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.

[shazeep]

ha i can sure say that i never saw any whores, or exotic dance clubs--or women walking on eggshells. They all seemed quite content, aside from the fact that they are very oppressed--and not by the church.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

LOL Aquila IS NOT UPC. BTW tit for tat will not get you out of the fact that Islam is a religion of lies.

Good point. Tit for tat is pretty fruitless. Tell me. After so many pages of this can you truly claim intellectual honesty with ministerial handling of the passages in the bible?

[Aquila]

Cultural and marital customs that boarder on abuse can be found in every culture.

What troubles me is how Islam actually allows for lying to advance the religion. In Christianity, this is condemned.

Romans 3:7-8 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

With this in mind, Christianity is proven to be ethically more moral than Islam.

[shazeep]

hmm, on paper, perhaps. But then why do we have whores, and exotic dance clubs, i wonder. I smell hypocrisy. This nitpicking about lies now, yikes. More pot calling kettle black, imo. All the lies ever told me were by Christians, sad to say. Muslims don't lie. I would leave that for the scoffers and rednecks

[Pliny]

Posted by Pliny
Well I am glad you recognize that I did not agree with the position of the islamic website. I applaud the honesty here. I do however have a “position”. It’s the same one that’s been said over and over. Jesus pointed to the created order when discussing the issue of marriage/divorce

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

(So what? Jesus was outlining the only cause for divorce).

So many misrepresentations! LOL!!! Give yourself a break and stop drinking the Kool-Aid of those Islamic apologists! They have no idea what they are talking about. LOL!

Yes Jesus was outlining the only cause for divorce among whom? He pointed to the created order, the God ordained plan. That being one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship till death parts them. So easy even a cave man can do understand. Only muslims with an agenda to justify their religious ideology refuse to accept it.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

We are way past the Islamic website (with the definitely non-Islamic sources LOL) unless the historical rulings recorded in the Talmud or the words of the bible have become “Islamic”.

The historical and Talmudic quotations are irrelevant. They are often used by Islamic apologists. Apologists who either attempt to make a false moral equivalency, just as you have done multiple times or take them out of context, which you have done multiple times. It would appear that critical thinking skills are not valued among Islamic apologists.




Posted by Pliny
In the created order there was one man and one woman created in maturity. Also, as mentioned so many times we looked at the text YOU brought up – Rebekah’s betrothal/marriage to Isaac. A quick examination of the TEXT reveals she was a mature young woman as the ESV interpreters reveal. BTW that is not a “subjective application”. It’s called exegesis using hermeneutical principles.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Except you add “one” man and “one” woman to the passage. What's a twist here and a tweak there though right? “With the evidence of speaking in other tongues” is a famous addition to apostolic teaching, added to a popular passage that does not actually say that. Actually that is not said ANYWHERE LOL

So you are suggesting that Adam (one man) and Eve (one woman) were not created alone? I guess you know this because you found the same crystal ball of Rashi? Perhaps there is an Islamic crystal ball somewhere that says this. Actually even the quran refers to Adam in the singular:
Surah 15:28 And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: “I am going to create a man (Adam) from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud.

The quran even plagiarized the Biblical account of creation here:
Surah 30:20 And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa (Eve) from Adam’s rib…]
Surah 39:6 He create you (all) from a single person (Adam); then made from him his wife (singular) [Hawwa (Eve)].

Where have I heard about a rib being taken from Adam? Oh yeah, the Bible! LOL! Muhammad plagiarized the the Bible! Hmmm… One man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) were created. Perhaps you should study your own “holy book” some. It really makes you look foolish.

But then again, maybe it’s not your fault. After all the quran contradicts itself quite often. Even in the creation account.

Let’s see Surah 11:61 states that “allah” brought humanity from the earth.
Surah 15:26 states humanity was created from dried clay…

Note: Humanity created from dried clay – check. Wait, that’s not what he said here:
Surah 25:54 And it is He Who has created man from water…
Surah 21:30 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Surah 24:45 Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs…

Note: Hmmm… Dried clay or water? He was as confused as you are! Maybe it would be better to say you are as confused as he was, since he was of an exalted character. Wait! There’s more!

Surah 3:59 Verily, the likeness of Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust…
Surah 30:20 And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa (Eve) from Adam’s rib…]

Note: Ooopppsss now it’s from dust! LOL!

Maybe it’s simply reincarnation?
Surah 30:19 He brings out the living from the dead…

Using your form of exegesis, as demonstrated above, I can understand your confusion. Muhammad could not keep his story straight. Except where he plagiarized the Bible. LOL!

Of course you can’t trust the quran for its reliability. After all it states that the sunset was found and that the sun was “setting” in hot water! ROTFL!!!

Surah 18:86 Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people...

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Let’s see together what the BIBLE says about marriage then we will visit what the LAW at the time of Jesus said about marriage.

There are few laws about marriage in the bible. One of the few is here.
Deuteronomy 21:
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

LOL! I already said Moses allowed this. I also said Moses allowed divorce as well. That does not mean God endorsed it. Unlike in islam where pedophilia is endorsed by your deity and practiced by your “messenger of god”. The man that is supposed to be of exalted character. The man whose example is declared to be a good example. This may be the root of your problem. You think if Muhammad did it then it is ordained by your deity. Therefore, you use the same logic with Moses. Doesn’t work that way.
Did you know Moses murdered a man? That does not mean God endorsed the murder either. Of course you probably know this already but could care less. So if you could care less what else will you lie about?

As mentioned many times Jesus pointed to the created order of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship. Muhammad even plagiarized this portion of scripture. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

There is biblical law on bigamy. That law does not say “thou shalt not have two wives”. It says “this is the law of inheritance in a marriage to two wives”. You are in error when you declare that a marriage defined under biblical law excludes marriage to more than one wife.

LOL! It has been shown so often that the God ordained marriage is between one man and one woman that a person must wonder if you can comprehend anything that’s written. Apparently, it’s not just the Bible you cannot comprehend but the quran as well. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Biblical marriage says what about consent?
Same chapter:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.


This law says nothing about obtaining the consent of the woman. This law says she WILL become your wife UNLESS the husband is displeased with her (after going in to her and consummating the “biblical marriage” whether she consents or not). Where is consent here?

Again trying to understand the Bible with your Islamic paradigm. LOL! You used this before to try to prove prepubescent marriage and now you want to use it to demand it line up with islam, that women are forced into marriages. This logic is so ridiculous it has a name – an argument from silence. Note that it does not say she must be married to the man. See how simple and ridiculous your logic looks! LOL!

Even that carnal man Josephus recognizes the woman’s consent:
“But now, if any man take captive, either a virgin, or one that hath been married, (See note below) and has a mind to marry her, let him not be allowed to bring her to bed to him, or to live with her as his wife, before she hath her head shaven, and hath put on her mourning habit, and lamented her relations and friends that were slain in the battle, that by this means she may give vent to her sorrow for them, and after that may betake herself to feasting and matrimony; for it is good for him that takes a woman, in order to have children by her, to be complaisant to her inclinations…”

Note: Here it is supposed that this captive's husband, if she were before a married woman, was dead before, or rather was slain in this very battle, otherwise it would have been adultery in him that married her.
Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 4, Chapter 8, Section 23.

I know you have read this before because I have posted it before. That means you refuse to accept the truth. The God approved marriages in the Bible were marriages of one man and one woman who were mature. Also, the woman had a choice. Just like the passage you brought up with Rebekah. She was given the option. Just as in this event she would be given the option.

The Bible is not the quran. It does not say anyone found the setting sun sitting in a pool of hot water. LOL!!! What was acceptable to Muhammad cannot be forced upon the Biblical text no matter how much you huff and puff.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You are in error when you say that a biblical marriage requires consent of both parties.
What else will you lie about?

You are in error when you attempt to say there were more than one man and one woman created by God in the beginning. Apparently you don’t even know the quran! LOL! What else will you lie about?

I know. You will lie by attributing a quote to me that was in reality from the Islamic apologetic site you appear to use. What else will you lie about?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I was thinking that you might study a little bit and adjust your position. You won’t, and that’s your fail and that’s your problem. Instead, you have BUTCHERED passages out of context to twist them to fit your position and every positon you have taken and every sin you have declared will systematically be yanked right out from under your feet.

LOL!!! So says the muslim apologist wannabe that struggles with reading comprehension. I will not “adjust” the truth or invent it as is the case with islam. Just as you have tried to invent more than one man and one woman in the Biblical creation narrative that Muhammad plagiarized. Oh well. No worries. Critics have come and critics have gone but the bible is still the standing. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes one man and one woman, that is your position. The bible however conflicts your position has several other arrangements, all blessed by God. Either they were “sinful” as you say (but God and everyone else did not mention it) or they were not “sinful” and were accepted.

Well! After so many pages you finally figured out I do have a position. So when did you figure this out? Before now? If so then you lied before when you said I

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

OK You did NOT agree with that. So you still do not have a position…

Well… What else will you lie about?
Like I said, Moses allowed polygamy and even divorce. Moses, not God. That’s the problem with critics. They have no understanding of Hermeneutics or exegesis. They think they find a contradiction and they can’t get past it. You’re not the first critic and won’t be the last. Yet the Bible still says what it says.

It’s clear that you refuse to acknowledge truth in any form. You will argue against one man and one woman in the created order even when your quran affirms the same thing. I suppose you can argue you were just “inventing” information to support your religion. Where I was raised that was called lying. There is no intellectual integrity and only a desire to justify your religion by sacrificing truth on the altar of justification. Have at it. It’s your right.

Lessons that have been learned.
Islam declares Muhammad to be a man of exalted character, an example to be followed.
He consummated a marriage with a nine year old little girl.
Mohammedans across the globe follow that “good example” and “exalted character” by marrying prepubescent girls today.
Muslim apologists will use anything to justify their religion while sacrificing truth on the altar of justification.
False moral equivalencies, straw men and a host of other logical fallacies go to show that islam cannot contend with the God of the Bible.
I may or may not post more. It’s pointless to answer a fool according to his folly… (Proverbs 26:4)

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Good point. Tit for tat is pretty fruitless. Tell me. After so many pages of this can you truly claim intellectual honesty with ministerial handling of the passages in the bible?

LOL, well, I'm afraid to tell you that if you can claim intellectual honesty with the Qur'an, then you definitely can do the same with the bible. I would also like to point out, that if many of so called Muslims can misunderstand the Qur'an and become deathly terroristic about it, then I suppose some so called Christians can do the same with the bible. I also suppose that there are some intellectually honest Mormons when it comes to the Book of Mormons.

Here is the kicker though, with Mormonism you have only 1 prophet that claims he is the sole prophet of his time. Thus 1 man started this religion. With Islam you only have the word of 1 man as well who also claims to be a prophet that starts a new religion. It would seem that the start of 2 new religions were started by one single man that never had a witness with them to claim that their faith was the new valid one.

Whenever the prophets of the bible had anything to say from God, they always had someone else to witness or back up the claim. Jesus was one man as well, but He had 12 disciples. How many disciples did Joseph Smith have? What about Mohammed? When you compare the integrity of Joseph Smith and Mohammed with that of Christ then that is where you see where the lie comes from.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Whenever the prophets of the bible had anything to say from God, they always had someone else to witness or back up the claim. Jesus was one man as well, but He had 12 disciples. How many disciples did Joseph Smith have? What about Mohammed? When you compare the integrity of Joseph Smith and Mohammed with that of Christ then that is where you see where the lie comes from.

Don't forget John the baptist, as well.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Don't forget John the baptist, as well.

John the Baptist didn't start a new religion, that was the reason I didn't include him, but I see your point. Jesus did call him the greatest prophet.