Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Pliny]

Your quran says Muhammad had an exalted character.

I guess that’s where you get the idea that he was such a great guy. He waited until she was nine before molesting her. Really exalted character for Mohammedans to follow…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Additionally, Rebekah had the mental acumen to know the state of the family’s provisions. It’s clear she was, as the ESV states, a young woman. Every case of marriage in the Bible is between mature individual’s not prepubescent girls, as exemplified by your prophet. Jesus affirmed the creative order of one man and one woman (Mtt. 19).

Posted by WII
Sure. So she was a young teen. So, as the marriage between Mary and Joseph, a Jacob's marriage to a young teen was also a loving biblical marriage. This is acceptable?

Welcome back to the straw man museum! You have failed to prove Rebekah was three years old and now you are fixated on saying she was a “teen”. As though that is equivalent to Muhammad consummating a marriage with a nine year old. News flash, it’s not.

Your agenda is to make them as young as possible. In this way you can continue trying to equate them with the “good example” your deity says was set.

BTW a nine year old is just over half the age of a fourteen year old. Roughly 65% of the age of a fourteen year old. Common sense lets us know that there is a huge difference between a nine year old and a fourteen year old in maturity. Therefore, once again there is no moral equivalency for your premise. Your straw man argument is once again reveled to be a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
For someone who whines about “insults” you have no problem attempting to insult others. I will not respond in like manner.

Posted by WII
A little late for that. I do not mind if you want to turn a discussion into a knife fight. Up to you.

Oh so know the “religion of peace” wants to speak of a “knife fight”. Typical of islam. It just so happens that Mohammedans are up to it once again!

An apparent terrorist-related shooting at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo left at least 12 people dead and wounded 10 more in Paris on Wednesday, police said.
…
Eyewitness images taken at the time of the attack allegedly show two gunmen apparently abandoning a car. They were heard shouting "Allahu Akbar," an Islamic phrase that means "God is great."
…
President Francois Hollande, appearing at the scene immediately following the incident, said the shooting was "undoubtedly a terrorist attack" and that several other terror attacks had been thwarted in recent weeks. He described the shooting as an act of terrorism against France.

French Europe 1 radio said one of the attackers was heard shouting that the "prophet was avenged."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...sher/21377861/

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
The Bible is divinely inspired literature. Muslims believe the life example of Muhammad is to be followed along with his teachings. After all he’s the “messenger of god”. There is a consensus about Muhammad and his teachings on this point.

It’s without controversy that he was a pedophile and your deity has “blessed” that relationship. You cannot find anything in the Bible, the moral equivalent, to support your wishful thinking. Thus you must seek for it elsewhere.

Posted by WII
Wishful thinking is when you declare a sin without a specific passage to support it. I actually have no goal, no gain, and nothing to lose here.

Which of course is yet another prevarication on your part. Hey if YOU are okay with your prophet being a pedophile that’s your problem not mine. If you don’t have a problem with your religion “blessing” pedophilia again that’s your problem not mine. If you think your prophet’s example is a “good example” to follow, once again that’s your problem not mine. If you think that this act reflects an “exalted character” then once again, that’s your problem not mine. Just quit trying to justify it with the absurdities you have become infamous for.

Your justifications have as much substance to them as a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

Let’s see… Your “proof” comes from the commentator Rashi. You are aware that Rashi was born in France and lived from 1040 – 1105 AD right?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aphy/rashi.htm

So your “logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text and accept the comments of someone born in Europe who lived thousands of years after the event. I guess he had a crystal ball that he could look at to make that determination. Your logic here explains a lot.

Posted by WII
Rashi is a rabbi and as you yourself FINALLY admitted God did not spell it out leaving it to "the ministry" to do so.

Welcome back to the straw man express! Please note what I said. Your “Logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text… Not surprising. I guess in islam it’s okay to “invent” whatever you want. Well not exactly anything you want but it is okay to “invent” things and of course that’s not a lie right?

“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

Situational ethics must be highly “exalted” in islam…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do understand that the Jewish rabbis disagree on the age of Rebakah right? Yet you fixate upon the one that agrees with your agenda. Why is that? Your paradigm at work? It doesn’t even matter to you that he lived thousands of years after the events he is commenting on. As long as it helps you sleep at night why let the truth get in the way of the narrative…

Posted by WII
Nope, I got what I needed from that. I just wanted you to declare a marriage between a young teen and a 40-yr-old man as biblical and blessed and you have done so. Thanks.

Wow! Where did I say “teen”? Wait I know! You must have found Rashi’s crystal ball! LOL! Regardless of Rebekah’s age she was NOT a nine year old girl. That is clear from the Biblical text. There you go with your inventions again.

Once again, welcome to the “straw man” show where we watch WII tap dance all around the point. Watch as he sophomorically attempts to juggle meaningless data to try to justify his religion. Even if Rebekah was fourteen there is a world of difference between that and the example set by Muhammad, the man with an exalted character. ROTFL. Aisha was nine years old which is just a little less than half that age (technically it’s about 65% of that age – fourteen).

Here’s a hint. Try to find something biblically that is equivalent. Oh wait. You can’t! Oh well according to islam you can invent something and it’s not a lie.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here is what the Bible states concerning Rebekah.
She was old enough to go to the well alone.
She was physically capable of fetching water for the entire family to use throughout the day.
She was physically capable of drawing water for the camels (there were ten camels according to Genesis 24:10) of Abraham’s servant. As documented in an earlier post, camels drink up to twenty gallons of water at a time. They had been on a long journey. Rebekah retrieved enough water for the camels to drink till they were satiated. Do the math. That’s a lot of water to draw!
She was mature enough to have full understanding of the state of affairs of her family. She understood the camels need hay to lay down on and “provender” enough (Genesis 24:25) for the camels.
She did not have to run home and ask any of these questions and also understood there was room for him and the men with him to lodge with them.
She was able to make the decision to stay or go (Genesis 24:57-58).
This all points to a young woman not a three year old girl as suggested by you. I will stick with the Biblical text. You can have the Jewish commentator here.

Posted by WII
Me too. She was right at or near puberty, as per the consensus of the majority. So you accept this as biblically acceptable yes?

I said “I will stick with the biblical text”. You said “me too”. It appears by this that you agree to stick with the text. Yet, what do we find? You immediately follow up with I will go with “the consensus of the majority”. It is clear that you are not speaking of the Majority Text because the Majority text is a New Testament text. Thus, you said you would stick with the text and immediately move to something other than the text to attempt, poorly, to establish what you apparently need.

Since you once again failed to document your assertion it’s left up to the reader to determine what you are inventing this time. It seems to me you are trying to establish a premise by the logical fallacy known as “argument ad populum”. This is the belief that it must be true because it’s popular. The people of Noah’s day found out the hard way about that kind of nonsensical logic.

Maybe you should look up what a theory laden observation is. You are a classic example.

The text does not give her age. It does let us know she was physically able to water 10 camels after a long journey. Since I documented earlier this is up to 20 gallons she would have had to bring up to 200 gallons of water for the camels alone. She went to the well alone. She was fully cognizant of her family’s state of affairs by knowing they could take care of Abraham’s servants and the animals with him.

Now you can go with the “majority” if you want to. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. Just don’t force that opinion upon the text. That is deceitful or should I say inventive?