[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 81 KB, 322x500, AA649E93-7C14-463C-83DA-616A0C2352A2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19303947 No.19303947 [Reply] [Original]

I’ve been reading an english translation of the qu’ran and it seems like muhammed is literally just Jesus II. Is islam literally just one big fucking cope? I dont get it

>> No.19303982

>>19303947
>fucks children
>conquers other people
yeah just like jesus bro

>> No.19303992

No no no, it only seems like that in translation. You have to learn Arabic in order to discover how great it really is.

>> No.19304011

The reason why people find this book so hideously boring and repetitive is because it repeats stories already known by the reader. Its message is also pretty plain. It doesn't make any claims that the reader isn't already familiar with in some sense. A man like Carlyle, who probably read the Bible hundreds of times, would find this book “as toilsome reading as I ever undertook." The very name "Qur'an" simply means recitation or reading, which suggests that what is being read has already existed for some time. The Qur'an doesn't say anything new. It doesn't say anything outlandish or adventurous theologically-wise. Many people read it expecting to find the secret as to how 1/3rd of the world have become entranced with its religion, but are utterly disappointed to find principles and stories they themselves already believe in.

>> No.19304060

I've never really dived in the Quran but

>Muhammed had a strange vision of a being of light pressing his body

>he thought that this was a vision of the devil himself

>Tell his jewish wife about it

>going to commit suicide

>kike woman literally tells him that he is a chosen prophet

>Muhammad compared himself to Moses

>changes, copies or adulterates the mosaic Law and the versicles in the gospel on Christ being God

Islam is just another shitty heresy from the desert to send souls to Hell.

>> No.19304107

>>19304011
I also don't think anyone would have a problem with the Qur'an repeating stories if the stories were not retellings of what can be found in the Bible or the Torah. I think people read this book with a lot of assumptions which is why when I ask anyone who has read it what its message is they are unable to give me a direct, thought-out answer. They usually give some sophistic reductionist bipartisan opinion instead of simply saying what the Qur'an was meant to do and why.

>> No.19304117

>>19303947
Muhammad is just an Arab prophet. Jesus is the son of god.

>> No.19304137

>>19303947
Lot of bad takes ITT. Christians are eternally triggered by the soundness and self-sufficiency of Islamic doctrine, as well as by their historical success.
>NOOO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE JESUS WAS LITERALLY THE SON OF GOD
The Bible does not say that outright; in fact, it's confirmed that the Bible had been corrupted and doctored in the very verse that stresses the trinity. Islam is simply a return to monotheistic purity, and away from the logical inconsistencies of Christianity.

>> No.19304149

I think the appeal of Islam lies in its all encompassing system and the simplicity of its dogma, not so much the beauty of the Quran, which is a secondary justification.

>> No.19304151

>>19304137
>Historical evidence
What is faith?
>jesus was the son of god
That part was not altered that is literally the crux of the religion

>> No.19304202

>>19303992
>muh "j-just reading it in Arabic"
I can't stand this shit. I've heard people say it's worth comparing the Greek NT to an English one, but never heard anyone say that it loses all its beauty outside of Greek. But for some reason it's different with sand yodeling.
>>19304137
t. heretical cope

>> No.19304232

>>19304137

>The Bible does not say that outright

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth".

>John 1:14

>> No.19304237

>>19304202
Greek is not a Semitic language. Semitic languages are notoriously impossible to fully translate with non-Semitic languages because of root words and tenses whose comparison cannot be found in languages like French German or English. Not to say that Arabic is impossible to translate, or that the Qur’an is unknowable through English, but I think you’re underestimating how dense Semitic languages can be. This is why Jews learn Hebrew to read the Torah, and don’t simply translate their books into the languages of the people they live with. You could say this is because they are tribal, but to some degree they do not like discussing the Torah without going over the original Hebrew.

>> No.19304247

>>19304137
Doesnt matter, the bible is dozens of books of prophecy, history, laws, stories etc. the quram is the ramblings of a lunatic.

>> No.19304252

>>19304237
The psalms have been translated while keeping some of their depth and beauty, therefor if the Quran can not be translated like that, there is nothing to translate.

>> No.19305132

>>19304252
The beauty of the Qur'an for me is the sound of its prose when recited in Arabic. As for it not being particularly awe-spiring, which I would disagree with, I'd have to say that a sign that is bedazzled and a sign that is plain are both still signs. Scripture shows us the way.

>> No.19305145

>>19305132
arabic sounds like a man spitting and choking at the same time

>> No.19305152

>>19305145
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_W1NKvsh0&list=LL&index=100&t=537s

You're talking about street arabic. Fusha (classical dialect) arabic is pretty beautiful. You may disagree but some of the best vocals I've heard have been in arabic.

>> No.19305175

>>19304202
>manipulating the Bible is totally not heresy
kek

>> No.19305186

>>19305152
>You may disagree but some of the best vocals I've heard have been in arabic.
It's just autotune (which apparently is not haram)

btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDGJEH-4FM

>> No.19305200

>>19305186
>It's just autotune
https://youtu.be/di8WbE2WSo0

>> No.19305239

>>19305186
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKVLsVPnCO4

>> No.19305241

>>19305200
You think you can't apply autotune live? This video is not autotune, but many videos you find on yt are

That said, I have a condition for which I get sweaty feet after 5 minutes of wearing shoes, I'll never step foot in a mosque

>> No.19305267

>>19305241
Mishary doesn't use autotune when he recites the quran. This is what it sounds like when he's using autotune (mind the vocals).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTev4airr-U
and this is what it sounds like when he's just reciting with his voice
https://youtu.be/LLKtZRYRQz8

>> No.19305526

>>19304060
I thought his allegation was that it's actually the verses about Christ being God that are adulterations. I'm not sure how you're supposed to tell which is the case.

>> No.19305689

>>19303947
ITT: Christcuck cope and Muslim damage control
Yes you need to read it in Arabic and the reason why is because the linguistic dexterity isn't as directly transferable as Greek was for English, the language doesn't have the tradition that Greek had for the Western Civilisation and so many etymological subtleties are alien to you all.
Fuck this board is dumb

>> No.19306213

>>19305132
It's really unfortunate that more people don't speak Arabic, and thus cannot understand why the Quran is such a miracle. Then again, learning Arabic is hard and shitposting about muh violent Mahomet is easy

>> No.19306223

>>19303947
Muhammad isn't the second Jesus. He's more like the second Moses (he fulfills the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 perfectly), or a reiteration of Abraham (primordial monotheist, father of a large nation)

>> No.19306231

>>19304232
>written over 100 years after Christ's death and heavily edited
That verse you cited was literally added in later, dude

>> No.19307367
File: 239 KB, 1000x720, 1635480700116.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19307367

>>19306213
Arabic is my mother language and the Quran isn't anything special if you have knowledge of the old Arabic poems. It's literally no different.
Omar had a problem even finding out which verses were from Allah and which ones were made up later on after Mohammad's death.
The reason the Quran is shilled as a miracle by Arabs is because the Quran is the only relavent poetic text they have of old Arabic.

>> No.19307387

People love to shit on the Quran for being "boring," but as a Christian I will at the same time cede that a lot of the Old Testament is really boring fluff and you only need to read like a quarter of it to get the gist of everything that's relevant.

>> No.19307405

>>19304137
The trinity is more consistent than the reductionist monotheism of Islam (or at least versions of it that claim the trinity is impossible). To deny the possibility of something like the trinity is to claim that omnipotence is impossible and that the laws of number have authority over god.

>> No.19307429

>>19306213
Learning Arabic is a worthless endeavor. Talking about religion is easy and fruitful.

>> No.19307438

>>19303947
Christ is King.
Muhammad married a child when he was 54.
That's really all you need to know.

>> No.19307444
File: 2.44 MB, 1696x6224, islam2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19307444

muzzies never recovered from this

>> No.19307478

>>19307405
Explain.

>> No.19307486

>>19307478
>god can do anything (literally on the first page of the Quran)
>except exist as both one a three at the same time
Is there something actively preventing him from doing this? If this is the case how can they claim that god can do anything or is the supreme authority of the universe.? I have no issue with Muslims who say that such a thing is possible, but that they know it is untrue because the Quran says so. The problem is how they treat it like it is some sort of absurdity or "contradiction" (as was claimed by the poster I was responding to) without realizing how much it undercuts their own claims about their god.

>> No.19307509

>>19307444
There was an entire series of posts examining islam's shittiness in great detail, some years ago, by a guy named Professor Kafir. I didn't save them but they ravaged islam's ass.

>> No.19307517

>>19307486
Isn't there a difference between 'can't' and 'doesn't'? Why would he want to?

>> No.19307520
File: 980 KB, 1059x1043, DRAE_Touko_Toko_Fukawa_Halfbody_Sprite_06.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19307520

>>19303947
Question for muslims

Does Allah answer prayers from kafir people? My grandparents are christian.

>> No.19307524

>>19307517
I more or less said that in my post. When claiming that the Christian, trinitarian God is contradictory, they are claiming that he is an impossibility or absurdity. Like I said,this issue doesn't apply to Muslims who claim such a thing is possible but untrue.

>> No.19307543

>>19307524
Actually, that's a valid question itself though- does omnipotence include the ability to do contradictory things? Can God create a married bachelor, or a square circle? Can he make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

>> No.19307551

>>19304060
Wherever you heard these lies you should not use that place as a source for information.

>> No.19307561

>>19303947
>it seems like muhammed is literally just Jesus II
Because he is. It's the Torah 3.0. The kikes ruined Judaism. The Romans ruined Christianity. Islam is the final version (and warning) from the Abrahamic god to stop fucking up.

>> No.19307562

>>19307543
Fair enough in an abstract sense, but I can't square away the specific claims Muslims make about their god with with a conception of omnipotence which does not allow for those things.
I'm not a Christian in any sense, but I've just never been convinced by Islamic commentary on the trinity. It makes it seem as of they're incapable of abstract thinking.

>> No.19307563

>>19307520
Yes, in at least two instances: when a person sincerely asks Allah (swt) to guide him to to the true religion, Allah (swt) will reveal Islam as the one true religion to that person. And whatever a father asks Allah (swt) for his son, Allah (swt) will grant it.

>> No.19307576

>>19307562
>their god
This is loaded, Muslims and Christians and Jews all believe in the same God

>> No.19307583

>>19307576
I doesn’t really matter to me, and I’m sure Christians and Jews would disagree (the best those groups can give Muslims is that they are defaming the god that they worship).
But that also doesn’t matter. My use of their is appropriate because he is the god they claim to worship. Being theirs doesn’t necessarily mean he is theirs only.

>> No.19307634

>>19307576

The Christian God is no respecter of persons

>> No.19307641

>>19304011
>The very name "Qur'an" simply means recitation or reading
Bible simply means book, what’s your point

>> No.19307646

>>19307583
He is not exclusively "theirs", which is why I'm asking you to not use the term as it is misleading, inaccurate, and completely unnecessary.
>>19307634
What do you mean?

>> No.19307673

>>19307646
>He is not exclusively "theirs", which is why I'm asking you to not use the term as it is misleading, inaccurate, and completely unnecessary
This point is really only ,eaningful for Muslims. Anyone else will either disagree, or it’s just meaningless to them.

>> No.19307678

>>19307673
No, and you're being insincere.

>> No.19307685

>>19307678
How? I would have no problem with a Jew claiming that Christians do not worship his god. I get that it’s a central belief of Muslims that they do worship the same god, but air could perfectly understand someone from the other two faiths claiming that Muslims defame their god to such an extent that he is not the one they worship even if they claim otherwise.
As someone irreligious I generally don’t think either claim is more right than the other, but I can understand both perspectives. That is my sincere belief.

>> No.19307707

>>19307685
I've changed my mind, it's not insincerity it is genuine ignorance.
Yes there are for instance some Christians who claim that their God is not that which Muslims worship, you can find stuff about moon-godvworshipping and whatever, and you can also find other Christians who will say that those aforementioned Christians are not actually Christians and that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe in the same God. I could tell you that The Pope said all three religions worship the same God.
Whatever, go do your own research anon all I'm saying is that "their god" is a loaded term, as I said, so keep using it if you want to but know that.

>> No.19307728

>>19307707
>I could tell you that The Pope said all three religions worship the same God.
Can you find a medieval pope saying the same thing? If you’re follower of one of these religions, all of these claims are equally meaningless. The people who seem to really emphasize it are those Muslims or those interested in appeasing Muslims, like the pope.

>> No.19307734

>>19307583
>and I’m sure Christians and Jews would disagree (the best those groups can give Muslims is that they are defaming the god that they worship).
Nigga are you serious? You think Christians and Jews worship the same God, and Muslims are the odd ones out? Ask any Jew which conception of God he feels is closer to the Torah - the Christian triune herecy, or the Muslim concept of tawheed. The Christians are the odd ones out, dummy - which is why Muslims believe the Christian text was corrupted by the hands of men

>> No.19307744

>>19307734
>You think Christians and Jews worship the same God, and Muslims are the odd ones out?
You should have read my next post:
> I would have no problem with a Jew claiming that Christians do not worship his god.

>> No.19308257

>>19307646
Islam and Christianity are not identical especially the fundamental principles of both religions.

>> No.19308282

>>19303947
cope with what you retarded christshit?

>> No.19308356

>>19303947
Why would Muhammed and Jesus be different? They're both prophets trying to spread the word of Allah.

>> No.19308396

>>19304011
>Many people read it expecting to find the secret as to how 1/3rd of the world have become entranced with its religion, but are utterly disappointed to find principles and stories they themselves already believe in.
The secret is that it's brainlet friendly. It's the special education version of the Bible for 80 iq inbred sandniggers.

>> No.19308400
File: 15 KB, 181x279, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19308400

I’ve been reading a Hebrew translation of the New Testament and it seems like Jesus is literally just Moses II. Is Christianity literally just one big fucking cope? I dont get it

>> No.19308449

>>19307563
>whatever a father asks Allah (swt) for his son, Allah (swt) will grant it.
Really? So if a father asks Allah to make his son win the lottery or to grow taller or more handsome, this will happen?

How is every muslim not tall, handsome and rich, then?
Does the inbreeding interfere with the prayers' power?

>> No.19308472

>>19308396
there is nothing complicated about the shitble, christcuck

>> No.19308493

How can Mohammed be the final prophet when Mani was the final prophet 500 years earlier.

>> No.19308540

>>19307641
You’re only adding to my original argument you fucking retard. Read my comment again and you’ll see this was exactly my point. Turn your “koran bad” synapses off and learn to fucking read

>> No.19308563

>>19307524
I’ve seen Muslims argue that it is logically impossible for a begotten (generated) substance to have aseity. If you think God is an illogical being then you don’t have to respond to such arguments.

>> No.19308641

>>19303947
It’s the classic example of one of the false prophets that Jesus warned of. Judge them by their fruits

>> No.19308646

>>19308563
>I’ve seen Muslims argue that it is logically impossible for a begotten (generated) substance to have aseity
they're not wrong

>> No.19308728

>>19307387
the Old Testament may have boring bits, but Genesis is just banger story after banger story, I tried reading the koran and got bored like 5 pages in.

>> No.19308905

>>19308396
>it's brainlet friendly
I don't get how this is a bad trait for a religion to have. The last thing you'd want your religion to lack is accessibility.

>> No.19308974

>>19308563
I don't think it's a matter of God being logical or not. It's a matter of how logic applies to a being that is omnipotent and the creator of all things. Even if logic is an intrinsic part of god himself, I don't think I could consider a being omnipotent if they are not capable of altering their own nature.

>> No.19309011

>>19308974
Like I said, if you believe God can be illogical then there is nothing to discuss. There is no reason to discuss theology if He is literally a paradox. God cannot be paradoxical because God is knowable (not fully) through reason and if so, this means that what we can cognize about the Godhead must be perfectly inline with reason, otherwise we can just say whatever we want about God and get away with it by appealing to mystery.

>> No.19309024

>>19309011
Again, I think the nature of omnipotence can do away with the with the entire company concept of paradox. My assertion is not that God is illogical but that an omnipotent being is going to be supra-logical.

>> No.19309025
File: 31 KB, 485x443, 1519326608768.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19309025

>>19309011
>God cannot be paradoxical because God is knowable (not fully) through reason and if so

>> No.19309120

>>19309024
>nature of omnipotence can do away with the with the entire company concept of paradox
No it doesn't. You understand that the nature of omnipotence is unknowable, so how does this do away with logical inconsistencies?
>My assertion is not that God is illogical but that an omnipotent being is going to be supra-logical.
I don't get how you don't see this is complete sophistry. You are just saying that He is unknowable, and that whatever paradox we see through logic (which is what God gave to us and what God operates through/logos), is actually logical to God, but not to us. You are just giving a roundabout definition to hide the fact that God would conceptually be a paradox under your system of belief. This is akin to gnostic/sufist reasoning, which says that reason is superfluous and that you need to directly experience God in order to find the truth.

>> No.19309142

>>19309120
So God is constrained by logic? Hmm.... What gave us and shaped logic that cages God?

>> No.19309180

>it doesn't make sense so it's true
absolute state of christshits

>> No.19309188

>>19309180
Lack of faith in power of God?

You sure are not a Murtad? Might have to report you to your imam to tell you better.

>> No.19309192

>>19309188
randomly throwing around islamic terms isn't kryptonite you dumb christcuck

>> No.19309200

>>19309192
You have stated nothing but doubt. Are you denying your kufr?

>> No.19309204

>>19309200
calling me a kafir doesn't make me a kafir you shit for brains christcuck nigger

>> No.19309217

>>19309204
You denied God absolute power, not me, then you become hostile when called out on it. Mine statements are true and not insults, your statements are just insults.

>> No.19309235

>>19309217
yes and? doesn't make them untrue

>> No.19309241

>>19309142
Logic is qualifying on the part of God, not constraining.

>> No.19309308

>>19309241
I love where this is going. So it's a quality which he posses, a descriptiveness.

Who bestowed all concepts and logos to exist? Who defined logic as an universal? If He defined it and then applied it to himself (He precedes everything even concepts as concepts proceed their existence from Him) He was first unlimited and not describable by anything human cogitates, then qualified himself by his own creation of logic?

Interesting huh?

>> No.19309328

>>19309308
His attributes are not accidents; they are necessary, and are eternally qualifying. I also didn't say it was a description, as this is the doctrine of divine simplicity which is rejected by Muslims. I don't think you understand the islamic view on God's attributes. God's attributes are necessary to Him, and are not separate parts.

>> No.19309332

>>19309308
with the sophistry again

>> No.19309342

>>19309332
Logical train thoughts is sophistry when someone else does it huh? Have some dignity.

>> No.19309349

>>19309342
jesus isn't god, it's that simple christcuck

>> No.19309360

>>19309349
Didn't ask. You also don't need to reduce yourself to an animal like rabid dog to debate, but what ever you prefer, maybe those animal characteristics are intrinsic to your character.

>> No.19309366

>>19309120
>No it doesn't. You understand that the nature of omnipotence is unknowable, so how does this do away with logical inconsistencies?
As far as I'm concerned, an omnipotent being would have total control over the nature of logic, even to the extent that what seems like a logical inconsistency to us can still apply to him and our inability to understand is more our flaw than anything else

>>My assertion is not that God is illogical but that an omnipotent being is going to be supra-logical.
>I don't get how you don't see this is complete sophistry. You are just saying that He is unknowable, and that whatever paradox we see through logic (which is what God gave to us and what God operates through/logos), is actually logical to God, but not to us. You are just giving a roundabout definition to hide the fact that God would conceptually be a paradox under your system of belief. This is akin to gnostic/sufist reasoning, which says that reason is superfluous and that you need to directly experience God in order to find the truth.
Again, I don't think the concept of paradox is is necessarily applicable here. If you can't wrap your head around the difference from being supralogical and illogical, then I don't know of you'll ever understand.
I also think that claiming that being paradoxical makes something unknowable is also wrong. There is much that can be known about paradoxes especially when contrasted with the more certain aspects of him like omnipotence. I think the view you're asserting is too reductive do deal with something of the magnitude of a god. These kind of arguments were lousy when Aristotle made them, and they're even worse when applied to a monotheistic religion, especially one like Islam.

>> No.19309367

>>19309328
I have more to learn about Islamic theology, but I want to ask this.

>His attributes are not accidents; they are necessary, and are eternally qualifying.
Why?

>God's attributes are necessary to Him, and are not separate parts.
Why?

>> No.19309373

>>19309360
didn't answer

>> No.19309408

>>19308905
No, but can't you see? the secret knowledges should only be available to the select and the erudite. The uninitiated could not grasp the intricacies, which is why the holy documents should be written not only in code, but also in a dead language.
But that said, I don't think that argument really works for the Koran. There is a reason there is no protestant sect of Islam who proclaim sola scriptura as their guiding principle. There is a reason the Hadiths exist.

>> No.19309420

>>19309328
Again being necessary or not does not matter. An omnipotent being must be able to alter these things. If he can't he he cannot do anything. If that is the case we must ask what is this authority that prevents the this being from being capable of doing anything.

>> No.19309439

>>19309367
Attributes in created beings are accidents because they exist in virtue of something that is composite, and is put together, and are necessary in a different sense as an outcome of those parts. When it comes to God, on account of His aseity, and the fact that He is not composite, His attributes are therefore eternally necessary.
>>19309366
>an omnipotent being would have total control over the nature of logic
This presupposition is your downfall. Logic is not a separate created attribute of God.

>> No.19309448

>>19309420
Can God both exist and not exist at the same time?

>> No.19309497

>>19309408
>There is a reason there is no protestant sect of Islam who proclaim sola scriptura as their guiding principle.
Actually, there are; they are called Qur'anists, and they have only been known to exist perhaps in the 20th, 21st centuries. Previously, people had no problems with hadith because they were convenient and were not enforced on them by any individual (such as the Pope) and were studied by an aggregate, democratic body of scholarship that was not known to be bourgeois/aristocracy. The problem was that after they began living in other countries, where Islamic scholarship was lacking and wasn't as immanent as it was before, they saw hadith as being enforced on them indirectly by a disconnected, foreign group they could know speak to or learn from. This is just my theory anyway. Every man is their own priest in Islam regardless of hadith.

>> No.19309509

>>19309497
*couldn't know speak to or learn from

>> No.19309515

>>19309439
>This presupposition is your downfall. Logic is not a separate created attribute of God.
That doesn't matter. In order for a being to be omnipotent a being mist be capable of changing its own nature. If God worshipped by Muslims has necessary qualities that he is incapable of altering and controlling, then I don't see how they can claim he is capable of all things.

>> No.19309594

>>19306213
>>19305132
>>19305152
>>19303992
how is the quran the word of God? tell me one piece of evidence it's the word of God and i'll give u a bunch of evidence that the bible is true and the quran is not

>> No.19309624

>>19309515
Is God's perfection not a necessary quality? If God stripped Himself of the quality of perfection, then He would no longer be God.

>> No.19309645

>>19307509
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/205462290

>> No.19309660

>>19309624
Perhaps, but if he in order to be omnipotent he must be capable of such a thing.

>> No.19309720

>>19307685
>a Jew claiming that Christians do not worship his god
Except they do think you worship their god
they just think he loves them more

>> No.19309756

Atheist anon here, how do Christians and Muslims answer the "can God create a rock He can't lift?" paradox? It feels like a retarded way to question God's omnipotence but I don't think I've ever seen a proper answer to it

>> No.19309770

>>19309756
its the same as saying, "can God make a 4 sided triangel?"
the answer is no because a 4 sided triangle doesn't make sense just like an all powerful being that can make something more powerful than itself

>> No.19309799

>>19309756
by defining omnipotence as 'The ability to do anything possible/imaginable'.
unliftable rock/square circle/unmarried bachelor are impossible contradictions
this is the Catholic answer (from Aristotle)

>> No.19309809

>>19309770
>>19309799
This is the “I let Aristotle neuter god” argument, and it’s just silly.

>> No.19309863

>>19309594
How is the Bible true, though? Most Christians today concede that a lot of the OT is penned by Rabbis. Even the NT is not directly the word of Christ but an account of it with commentaries from those whom never even stood before Christ. You have fate in them because they claim that the Holy Spirit has come to them in the very books that they wrote?

>> No.19309948

>>19309809
you have your answer
God is omnipotent and he can't make a square circle
either get a better understanding of infinity or read descartes if you really think God has to draw square circles

>> No.19309968

>>19303947
>Is it literally just one big fucking cope?
That's the origin of all religion

>> No.19309982

>>19309948
It’s a bad answer. I put it well enough earlier in the thread:
> These kind of arguments were lousy when Aristotle made them, and they're even worse when applied to a monotheistic religion, especially one like Islam.
As far as Descartes is concerned a being capable of fulfilling what seem to is to be paradoxes is more perfect than one who cannot, so a being incapable of these things would fail the ontological argument’s requirement for being god.

>> No.19309984

>>19309863
the old testament is not penned by rabbis and most christians do not concede on that lol
the bible is true because of the over 500 prophecies in the old testament talking about christ (isaiah 53 and psalm 22 are some of the best), the apostles and early christians were all persecuted and some died for their faith (no one dies for something they know isn't true), and christianity is different from every other religion in that it requires you to be saved by faith instead of works

>> No.19310065

>>19303947
reminder that Muhammad was an epileptic
moondogs will cope & seethe

>> No.19310069

>>19309984
>>19309984
>christianity is different from every other religion in that it requires you to be saved by faith instead of works
In Islam, to be "saved", one must have faith AND do good deeds. And I suspect Early Christianity was the same. Most Christians nowadays don't even pray each day. I don't understand how that is a good thing. You people claim "the body is the temple", so worship your God. But yes, Christianity is different because it is rooted in Indo European(pagan) tradition and not in Semetic(monotheistic) tradition like Judaism and Islam. Which is why the Qur'an has remained the same for 1400 years with differences only in pronounciation and The Book of Isaiah has remained the same since 200 BC while there were already multiple Gospels with wildly differing accounts just 200 years after Christ rose to heaven. Romans(Greeks) are not well suited in the maintenance and the protection of tradition and scripture, they are not sons of the Patriarchal line. Your Gospels can be safely disregarded.

>> No.19310076

>>19310069
Catholicism requires good works. Protestants, most famously Luther, disagreed.

>> No.19310080

>>19309982
>put it well enough earlier
>arguments were lousy
you really didn't put it anyway besides that you don't like it. Idk about islam, but aquinas spends a lot of time applying it to monotheism
> an omnipotent being would have total control over the nature of logic
this doesnt really mean anything, except that if God decided to lift the unliftable rock, he would alter it to be liftable, thereby rendering it no longer unliftable
>>19309448
kind of like how this guy never got a response
God exists, he can't then not exist at the same instance

>> No.19310086

>>19310069
no its not the same in christianity. you are saved by faith alone. u can look it up buddy. and everything else u said was wildly false lol

>> No.19310096

>>19310076
>salvation doesnt require works
>except if your faith is true it will manifest as works
>so if you dont do works than the faith that granted you salvation was actually false
ok so you need faith and works
thanks Luther
Salvation is through Grace alone

>> No.19310097

>>19310086
Wait, so you don't even devote yourself to remembering your own God? Or do you cope by saying you remember him while doing other things?
>everything else u said was wildly false lol
How?

>> No.19310112

>>19310097
>Wait, so you don't even devote yourself to remembering your own God?
what do u mean by this?

>> No.19310114

>>19310112
Do you even pray to your God, each day?

>> No.19310116

>>19310114
yeah but pray

>> No.19310124

>>19310114
yeah but praying isnt gonna save me

>> No.19310130

>>19310124
>>19310114
i mean it will technically but its not required. what is required is to repent and believe in jesus

>> No.19310161

>>19310080
>you really didn't put it anyway besides that you don't like it. Idk about islam, but aquinas spends a lot of time applying it to monotheis
Aquinas got the idea from Muslim intellectuals, and it was bad when he did it too.
>this doesnt really mean anything, except that if God decided to lift the unliftable rock, he would alter it to be liftable, thereby rendering it no longer unliftable
To the following is required:
1. He must be able to control both logic and all concepts that he can that he can make the state consistent
2. Simultaneously being able to create the conditions to which the to the contradictory or logically impossible state is yes or true.
>The reason I didn’t answer that first one is because
The answer is yes and it is obvious to anyone who understood what I meant by saying that an omnipotent being must be supralogical rather than illogical. Even making such an argument demonstrated that he did not understand what I meant and likely could not, so I didn’t want to bother responding to such a person. When more people responded in a similar fashion, I felt obligated to say something.

>> No.19310254

>>19310161
>To the following is required:
it isn't in any non-sophist sense
>must be supralogical rather than illogical
God exists
He is logical

>>19310130
>i mean it will technically
>>19310096

>> No.19310345

>>19307728
I thought there were at least some medieval Christian scholars who considered Muslims heretics rather than pagans/infidels.
>>19308449
>>19307563
For that matter, how does any (non-orphan) boy die of disease then? Surely any father who loves his son will be praying for him to recover.
>>19309408
You know no religion's scriptures were written in a dead language at the time, right? They're generally written in living languages that people will understand, which later either die or mutate into a new language.
http://blogicarian.blogspot.com/2016/10/bullshitting-in-tongues.html
>>19309720
I'd think a religious Jew would consider the Trinity a horrible distortion of his God at best.
>>19309984
>no one dies for something they know isn't true
Er... then why have people died for so many different religions? They can't all be true. That's proof that the apostles and early Christians BELIEVED it was true, but everyone BELIEVES their religion is true.

>> No.19310472

>>19310345
> then why have people died for so many different religions?
youre referring to people who heard stories, not first person
other guys was referring to first hand witnesses, the founders, apparently dying for their faith.
the founders of Mormonism/JWs/Islam/Buddhism/the various polytheisms religion, they never died to establish their faith
they only died generations later to preserve/expand it

>> No.19310489

>>19310254
>God exists
>He is logical
The he is not omnipotent. You left out what the argument was about.

>> No.19310517

>>19310472
this

>> No.19310531

>>19310472
Er... I'm not even Mormon but it looks to me like some of these are people who were there at the beginnings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_martyrs
And didn't Muhammad's own companions fight alongside him with some dying? For that matter, what about cults like Heaven's Gate? They were there, they met the founder, and they believed enough to kill themselves for it.

>> No.19310569

>>19310161
>He must be able to control both logic and all concepts that he can that he can make the state consistent
Correct.
>Simultaneously being able to create the conditions to which the to the contradictory or logically impossible state is yes or true
And now you've lost me. You aren't very good at stating your position. You say that God somehow transcends logic (which can be compared to saying God transcends His power or His own knowledge of Himself) and then say that He can be qualified by the same logic you say He transcends (by His own standard). You say God is supralogical but then you say that it is somehow logical to say this; by what standard are you saying God is supralogical? logic right? so what the fuck are you even saying?

>> No.19310605

>>19304117
Jesus was a prophet too, according to the quran

>> No.19310625

>>19310605
yeah because Muhammad copied from the Sabians and jews

>> No.19310632

>>19310625
or he came from the same god perhaps? is that possible?

>> No.19310648
File: 330 KB, 915x624, 1590455413186.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19310648

>>19303947
Islam is meant to be a solution to the hubris of the godless man. To bring mankind under divine accountability by having all submit to one indivisible God. Everything else is secondary, but too often abused by bad actors to control people, ironically the exact kind of actors Islam is meant to defeat.

>> No.19310652

>>19310531
>Muhammad
literal conqueror/raider, many reasons to die by his side besides faith such as loot
>Mormons
> "safest place to be in the whole world is on a full-time mission."
from your own source
more importantly, they made their own paramilitary in an attempt to secure land, like Mohammad above
>heaven's gate
Genuinely compelling, though personally I would recommend against joining them

>> No.19310659

>>19308472
it is complicated. if it wasn't, there wouldn't be 45000+ Christian sects today
>>19310632
>or he came from the same god perhaps?
he directly contradicts the NT. Muslims try to explain this away by saying the Bible was corrupted. besides, Allah isn't the same god as Yahweh, although there are some similarities between the two:
>both were part of a larger pantheon (see Ashura & Baal for Yahweh and Hubal, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza & Manat for Allah)
>both were elevated to the "only" god (see the Yahweh cult among the ancient Israelites and Muhammad in the 7th century)
anyway, this board is for literature. theology discussion is on >>>/his/

>> No.19310697

>>19310659
>Ashura
correction: the modern spelling of this goddess is Asherah

>> No.19311302

>>19304117
How could God have a son? And how is he different from you and me? How and when did he even create or "beget" him?

>> No.19311326

how come some muslim girls don't wear head coverings?

>> No.19311444

>>19311326
how come some Christian women dont where head coverings

>> No.19311462

>>19311444
>why aren't all christian women nuns?

good question

>> No.19311679

>>19311462
Doesn't the Bible say women in general should cover their heads, in 1 Corinthians 11?

>> No.19311719

>>19307551
These are literally in the sahih hadiths. He tried to kill himself several times. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6982

>> No.19311783

>>19304137
IF you believe in mothotheism there’s literally no good reason to not be a Muslim. It’s purely because of how cultural influence pins itself to religions that deters westerners to adopting an Arabised/eastern veneer. That’s literally it. The trinity is enforced with such unbelievably stupefying cope that it’s monotheistic it defies belief.

>> No.19311859

>>19304060
Khadija was not a jew. She was from the Quraish tribe same as Muhammed. Jesus and Marry on the other hand were both jews (not that they were bad like most jews but they are still followed jewish law). So please stop projecting.

>> No.19312023

>>19311719
not an authentic hadith. not every narration mentioned in the sahih books are not "sahih"

>> No.19312058

>>19312023
>Bukhari
>not an authentic hadith
kek. Please tell me more about your authentic hadith sources.

>> No.19312110

>>19312058
retard

>> No.19312172

>>19311679
only during prayer and worship

>> No.19312176

>>19312172
>>19311679
>Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

>> No.19312241

>>19312176
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

King James Version (KJV)

>> No.19312271

>>19312176
>but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?
The whole point of covering a woman's hair is for her to be modest and for it to be an exclusive luxury for her husband. Early Christians understood this, even in the medieval era, a lot of women dressed like nuns. It is only a feminist doctrine to say that women needn't cover their heads, especially in front of their Lord.