Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

That's the extent of my answer to you. Summary: What is in the pants of other men is not any of your business - even if you demonstrate on the internet that you think about and wonder about and talk about it as if it is.
Another unhealthy obsession.

You have demonstrated that you have filled your mouth with what you have learned of your god:
it is not a holy god, but that which would be the god of this world. You cannot hold a proper
discussion in your heretical and vulgar state of mind.

Unless you seek the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob and learn of Him, you will remain
in your vile affectations. We will know your TRUE intentions, that which comes from the
heart, by your next response.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

There are a few texts in the Apocrypha, and there are references to brothers (and sisters) in the gospels.

The early church fathers who taught this most certainly never taught that Jesus had a wife and children LOL

apocrypha: neuter plural of apocryphus secret, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide

Makes sense. Who practices a religion of lies then?

Islamics.

True Christians reject the apocrypha.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Islamics.

True Christians reject the apocrypha.

I neither accepted nor rejected the apocrypha. See above. Post said early church fathers taught that Joseph was previously married and married Mary at age 12.

So did Jesus have brothers and sisters? Gospels mention them.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

You cannot hold a proper
discussion in your heretical and vulgar state of mind.

Unless you seek the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob and learn of Him, you will remain
in your vile affectations. We will know your TRUE intentions, that which comes from the
heart, by your next response.

I am discussing the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.

It is a very vulgar state of mind to picture, talk about, visualize, and imagine circumcision of others.

Please work on that and come back when you feel better.

Thanks

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Islamics.

True Christians reject the apocrypha.

I see. Forgot to ask. So you declare the Council of Nicea true christians? You believe that possession of apocrypha warrants torture and a death sentence?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I neither accepted nor rejected the apocrypha. See above. Post said early church fathers taught that Joseph was previously married and married Mary at age 12.

So did Jesus have brothers and sisters? Gospels mention them.

Who cares what early church fathers said? The bible is self-contained. Mary had other children after Jesus, too.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Which is why Jewish rabbis, who teach from the whole text, interpret it one way and your translators, who add a jot here and a tittle there (or in this case leave it out) interpret it another.

Again, there is no book of God's law that speaks on this issue. There are, unsavory as they may be, texts that allow marriage with very young girls going all the way back to the ancient books.

Unsavory? Yes. Encouraged? Yes. Allowed? Yes. Forbidden? No.

With all of this, you still haven't brought even one single tiny little verse of scripture to back up your judgement. Don't you have even one?

LOL! Still don't get it do you.
You bring up Rebekah and when that is discredited you bring up something else. And then read into the text what you want to see. All in an effort to justify the perversion of your deity and his prophet. BTW that is called eisegesis. Also, Keeping the "little one's" does not mean they were kept and manipulated the way muslims treat prebubescent girls.

And so now you are resorting to statting the scholars that translated the text from Hebrew to English have no idea what they are talking about! ROTFL!!! How utterly absurd. If there was ANY evidence for your sordid fairy tale you would have brought it up a long time ago. The fact is the Bible nowhere states that an old man married a prepubescent girl. If there was you would not cease to bring it forward. Instead you brought up some silliness from a Rabbi. So ludicrous was it that common sense would alert any honest person to the truth of the matter. Thus, discredited you now want to disparge translations that clearly speak against you version.

There are two reasons why I have not shown the Biblical evidence.
1) You don't care about truth. You care only for justifying the perversion of your deity and his prophet.
2) Because you don't care about truth it would not matter what evidence is brought forward. Until you can honestly accept the fact that your deity and his prophet are pedophiles it is pointless.

This has been evidenced here time and time again. You attempt, poorly, to make a moral equivalence where there is none. Whether it be state politics or the Talmud or any other thing. Next you have read into the text what you want to see, that eisegesis thing. Now you want to rely on the logical fallacy of an argument from silence! ROTFL! Since you think the Bible is silent on the age of a married woman then it must mean that any age is okay. That is absurd and as pointed out a logical fallacy. No surprise...


Everywhere the Bible speaks of mariage it speaks in terms of both parties being free moral agents having mature thought processes. Thought processes that reveal a maturity of age. Your own use of Rebekah is one such example. There is also teh creatioin account of Genesis. There can be no doubt that when God created ther heavens and the earth He created them in a mature state. The light had to be touching the earth already for teh vegetation to grow, for example. The earth had to be in a place that could support life prior to the life being brought forth. Therefore, it was created in maturity. The same with Adam and Eve. They were created fully mature from day one with the intent to be fruitful and to tend the garden. So time and time again we see the principle of maturity for both the man and the woman. This is the God of the Bible's way.

What is the way of islam. It's open season on prepubescent girls and you still can only seek to justify such heinous acts. Truly sad... When will you repent from that religion? When will you acknowledge the truth? When will you seek the way the truth and the life? When will you lay aside the indefensible?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

There are a few texts in the Apocrypha, and there are references to brothers (and sisters) in the gospels.

The early church fathers who taught this most certainly never taught that Jesus had a wife and children LOL

apocrypha: neuter plural of apocryphus secret, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide

Makes sense. Who practices a religion of lies then?

That would be islam.

One word: Taqiyya

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

LOL! Still don't get it do you.

One of us doesn't get it. You were asked for a tiny bit of chapter and verse and will do, say, hee-haw, anything at all to avoid going and getting it.

You bring up Rebekah and when that is discredited you bring up something else. And then read into the text what you want to see. All in an effort to justify the perversion of your deity and his prophet. BTW that is called eisegesis. Also, Keeping the "little one's" does not mean they were kept and manipulated the way muslims treat prebubescent girls.

UM yea. The Rebekah thing was sourced from a Rabbi. Call Jerusalem 911 and complain there.

And so now you are resorting to statting the scholars that translated the text from Hebrew to English have no idea what they are talking about! ROTFL!!! How utterly absurd. If there was ANY evidence for your sordid fairy tale you would have brought it up a long time ago. The fact is the Bible nowhere states that an old man married a prepubescent girl. If there was you would not cease to bring it forward. Instead you brought up some silliness from a Rabbi. So ludicrous was it that common sense would alert any honest person to the truth of the matter. Thus, discredited you now want to disparge translations that clearly speak against you version.

The scholars who reference the text clearly state ("statt" LOL) that the command was to forcefully take pre-pubescent girls for marriage. Did they get that wrong?

There are two reasons why I have not shown the Biblical evidence.
1) You don't care about truth. You care only for justifying the perversion of your deity and his prophet.
2) Because you don't care about truth it would not matter what evidence is brought forward. Until you can honestly accept the fact that your deity and his prophet are pedophiles it is pointless.

Your leaving out biblical evidence has nothing to do with me. You actually don't have any because with your finger diarrhea you would certainly have waved it by now. As your (much much) wiser peers have pointed out to you there is nothing.

This has been evidenced here time and time again. You attempt, poorly, to make a moral equivalence where there is none. Whether it be state politics or the Talmud or any other thing. Next you have read into the text what you want to see, that eisegesis thing. Now you want to rely on the logical fallacy of an argument from silence! ROTFL! Since you think the Bible is silent on the age of a married woman then it must mean that any age is okay. That is absurd and as pointed out a logical fallacy. No surprise...

Think? I know the bible is silent on it and I know that those who practiced the laws that formulate the basis for the bible practiced them as the scholars say they did and as I say they did and this was practiced long before either christianity or Islam. It is a mistake for you to believe that bleating like a sheep on the internet changes that and it is REALLY a mistake for you to believe that the bible would be silent if this practice was viewed as sinful.

Everywhere the Bible speaks of mariage it speaks in terms of both parties being free moral agents having mature thought processes. Thought processes that reveal a maturity of age. Your own use of Rebekah is one such example. There is also teh creatioin account of Genesis. There can be no doubt that when God created ther heavens and the earth He created them in a mature state. The light had to be touching the earth already for teh vegetation to grow, for example. The earth had to be in a place that could support life prior to the life being brought forth. Therefore, it was created in maturity. The same with Adam and Eve. They were created fully mature from day one with the intent to be fruitful and to tend the garden. So time and time again we see the principle of maturity for both the man and the woman. This is the God of the Bible's way.

Yeah, actually that stuttering paragraph does not support biblical views on marriage age but it ("ther" paragraph) was very touching and beautiful

What is the way of islam. It's open season on prepubescent girls and you still can only seek to justify such heinous acts. Truly sad... When will you repent from that religion? When will you acknowledge the truth? When will you seek the way the truth and the life? When will you lay aside the indefensible?

(laughing) you know nothing of Islam or Islamic marriages which require consent, payment of mahr to the wife, fixed contract, witnesses....none of which, if followed according to Islamic law, can be undertaken by children. Silly rabbit.

Wow. So much useful information. Was there an actual verse about marriage or age of marriage buried deeply in there somewhere? I don't see it. Highlight/underline it next time?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

That would be islam.

One word: Taqiyya

(laughing) so you are being lied to?

There are two reasons why I have not shown the Biblical evidence.
1) You don't care about truth. You care only for justifying the perversion of your deity and his prophet.
2) Because you don't care about truth it would not matter what evidence is brought forward. Until you can honestly accept the fact that your deity and his prophet are pedophiles it is pointless.


That's untrue and you are making yourself look foolish by saying it. Previous post wasn't addressed to you anyway. Go back and get some scripture to back up your condemnation of a 1400 year old marriage.

Everything else you say, minus God's law, is just blah blah blah blah.