuse from them everywhere we go, it is because they are only Christians in name, they do not even follow the Bible, not its theology nor its jurisprudence. These are their true idols: whim, desire, and the self

>>22448530
To finally actually answer the OP:
>How do I learn about the theology of Muslims
Read the Qur'an (https://quran.com/)) in any order or way. Read Riyadh Al-Salihin, a beginner friendly hadith collection covering every topic (https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin).). Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam is also a good secondary source(>>22448716).

>>22448530 (OP) #
To finally actually answer the OP:
>How do I learn about the theology of Muslims
Read the Qur'an (https://quran.com/)) in any order or way. Read Riyadh Al-Salihin, a beginner friendly hadith collection covering every topic (https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin/).). Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam is also a good secondary source(>>22448716 #).

>>22448530
To finally actually answer the OP:
>How do I learn about the theology of Muslims
Read the Qur'an (https://quran.com/ ) in any order or way. Read Riyadh Al-Salihin, a beginner friendly hadith collection covering every topic (https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin ). Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam is also a good secondary source(>>22448716 #).

>>22454791
Also I forgot to mention, they almost always apply a 'hermeneutics of suspicion' when dealing with the sources of Islam, which clearly indicates their bias and bad faith. May Allah guide them

>>22454383
>Islam has no priesthood
Really? Why does Islam seem so barebones compared to Christianity?

>>22452111
That’s why there are scholars to go to after your done reading. Like the ayatollah! Are your local sheik.

Can someone recommend a Qu'ran that I can download and has good commentary? Especially for a Christian. I'll be travelling for 10 hours and II won't have internet to look up every new thing, so I need an offline commentary

The muslim idea of heaven is a brothel...

This is another degenerate death cult

>>22448530
Look up the theology Oxford reading list

>>22454316
>tripfag mentions heaven
>makes up retarded things about it that no one says or believes
>gets told that he has no evidence to back it up and it's called a liar
>"haha guys it was just a joke, ok? You're the one dishonest haha"
Top kek, you sure did it little buddy.

>>22454767
You didn't refute anything. See >>22451190

>>22455448
Hahahahahaha, but anon you're being -obviously- dishonest to say that christianity is any different in its paradise/hell revenge fantasies than the muslims; and to say that you are 'good' and they are 'bad', when your actions here have been extremely evil from the beginning. Who do you think wouldn't spot this about your actions? It's a very twisted and broken-up mentality you're coming from, extremely solipsistic.

It's this simple to anybody: you're on the internet seething with resentment about X group being bad and having a dumb evil religion whilst your character, which is produced by your religion (we presume), is demonstrably terrible. Not in a hypothetical sense, but in an actual demonstrable sense of the deception and psychological abuse that is your 'go-to' when talking about this.

The excuse of 'believing in a god' to justify your own viceful habits is identical no matter the religion that you or people like you profess to 'believe in'; e.g. as you do your best to inflict psychological and emotional abuse on 'your enemies', so does the cult you're preaching against - people hate you and them for this identical behavior. I'm not sure how I can explain this any simpler for you.


Still,
I didn't enter this conversation like a lawyer so more fool me for saying a single flippant thing to allow you to latch onto that and "debunk the joke (as if I had said that and claimed it was a Bible Quote)" to claim refutation of 'everything else' and accuse 'me' of dishonesty. This reflects very badly on you, of course, as: the use of deceptive sophistry only displays that you know you're in the wrong and aren't intellectually interested in exploring the subject, else you'd be speaking amicably and wouldn't be using tactical manipulation.

Look, just so you know, you've inspired me to a write another little book about religious internet trolls and their unique tactics of psychological abuse and sophistry, which I haven't witnessed so prominently or constantly in any other group. Thanks for your help there.

>>22454316
>one moment
>>NAW jesus said LOVE enemies (so christians don't have renvenge fantasies)
>>u r liar
>then next moment
>>GOD LITERALLY SAYS HE WILL REVENGE HIMSELF ON THEM ALLL
You know why God says that? Because they will reap what they sow. What goes around, comes around. Like Jesus says: "live by the sword, die by the sword." so revenge is unnecessary, nor is fantasized. Your feeble mind simply can't fathom this.

>You're just fucking ignorant of history and human knowledge
You're denying evidence on why you are wrong.

>that you 'claim' a miracle happened does not make it so.
That's literally Aquinas' argument against Muhammad you retard lmao. That's why eyewitness accounts are important to confirm the miracles.
>he doesn't say that

>Christians were the ones that pioneered science.
>he doesn't say that
He literally does.
>>22454320
He's completely right on the Christian origins of the scientific revolution. Will you deny this again and say it was 'just a joke bro'?

>>22454336
>people can survive being crucified
Jesus didn't. He died and people found his tomb empty after 3 days.

>tide withdrawl and rapid return
Rapid but slow enough that they can cross it?

>yes many cultures have a story about a flood
Not an explanation of why it occurred. Science denies

>a 'miracle' is either a misunderstanding of a natural thing
How is raising people from the dead and ressurecting from the dead after 3 days a 'misunderstanding of a "natural" thing'? They had eyewitnesses present that saw it happen.

>who didn't need a crutch of fantasy to gain followers.
Muhammad needed the carnal promise of a virgin brothel in the afterlife in order to seduce people because he couldn't convince them rationally.

>>22454791
>yet we receive abuse from them everywhere we go, it is because they are only Christians in name, they do not even follow the Bible, not its theology nor its jurisprudence. These are their true idols: whim, desire, and the self
This is true.

I consider muslims and christians both as 'pseudo-jews' but I ave to admit, the christians are individually worse by a long stretch. I have never encountered the malevolence or highly-focused highly-formulated abuse from any other group and it's always shocking to me how consistent the pattern is between "total disregard for other humans" and "belief in (abramic) religion".

I know nobody currently is comfortable to admit this, however,despite claims of persecution against the christians there is no 'media' which actually focuses on them; the atheists are far too soft and stupid about it.

It's a minority in some regards but... there's something about christianity that attracts this extremely evil character, and it only seems to increase the more time they spend reading the bible - as I suppose they would become atheists if they read and recognized it was a book full of holes.

um anyway, DON'T WORRY, foreigner, we europeans will get these people eventually. consider them as rabid barbarians; or consider them as the quran describes them here: >>22452768

lawl

>>22455488
>you're being -obviously- dishonest to say that christianity is any different in its paradise/hell revenge fantasies than the muslims;
Projection, you're the one being dishonest since I already told you it's different from Islam. You're being intentionally deceptive and purposefully ignorant.

>when your actions here have been extremely evil from the beginning
Words hurt you buddy? You're the one arguing in bad faith, say vile and evils things, and then saying "it was just a joke haha"

>aren't intellectually interested in exploring the subject
Says the guy that makes accusations of extremely poor taste upon other people in the middle of argument, gets asked for evidence of these accusations, and then retracts his statements saying it was just a joke. You're making yourself look like a fool.

>wouldn't be using tactical manipulation
Nice projection.

You came to this thread and persistently responded to my posts with zero knowledge on the subject. Don't make yourself a victim now. You're switching the arguments entirely because you cannot disprove what I've said. So you attempt to gaslight me, which doesn't work. Anyway, I debunked your entire argument in the first few posts, all you could answer was "change the record lol" and making shit up about heaven and other people's comprehension/interpretation of it. If you argue like this, then your books are probably even worse and unworthy of time spent.

Oh geez,
look my lunch is nearly over so I'll stick to the main points and ignore your machinegun of sophistic gas-lighting and psychological abuse just this once

>>22455499
>>You're just fucking ignorant of history and human knowledge
>You're denying evidence on why you are wrong.
No, inversion. You're -actually- denying evidence I've given you, verbatim:

The Roman commander story demonstrates that the Roman education possessed a scientific grasp of things others considered as "miracles" and were able to predict and scientifically explain solar eclipses, in that example.

In Context (3rd time I'm trying to get you back on-topic):
Aquinas claims Mohammed had no miracles to support his claim, this is his great argument - but this means nothing to a people who understand that "supernatural claims / miracles" are only "proofs" for the willfully gullible or extremely primitive.

You finally seem to understand what I was saying, as now: you take my conclusion there, and go back on Aquinas claims of Mohammed having no supernatural proofs and tack my conclusion onto Aquinas argument.
>Muhammad needed the carnal promise of a virgin brothel in the afterlife in order to seduce people because he couldn't convince them rationally.

So you agree with me, as it turns out. Even if you consider a claim of 'magic' to be a 'rational proof', which is very funny and demosntrates how yo're grasping at straws and stuck in denialism against the blatant contradiction made by Aquinas that I highlighted in my first reply to this yesterday.


off-topic and peripheral but so offensive I have to respond:
>He's completely right on the Christian origins of the scientific revolution. Will you deny this
>science was pioneered by christians - IT'S TRUE

it's fucking not. After the Romans, the Christians stagnated for almost a thousand years, cretinously maintaining single books from Roman pagans to inform them about everything - and then borrowing teaching from muslims; that's why western european numerals aren't roman but arabic, and why concepts like Alchemy and Alcohol are verbatim loanwords from the Arabs because the europeans possessed no other vocabulary to comprehend those notions. Whilst shipbuilding, navigation, and the modern professional army owes itself to being a copy of the Ottoman Janissary.

Moreover, according to you in this thread a christian hasn't culturally advanced far enough to predict the a solar eclipse or a comet or a full moon, if we take you unawareness of the early point as a truthful report on your own powers of comprehension...

... which dumps you into the camp of extremely primitive.

mostly peripheral and off-topic:
>>22455534
>I already told you it's different from Islam.
er.. you 'told me' verbally but your proved the opposite; "god will have his revenge," you said.

Muslims say the same thing. You attack people with total disregard for truth or decency, so do the worst examples of muslims you could possibly cite. You both believe that God backs you up in this behavior.
i.e. Your character is identical to theirs.

>(no YOU are vile and evil)
you're at war with truth so any suspected criticism or pointing out of flaws in your qu'ran or against your imams is taken as a green light to unleash hell onto that person; contradicting you is "vile and evil", when I say your actions are "evil" I can cite every single reply in which you've employed sustained and relentless psychological abuse in every response (copying my words about your actions and bouncing them back at me), and initial unprovoked verbal abuse; displaying a mentality no better than a crackhead in the street, despite your Holy Pretenses and claims of God being on your side.

How can you be this way and claim to be a person of 'god'? I'm baffled about this, and moreover that you yourself recognize all of these behaviors in the other cult that you're attacking - yet adopt the same behavior yourself:

So if you hate them and god hates them for being that way, how do you think that being like them is a good thing? / psychological question

>>22455543
>You're -actually- denying evidence I've given you
Provide a source for that information. It's widely know that they thought about comets superstitiously and that those events were portentous. I already told you this, and provided an example with ancient sources. You didn't.

>but this means nothing to a people who understand that "supernatural claims / miracles" are only "proofs" for the willfully gullible or extremely primitive.
Miracles are still proof of the supernatural and that you have the Holy Spirit of God. They are proof nonetheless.
Muhammad's supposed "miracle" is a book that goes against Scripture while at the same time claiming to be a revelation of the same God of Abraham. This accusation of yours in the quote above is best suited for the muslims that gullibly believe what he said without checking the scriptures that their book says to do. He claimed to be a prophet with no (supernatural) proof and seduced others by carnal desires because he couldn't convince otherwise. This is basically Aquinas' argument.

>history
Notice how I said "The Christian origins of the scientific REVOLUTION". All pioneers of this revolution were Christians.

Pope Sylvester II began to spread knowledge of Arabic numerals throughout Europe beginning in the 980s. The European acceptance of Hindu-Arabic numerals was precipitated by the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The printing press and its invention allowed for the dissemination of knowledge to the masses, spreading the word in the vernacular and allowing for the printing of pamphlets, debates, arguments and posters that would insight debate and discussions. This marked the increase of literacy and intellect.
Such revolutionary period would involve a host of figures from across the continent, including many from the British Isles. One of the most influential figures was Christian named Francis Bacon, an English statesman and philosopher who developed the scientific methodology earning him the title “father of empiricism”.
By the mid-16th century, Arabic numerals were in common use throughout most of Europe. Notice the timegap between the numerals' adoption. Roman numerals were also widely used, but with the addition of Arabic numerals, society was able to have options for their presentations of numbers in written language.

I don't have enough words to give a full breakdown so here's a great video that shows you why the scientific revolution was Christian, and how you are wrong and that anon is correct.
youtu.be/JMTWnd5BhxI?si=uBR4jMitTT_XacUE

>>22455559
>"god will have his revenge," you said.
Yes and proceeded to tell you what that verse implies. Did you read it?

>Muslims say the same thing.
Nope. They literally have a principle called Qisas interpreted to mean retaliation in kind. This principles means that the person who committed a crime or the tribe he belonged to was punished in the same way as the crime committed. That is, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an ear for an ear, and a life for a life. I told you the Bible goes against this. It says to turn the other cheek, that those who live by the sword die by the sword and so we're told to not avenge by ourselves but to give peace unto wrath. That the vengeance is the Lord's and if they sow something, they will reap it.

>>(no YOU are vile and evil)
I said that you were saying vile and evil things. Not that you specifically were vile and evil. I accused your words there, not you. You're intentionally deceptive while accusing me, among other things of doing it. Peak projection.
See below the depravity that you've stated with no evidence to support, because it's (again) completely false:
>>22453246
>believed by Christians about themselves when they die and go to heaven and get to have sex with babies and drink crap beer or whatever infantile lusts these saps go through life thinking about,
>Heaven in most peoples comprehension; living like a King with whisky on tap, etc. , slaves on hand, etc. and seeing people you personally don't like suffering in hell
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>22455671
>>22455711
>(christians pioneered all science)
> here's a great video that shows you why the scientific revolution was Christian, and how you are wrong
Me Wrong? All humanity is "wrong" in that case, as nobody believes you anywhere, except, PARADOXICALLY Muslims about their religion being the science champion ha - great minds think alike

>(regarding that roman commander)
>Provide a source for that information
by the grace of the gods I remembered his name, now suck my cock you grinning faggot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Sulpicius_Gallus
>Under Lucius Aemilius Paulus, his intimate friend, he commanded the 2nd legion in the campaign against Perseus, king of Macedonia, and gained great reputation for having predicted a lunar eclipse on the night before the Battle of Pydna (168 BC).[3]
> Pliny.[3] He was able to predict a lunar eclipse in the year 168 BC, and was regarded by his contemporaries as a man of great learning on this account.


>Miracles are still proof of the supernatural
In your -------belief--------- system, you 'believe' that to be a 'proof'. That's the impasse we're having here that I'm tired of having to find new ways to type out.

A GAIN
A comet, an eclipse, a flood; to a people ignorant of the workings of those natural things, they are "(my random religion is confirmed by this miracle)" but they are, of course, not and two cretins with different religions will see the same thing both declare it a proof of their own religion.

>This is basically Aquinas' argument.
And scroll up to my initial remark on it.

Look, it's fine if you want to 'believe' your Imam to not have made a mistake, muzzyboi. Nobody really gives a fuck about this apart from me, and I'm only talking to you out of medical interest.


>>Muslims say the same thing.
>Nope. They literally have a principle called Qisas
Alright I believe you about all this stuff, I'm not disputing this.

I'm pointing out that when 'you' declare that your god relishes in burning people for eternity over ideological disputes (whilst sparing evil people who simply ''claim to believe in him') then you're on the same par with the jihadi setting children on fire in a cage in Mosul.

How are you different if you both believe that the literal creator of the universe is a petty-minded barbarian who would 'advocate' such things? If your deity is such then your actions proceed from it; you are the same person - look at your cruelty.

actually also thank for reminding me about Sulpicius Gallus and the apparent age of science of the 160BC's that was apparently lost within the century, now I have two papers to write this this month.