Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam
So who tortured the text again?
You did. See above. LOL!

“Torturing the text”: (def) Copied and directly pasted 5 translations of it.
You are right, I must have tortured it.

What they taught is irrelevant to the discussion.

What they taught is more relevant to the discussion than what Jesus taught on divorce.

Man shall live by the “word of God”…

Somehow your pet Shammai, Hillel, the Talmud and all of your other sources are conspicuously absent.

They are not “pets” they are rabbis with historical documented case law which is relevant to the raised issue.
Funny you would say that when they start with original law then document case law that is built on it. They are the ONLY “ministry” in existence from the time the law was delivered through the time of Jesus. Who cares if you reject it or do not reject it?

Nice of you to point out that Jesus directed one thing in Matthew and the exact opposite in Mark though. Although I have a long standing list of discrepancies in the gospels I somehow missed that one.

Nothing new. Still same old tired straw man arguments. Say it enough you might even start to believe this claptrap. Until you can offer something of substance rather than the same false dichotomies etc. you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

You specified that the ministry was appointed to fill in the blanks on sins not specifically outlined. You also told me you researched this and that it was not there. This was the appointed ministry. Now that you have been informed what was there and where it was you reject it. There must be a big word for that right? LOL in the South we call that "crawfishing". LOL

This is the ONLY reference to age of marriage at the time of Jesus. No church, no Quran, nothing in the bible. You now reject the ONLY reference? Small wonder.

What have we learned?

That Walks in Islam believes his prophet is distasteful.

“though currently distasteful” reference in an earlier post followed by “there is nothing in biblical, jewish, or church history defining it as a sin” may be interpreted that way that is not actually what I said. Work on your comprehension skills and please include context.

We have learned that his religion is inherently “distasteful” because pedophilia is inherent to Shariah – Islamic law.

Luckily it was made evident a long time ago that you take easily checked words out of context and twist them into something else. The above is an example.

We have learned that muslims will go to any lengths to justify their prophet.
We have learned that apostolics will go to any lengths to invent a doctrine and condemn others using that invented doctrine.

These justifications, as we have seen are (but not limited to these:

1) Colonial laws. He used these as a “Tu quoque” (you too) fallacy. Meaning that it’s okay because others did the same thing. Thus, he inadvertently elevated Colonial laws to an equal status with his religion. It’s either a higher standard or it’s not. Apparently it’s not. This however is not accepted by Apostolics. For Apostolics the Bible is the standard.

Colonial common laws were carried down from Europe where church law was the standard. Examples of states where one could not hold office unless christianity was professed were provided. Colonial interpretation of this biblical standard resulted in law that defined “marriageable” to be very young age. Summary: No “sin” was found based on colonial laws.

2) Foreign cultures are equivalent to the Islamic religion. It was argued that pedophilia was practiced by many ancient cultures. Once again this inadvertently elevates those ancient cultures to equality with the Islamic religion. Islam cannot be a “higher standard” when they justify its practices with a lower one. For Apostolics the Bible is the standard.

Jewish law is the basis for biblical law. The bible teaches Jewish law. Jewish law defined “marriageable” to be very young age. Summary: No “sin” was found based on Jewish law

3) Judaism and it’s literature outside the Bible. He elevated Jewish extra biblical literature to that of equality with Islam by trying to justify his religions failures with these texts. Thus, inadvertently elevating them to equality with islam.

Jewish law outside the bible was based on case law built where biblical law was vaguely defined or unclear. The basis is still biblical law. No “sin” was found based on Jewish law outside the bible.


He has miserably failed to establish any moral equivalency in any of his arguments. Since he also denies that Colonial laws, foreign cultures and Jewish extra biblical literature is not equivalent to his religion then we find that Islam IS a religion of lies. Of course in their defense their god calls it “inventing”.

The Quran recognizes three monotheistic religions. Jews, Christians, and Sabians.
The teachings of the Sabians are lost. This leaves Jewish and Christian teachings as acknowledged.

In the interest of learning, I have searched both of these thoroughly. Other than this twisted message of creation and divorce in the last few days, neither define sin as sin has been defined in this thread. Therefore, I must conclude after exhaustive search that no condemnation is due here and no sin was committed.

Mohammed stood accused. No case has been made to convict. With this in mind, my work here is done.

I learned only one thing: Your halls have not changed. Passages with one meaning are still twisted into a completely different meaning and complete doctrines are built on them.

That is sad.