Islam vs. Christianity

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 226
#121
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,514
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I always measure the ideologies according to their results.

Look at the West that embraced christianity, they're advanced. We're not the best in morality, there is a lot to do yet, but it's a bliss to have been born in the West. And I think a western woman would say the same. I'm not a fan of the bible but I think it's the best of a bad bunch.

Now, look at the Middle East how primitive their lifes are. Women treated as less than shit, people getting beheaded, men assaulting noble goats, people exploding themselves into pieces in name of a "God". I mean, christians in the middle age weren't so savage.

So, dear poster, you can draw your own conclusions.
#122
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Morphinekid77
Sahih Al-Bukhari 1145 Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (p.b.u.h) said, "Our Lord, the Blessed, the Superior, comes every night down on the nearest Heaven to us when the last third of the night remains, saying: "Is there anyone to invoke Me, so that I may respond to invocation? Is there anyone to ask Me, so that I may grant him his request? Is there anyone seeking My forgiveness, so that I may forgive him?"

If Allah can come down into his created heaven, why couldn't he come down in a created body? 

Based on my view of epistemology, reason is the main arbiter of truth. So it is not  to assume that this hadith should be taken literally because it conflicts with the concept of Tawhid i.e oneness of God. Also majority of Muslims scholars do not interpret this hadith as such. 

There are verses in the Quran that look like contradictory but they are really metaphors or generalizations. Like there is a verse with God having hands. Why is this the case? Because God wanted humans to interpret for themselves. He didn't want the message to be 100% clear. Because then there's no point to learning and striving for God. 

Becoming incarnate doesn't mean that his eternal, unchanging nature as uncreated creator has changed, it just means he added flesh to that nature. His essence remains exactly the same. 
The contradiction is within the definition creator and created. 

In traditional logic, a contradiction occurs when a proposition conflicts either with itself or established fact.

The contradiction is within itself God being creator and created during the time of Jesus being born of a virgin. 

More importantly, the main point I would like to get across, is that Sunni Muslims believe the Quran is Kalam Allah, and it's one of his Sifat, that is to say, they believe the Quran is uncreated. 
Yes this was the debate between the Asharites (traditionalist) vs. Mutazilites (rationalist). Mutazilite school eventually fell and Shia beliefs are based on mutazilites, the rational school. 

The later Mu'tazila school developed an Islamic type of rationalism, partly influenced by Ancient Greek philosophy, based around three fundamental principles: the oneness (Tawhid) and justice (Al-'adl) of God,[5] human freedom of action, and the creation of the Quran.[6] 

Imam Bukhari narrates in his book Khalq Af'aal al-Ibaad:
Sufyan ibn Uyayna narrated: I met our teachers for seventy years among them Amr ibn Dinar, all of them used to say, "The Quran is the speech of Allah, and it is not created."
The Muʿtazilites are best known for rejecting the doctrine of the Quran as uncreated and co-eternal with God,[7] asserting that if the Quran is the literal word of God, he logically "must have preceded his own speech"

Obviously you don't believe the Quran is God, HOWEVER, what we have is a  paradigm of an eternal, uncreated Sifat becoming a physical, paper and ink book. Since, at some point in history, the Quran became a Kitab, a literal book, you have the eternal uncreated becoming something that is eternal and created, namely, pages and glue. 
Right.I disagree with the main assumption, so the conclusion doesn't follow. 

Yet no Muslim would say the eternal nature of the Quran changed. So now we have a Quran that has two natures, an eternal uncreated nature and a physical, temporal book nature. 
Right. But I disagree that the Quran is not created and co-eternal with God. Shia school today and for the past centuries have been Usooli.
Usulis (Arabic: اصولیون, Persian: اصولیان) are the majority Twelver Shi'a Muslim group. They differ from their now much smaller rival Akhbari group in favoring the use of ijtihad (i.e., reasoning) in the creation of new rules of fiqh; in assessing hadith to exclude traditions they believe unreliable; and in considering it obligatory to obey a mujtahid when seeking to determine Islamically correct behavior

The use of reasoning is stressed which is why Mutazailites was incorporated with Shia Islam. 

So, if I as a Christian, believe the eternal, uncreated Word of God became a Man in Jesus Christ, I really don't see on what basis Islam can criticize that based on their own teaching, of Allah coming down into the heaven (something created) and the Quran having two natures, an uncreated nature and a created nature. 
Yes but the assumption is not believed by me. 
#123
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
I always measure the ideologies according to their results.
And that sentence right there is what proves where your ideology comes from: Pragmatism. You believe truthful ideas comes from what is successful in practicality. Which is not a logical way of thinking. 
#124
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
it's a bliss to have been born in the West
Yes. I would say that the best countries to live in are Sweden, Switzerland and Japan, but most of the west is moving forward rapidly in making their countries better. Circumcision is decreasing in USA, and freedom is increasing.
#125
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
What you believe about me is irrelevant.  And I do have something to say and have said it. And will continue to keep saying it.
I assumed you are atheist?

I don't know what I am. Muslims would call me an infidel or simply a filthy dirty Kufar. Some  Christians such as the Reverend Tradesecret would call me a heretic and has called me the "slime of Satan".    AND! "dumb as fuck". <<<<< FKN BIG mistake that turned out to be for the absolute bible ignorant TWAT!

So you're confused :) 

Not at all. I am very clear in my own beliefs in what I believe concerning the biblical scriptures. I was speaking from the standpoint of what some  Christians or some Muslim in the past have called me. .

Different  Christian factions disagree on the interpretation of the bible. MUSLMS believe that Jesus was only a prophet and NOT the son of god. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross where Christians do.  I personally believe the Old Testament and all the characters within it. I don't believe the New Testament in the way it has come down to us and has been interpreted over time although I have good reason to believe a man called Jesus existed in 1st century Judaea.. This is before we get onto the beliefs of Hindus and Sheikhs. So you do see the problem concerning your argument for "Historians" and "Christians" being the arbiters  of biblical truth, don't you?
So you believe historians that suit your bias but Christians can't why? 

Show me where I have said Christians cannot take the word of anyone.... at all. 

I have told you on at least three fkn occasions now, that my problem is with the bible and how it has come down to us over the last two millennia. Its full of holes, dead ends and half stories and nonsense, on the surface.  And told by people that were not even around when Jesus was believed to be walking the earth. IMO.

And let us not forget that  it was you that appealed to the authority of Christians and Scientist. I have simply pointed out it means nothing. It is as you have suggested yourself, one can read and listen and then one has to make up ones own mind. So stop contradicting yourself. 


My problem has always been with the scriptures i.e the BIBLE. I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.
Yes but you say that and it secular values that do have a bearing on ones life. Like why does the west enforce nudity, vaccines, guns. If you don't get vaccinated, you may lose your lob. Your entire livelihood. Be realistic. All governments are run by majority to suppress minorities. The more lawful a country is has the less freedom. 
 FFS!  This thread is concerned with religion on a forum dedicated SPECIFICALY to religion. It is not concerned with anything else.  And I am discussing religion.   If you wish to discuss all the above mentioned above  in bold and underlined, post on the relative sub forum that accommodates for those specifics.


I think I will leave it there with you now. It has already been suggested that I  am one of those "circling you with a wolf pack"  and accused of "taking over"  the thread, although I have only responded to  posts, your posts mainly. . And this is a free forum that is open to anyone interested...... to post on.
#126
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Egypt for a long time had female genital mutilation forced on little girls. Egypt is muslim.
#127
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"“Gawaz salonat” (living room marriages) is the popular name for arranged marriages in Egypt. The name is derived from the tradition of couples meeting for the first time in the sitting room of the bride's house, under the supervision of her family."

"Egyptian girls and women have very few rights in marriage and limited protection within the legal system. Marriage in Egypt is governed by various mainly religious-based laws, with the Muslim majority (and certain other groups) subject to Egyptian Personal Law, based on Shari’ah.4 Women cannot freely marry without the permission of a male guardian, and are often excluded from marriage negotiations.5 In 2008, the age of consent was raised to 18 by an amendment to Egypt’s child protection laws.6 In spite of this law, this age requirement is often not followed,7 and NGO and government agencies report high rates of underage marriage, from 17-38%, across different regions of the country.8 Enforcement of the laws against underage marriage declined in tandem with the general decline in law enforcement capacity after the January 2011 revolution. There are no laws criminalizing forced marriage.
It is much more difficult for women than men to dissolve a marriage in Egypt. Women must navigate a complex, burdensome, discriminatory, and costly system to end their marriages, and ultimately choose between a protracted fault-based divorce that allows them to retain their financial rights (including access to alimony and child-support payments) or a swifter divorce predicated on the abandonment of these rights. A woman seeking divorce, even for reasons of domestic violence, must first submit to compulsory mediation in the name of family preservation."

#128
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
I have told you on at least three fkn occasions now, that my problem is with the bible and how it has come down to us over the last two millennia. Its full of holes, dead ends and half stories and nonsense, on the surface.  And told by people that were not even around when Jesus was believed to be walking the earth. IMO.
Holes, dead-end, half stories are all ok. Gods message is not meant to be 100% clear and there is good reason for that. Because you don't understand the basic premises or arrived at them you don't understand the conclusion (revelation).
"Nonsense "- all religion is nonsense if you don't agree with such premises: 
1. God exists
2. God is just
3. God would send messengers because he is just
4. Messengers came with revelation

I'm just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. 

And let us not forget that  it was you that appealed to the authority of Christians and Scientist. I have simply pointed out it means nothing. It is as you have suggested yourself, one can read and listen and then one has to make up ones own mind. So stop contradicting yourself. 
Yes appeal to authority is a fallacy. But its not a bad idea to believe a trusted person. It is justified. And that's what I meant.  Christians believe in those things because they have already established that God exists, is just, and sent messengers. Based on those premises their beliefs are valid. Which is why I said there is no point in discussing empirical evidence (testimonies) like crucification from atheistic standpoint. Evidence at best can disprove something. Not prove something true. That's the fundamental point. 
 FFS!  This thread is concerned with religion on a forum dedicated SPECIFICALY to religion. It is not concerned with anything else.  And I am discussing religion.   If you wish to discuss all the above mentioned above  in bold and underlined, post on the relative sub forum that accommodates for those specifics.
You made the argument that religion is bad because it enforces things which effect you, I said secular countries do the same. So why is that bad? You did not explain why. You asserted it was bad. You can easily replace religion and secular countries and the same argument stands. The topic of this forum is religion. My religious beliefs are backed by logic. So I will argue like that. In your head secular countries do it for logical reasons and Sharia countries do it for illogical ones. We can have this conversation in the debate section. 

I think I will leave it there with you now. It has already been suggested that I  am one of those "circling you with a wolf pack"  and accused of "taking over"  the thread, although I have only responded to  posts, your posts mainly. . And this is a free forum that is open to anyone interested...... to post on.
I'm not an emotional person or get intimidated. I don't mind "wolves". It's mainly the Korea guy that is taking over, not you. I have no problem with discussing any topic. 

Later 
#129
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@aql_reason
the contradiction is within itself God being creator and created during the time of Jesus being born of a virgin. 

God in His divine essence did not go from creator to "created" at the time of the Incarnation. And He was not in His divine essence simultaneously created and creator at the time of the Incarnation. The person of Jesus Christ, if we are using Chalcedonian Christology (which I believe is the correct one) is fully God and fully man. In His divine nature he is uncreated. His humanity was created. Because He has two natures, what happens in time and space to one does not say anything about the other necessarily. What I mean is, because His human nature came into being, that says nothing about His divine nature, which we know is eternal. 

The error you're running into is conflating the two natures. How can He be uncreated and created at the same time. Well He cant. In his divine nature. The nature that was created is not divine however. 

The contradiction you're trying to make could also be played back the other way. 

Can Allah create a body he cannot inhabit? 

Yes or no? If yes, then you admit the Incarnation is not logically contradictory. If no, Allah is not all powerful. 

We know even angels can appear as men (Surah 19) and Islam also believes in demonic possession. So are the angels and demons more powerful than Allah? 

I understand as a Shia you do not accept the dilemma that the Sunni's face with the eternal Quran theology. However, 85 percent of Muslims do believe what I wrote. Are they in a logical contradiction as well? 
#130
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Here is a story from muslim country Egypt about what they do to women.

“When my husband and mother told me that my girl should undergo FGM, I refused,” shared Amal Ahmed*, a FGM survivor and now a mother from the Cairo governate, in an interview with UN Women. She was only 10 years old when Amal and her sister were forced to undergo FGM. The trauma of the experience never left her. Today, Amal has a 11-year-old daughter whom she protects fiercely. “I told my mother: ‘You did it to me, but I’m not doing it to my daughter. I’m not going to destroy my girl’s life.”

#131
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
I have told you on at least three fkn occasions now, that my problem is with the bible and how it has come down to us over the last two millennia. Its full of holes, dead ends and half stories and nonsense, on the surface.  And told by people that were not even around when Jesus was believed to be walking the earth. IMO.
Holes, dead-end, half stories are all ok. Gods message is not meant to be 100% clear and there is good reason for that. Because you don't understand the basic premises or arrived at them you don't understand the conclusion (revelation).
[A] And that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  Although you know nothing at all about me , my background or my education. That is a assumptive schoolboy error to make of anyone that you have only ever met in an online forum and especially for someone  such as yourself that has only been on this forum less than a week.


"Nonsense "- all religion is nonsense if you don't agree with 3 premises: 
1. God exists
2. God is just
3. God would send messengers because he is just
4. Messengers came with revelation

I'm just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. 

Flaws only according to you and the unfounded assumptions you have made about me after  only five exchanges with me. Also see [A] above.


And let us not forget that  it was you that appealed to the authority of Christians and Scientist. I have simply pointed out it means nothing. It is as you have suggested yourself, one can read and listen and then one has to make up ones own mind. So stop contradicting yourself. 
Yes appeal to authority is a fallacy.

So now you are saying to appeal to authority is "fallacy", but have suggested above this is what I should  be doing. You really like to contradict yourself don't you.
This is you appealing to the authority that you now are calling i" fallacy";
 


aql_reason wrote: I#105: It is up to the historians and Christians to interpret that.

Stephen wrote: Why? 

aql_reason wrote: Who interprets science? Scientists? Who interprets History? Historians. If you don't understand how to interpret something you look at what those people say. And if what they say makes sense, you take it. #108
But now you are saying that appealing to authority "fallacy"!!!!
Do you understand the definition of fallacy? A fallacy is only an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false.  


But its not a bad idea to believe a trusted person. 

I agree.  But there has to be reason for that trust  doesn't there? And not just opinions based on unsupported  faith or belief.



 FFS!  This thread is concerned with religion on a forum dedicated SPECIFICALY to religion. It is not concerned with anything else.  And I am discussing religion.   If you wish to discuss all the above mentioned above  in bold and underlined, post on the relative sub forum that accommodates for those specifics.
You made the argument that religion is bad because it enforces things which effect you,
Nope. What I have said was  "Religion in itself, to me makes no sense, " HERE>>#113


I think I will leave it there with you now. It has already been suggested that I  am one of those "circling you with a wolf pack"  and accused of "taking over"  the thread, although I have only responded to  posts, your posts mainly. . And this is a free forum that is open to anyone interested...... to post on.
I'm not an emotional person or get intimidated. I don't mind "wolves".

And I believe you. But unfortunately there are some complete cretins on this forum that make it their business to take offence on someone else's' behalf and feel the need to have to leap to the defence of someone that only they feel is being victimised and bullied.



It's mainly the Korea guy that is taking over, not you. I have no problem with discussing any topic. 
Well Best Korea has every right to put in  his pennies worth in anytime he feels the need to. This is an open public forum after all.

I won't respond for a while. But don't confuse that as me to have "ran away" from the thread. I only leave a thread when it becomes pointless, circular and for me, has ran its course as far as my own input is concerned.




#132
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,514
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@aql_reason
And that sentence right there is what proves where your ideology comes from: Pragmatism. You believe truthful ideas comes from what is successful in practicality. Which is not a logical way of thinking. 
No. Pragmatism focuses on utility, the logic I present focuses on common sense.

You know, christianity was always an obstacle for the progress of the West, but instead of getting rid of it, it was prefered to keep the good which is the Christian moral, and decided to leave the useless nonsense for the believers: rituals and stupid beliefs. 

So in the end it was a win-win decision, nobody thought about the utility but that everyone gets the best out of it. We don't need motherfucking priests that impose ilogical measures on people. We trust on logic and common sense for our lives, and the beliefs remain personal.
#133
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Here are some stories from muslim country Afghanistan:

"Forced and underage marriages have been a longstanding issue in Afghanistan, yet the stories of victims, particularly those in remote areas, often remain untold.
In an effort to shed light on this tragic reality, Amu interviewed a number of women who have fallen victim to forced and underage marriages in the northeastern province of Badakhshan, revealing the heartbreaking narratives they carry.
Zarafshan, an alias, was only 13 years old when she was forced into marriage, thrust into a role for which she was unprepared. The weight of household responsibilities now rests heavily on her young shoulders.
“I am one of the girls who have fallen victim to forced marriages. I was coerced into marriage at the age of 13, an age when I should have been busy playing like other children. Instead, I was burdened with washing my husband’s clothes and carrying the responsibilities of running a household. I always longed to play with other children,” Zarafshan shared.
Tragically, these narratives persist. Sharifa, another victim, reveals that poverty and hardship forced her family to arrange a marriage for her without her consent.
“My father decided to force me into marriage after failing to provide for the family’s needs,” Sharifa explained.

According to Shaqayiq, a resident of Badakhshan, “From the perspective of Islam and Sharia, a marriage would be considered invalid when a man and a woman do not give their consent to the union.”
Meanwhile, a girl from the Shighnan district of Badakhshan recounted her escape from a Taliban member who was attempting to force her into marriage. Farida, an alias, who is still underage, has sought refuge in Mazar-e-Sharif city in northern Balkh province. She refused to surrender to a life she never chose.
“Taliban members, who were much older, were forcibly marrying underage girls. That is why my parents sent me to Mazar-e-Sharif,” she claimed.
“In the society I live in, women’s voices are silenced, and women are oppressed every day. Girls are deprived of their fundamental human rights. We have even been denied the right to education, which is the basic right of every human being,” expressed Kaynat, another victim of forced marriage.
These stories offer just a glimpse into the pervasive issue of forced and underage marriages in Afghanistan. Countless incidents occur in villages across the country, often unnoticed by the media, and the dreams of these young girls remain buried and unfulfilled.
Recent UN reports have exposed a distressing reality in Afghanistan, bringing to the forefront the alarming prevalence of forced and early marriages within the country. These reports offer a stark reminder that behind closed doors, countless women and girls in Afghanistan are subjected to a life marked by coercion, robbed of their freedom, rights, and futures.

According to the United Nations, forced and early marriages continue to plague Afghanistan, particularly in remote and marginalized communities where poverty, cultural norms, and conflict exacerbate the issue. Disturbingly, girls as young as nine to 13 years old are often married off without their consent, stripped of their childhood and subjected to a lifetime of hardships.
UNICEF in a report in November 2021 said that they have received credible reports of families offering daughters as young as 20 days old up for future marriage in return for a dowry.
Even before the latest political instability, UNICEF’s partners registered 183 child marriages and 10 cases of selling of children over 2018 and 2019 in Herat and Baghdis provinces alone, said the organization, adding that the children were between 6 months and 17 years of age.
UNICEF estimates that 28 percent of Afghan women aged 15–49 years were married before the age of 18."

#134
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
[A] And that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  Although you know nothing at all about me , my background or my education. That is a assumptive schoolboy error to make of anyone that you have only ever met in an online forum and especially for someone  such as yourself that has only been on this forum less than a week. 
Yes I don't know your background. I could be wrong about the atheist part. You could be agnostic or anything else. Idk

I was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning about God and revelation.

You said, "The problem with the bible is because it has holes, half-stories etc." 

The assumption you made was that God should make the holy book with no holes i.e clear. I explained that God does not make his message clear. If He wanted to convert you to His side all He has to do is write revelation in the skies.

Then you said the Bible is nonsense. That's when I explained religion is nonsense based on false assumptions like the one you made above.

Flaws only according to you and the unfounded assumptions you have made about me after  only five exchanges with me. Also see [A] above.
Yes, I made an assumption you were atheist. You made many assumptions about your invalid beliefs about Islam (force conversions, jizya, extremists, etc). I clarified them.

And let us not forget that  it was you that appealed to the authority of Christians and Scientist. I have simply pointed out it means nothing. It is as you have suggested yourself, one can read and listen and then one has to make up ones own mind. So stop contradicting yourself. 
Yes appeal to authority is a fallacy.

So now you are saying to appeal to authority is "fallacy", but have suggested above this is what I should  be doing. You really like to contradict yourself don't you.
This is you appealing to the authority that you now are calling i" fallacy";
No I am agreeing with you here which is why I said it is a fallacy. 

aql_reason wrote: I#105: It is up to the historians and Christians to interpret that.

Stephen wrote: Why? 

aql_reason wrote: Who interprets science? Scientists? Who interprets History? Historians. If you don't understand how to interpret something you look at what those people say. And if what they say makes sense, you take it. #108
But now you are saying that appealing to authority "fallacy"!!!!
Do you understand the definition of fallacy? A fallacy is only an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false.  

When you asked" why" I gave you a reason and the conditions for it. I said if you dont' understand how to interpret something you look at scholars and those who are experienced in the field. Then I said, in the same sentence if what they makes logical sense, then you take it. It's quite clear what I said. I think there was a misunderstanding.
aql_reason wrote: Who interprets science? Scientists? Who interprets History? Historians. If you don't understand how to interpret something you look at what those people say. And if what they say makes sense, you take it. #108

I agree.  But there has to be reason for that trust  doesn't there? And not just opinions based on unsupported  faith or belief.
Yes 
Nope. What I have said was  "Religion in itself, to me makes no sense, " HERE>>#113
This is what you said, "I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren."
And that is the response I gave. 
You made the argument that religion is bad because it enforces things which effect you,
So you care when religion enforces things on other people that don't agree with it, yes? Ok. That's why I said secular countries also enforce things that effect your life even if people don't choose it. So religion is not the only one doing the enforcing in other peoples lives. 

... feel the need to have to leap to the defence of someone that only they feel is being victimised and bullied.
Well that's respectable.
I won't respond for a while. But don't confuse that as me to have "ran away" from the thread. I only leave a thread when it becomes pointless, circular and for me, has ran its course as far as my own input is concerned.
Okay, that's fine. 
#135
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Morphinekid77
God in His divine essence did not go from creator to "created" at the time of the Incarnation.
Essence (Latin: essentia) is a polysemic term, having various meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.

God is defined as: 
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Since part of His identity is being the creator, the identify (or his essence) is in conflict when he is also creation. 

In traditional logic, a contradiction occurs when a proposition conflicts either with itself or established fact.


And He was not in His divine essence simultaneously created and creator at the time of the Incarnation.
But He was. See above. At the time of incarnation "in the flesh" Jesus was born of a virgin. By definition, he was part of creation. 
born(def): come into existence as a result of birth.

God, the creator, is not born. He can't be born, that is come into existence ("in the flesh"), while also always existing (God). 

The person of Jesus Christ, if we are using Chalcedonian Christology (which I believe is the correct one) is fully God and fully man.
You can't be 100% man and 100% God. It's illogical as explained above. That which is illogical is impossible. 

In His divine nature he is uncreated. His humanity was created.
divine(def): of, from, or like God or a god. Yes humanity meaning human. So his nature of uncreated is also created? Only God can be uncreated. If he is human, he is by definition created. 

"The Islamic concept of God emphasizes that he is absolutely pure and free from association with other beings, which means attributing the powers and qualities of God to his creation, and vice versa (wikipedia)"

Because He has two natures, what happens in time and space to one does not say anything about the other necessarily.
God is beyond time. Time was created by God. Time came after. Accepting him to be both creator and created is accepting a God that can do illogical things. 

What I mean is, because His human nature came into being, that says nothing about His divine nature, which we know is eternal. 
It does defeat his nature or essence as defined by essence before. God loses his identity of being creator because he can't be creator and created. 

The contradiction you're trying to make could also be played back the other way. 

Can Allah create a body he cannot inhabit? 

Yes or no? If yes, then you admit the Incarnation is not logically contradictory. If no, Allah is not all powerful. 
God can't do impossible things. What you are mentioning is the paradox of being all-powerful. Can God create a rock he can't lift? Can God kill himself? Can God make 2+2=5? Humans believe he can't.

It's not that God can't do such things. We can't accept it. God can't do what's impossible. 
impossible(def in logic): not able to occur, exist, or be done.

That which is impossible is illogical. We limit God to the laws of logic not because God is limited or not all-powerful but because we are. Human knowledge is limited. 

I understand as a Shia you do not accept the dilemma that the Sunni's face with the eternal Quran theology. However, 85 percent of Muslims do believe what I wrote. Are they in a logical contradiction as well? 
Yes and majority of Christians accept trinity which is also of the same line. Only a minority of Christians don't. There is a reason why there are more Sunnis then Shia. Shias were mainly persecuted during early times because they rejected revered Sunni figures. Shias believe in the authority of the 12 imams over other rulers of the time. The concept of Imamate was seen as a threat to the caliphs which is why their beliefs did not become popular. 
#136
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
No. Pragmatism focuses on utility, the logic I present focuses on common sense.
This is what you said: "I always measure the ideologies according to their results." 

results(def): a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.

That's pragmatic way of thinking. 
Pragmatism: an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

Then this is what you said: "Look at the West that embraced christianity, they're advanced"

So Christianity is more true than Islam because Muslims failed to be "advanced". Then you generalized. 

You know, christianity was always an obstacle for the progress of the West, but instead of getting rid of it, it was prefered to keep the good which is the Christian moral, and decided to leave the useless nonsense for the believers: rituals and stupid beliefs. 
Christian culture is highly embedded in western society. Even when atheism rises, the culture will remain christian. That's the reason. Christianity now has become about personal connection with God and focuses on faith.

So in the end it was a win-win decision, nobody thought about the utility but that everyone gets the best out of it. We don't need motherfucking priests that impose ilogical measures on people. We trust on logic and common sense for our lives, and the beliefs remain personal.
Islam is a way of life so focuses on all aspects of life: social, political, legal, etc. It rejects secularism. Secularism is a hoax anyway. There is no freedom for all. Not everyone has rights even in western countries. The more lawful a society, the less freedom it has. Freedom is overrated. Truth matters more. 
#137
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"Non-therapeutic infant male circumcision is “the most commonly performed surgery in the United States” [1] . It is most often performed for cultural or religious reasons, although it is also frequently performed in hospital settings as a routine procedure, at least in the United States (in contrast to other developed nations) [2] , where it was adopted by the medical establishment in the late 1800s as a “cure” for masturbation, along with other perceived physical and/or spiritual ailments [3] [4] . In recent decades, the circumcision of infants and other young boys in the absence of disease or deformity has increasingly been recognized as being in conflict with well-establish- ed principles of medical ethics [5] -[7] and even human rights [8] -[10] . As Dekkers et al. (p. 180) [11] noted, both male and female circumcision constitute “an invasive intervention in the external genital organs” without valid medical indication.
According to Peterson (2001, p. 285), “no person has the right to surgically inflict their religious, sexual, or cosmetic preferences on another person… Parents have a duty to protect their children from harmful practices, and no tradition should be enforced by the permanent alteration or disfigurement of the body of an individual who is legally incapable of providing informed consent.” [12]
Indeed, as several authors have argued, such an extreme interference with a child’s genitals would ordinarily be viewed as a form of child sexual abuse―Bigelow (1995, p. 97) [13] -[15] . The irreversible cutting and removal of part of a child’s sexual organ is a very serious interference [16] ."


Circumcision is mandatory in islam.
#138
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,514
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@aql_reason
This is what you said: "I always measure the ideologies according to their results." 

results(def): a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.

That's pragmatic way of thinking. 

Pragmatism: an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

Then this is what you said: "Look at the West that embraced christianity, they're advanced"

So Christianity is more true than Islam because Muslims failed to be "advanced". Then you generalized. 
You're misunderstanding what pragmatism is about.

"Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected."

Pragmatism is not about outcomes or results but practicality which means if something can be carried out without much effort. Even in the defintion you gave, it doesn't mention anything about outcomes. In the example of christinity, it's not about pragmatism because the christian beliefs remain, and you and me know very well these beliefs have no practicality or utility at all.

Christian culture is highly embedded in western society. Even when atheism rises, the culture will remain christian. That's the reason. Christianity now has become about personal connection with God and focuses on faith.
And?

Islam is a way of life so focuses on all aspects of life: social, political, legal, etc. It rejects secularism. Secularism is a hoax anyway. There is no freedom for all. Not everyone has rights even in western countries. The more lawful a society, the less freedom it has. Freedom is overrated. Truth matters more. 
If you're unable to see that what you just described is an example of dogmatism, then it's impossible to make you understand anything that goes against your dogma.

Oh, dogma, that reminds me of a ma'am that thinks exactly like you. Lol.
#139
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
Pragmatism is not about outcomes or results but practicality which means if something can be carried out without much effort.
You just described efficiency not practicality. 
efficient(def): achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.

This is what practicality means,
Practicality: the quality or state of being practical.
practical(def):
1. of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
2. (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.

effective(def): successful in producing a desired or intended result. 

Bingo

Even in the defintion you gave, it doesn't mention anything about outcomes.
It's implied. See above. 

In the example of christinity, it's not about pragmatism because the christian beliefs remain, and you and me know very well these beliefs have no practicality or utility at all.
Yes, they do. For example, circumcision has practical uses. 
you're unable to see that what you just described is an example of dogmatism, then it's impossible to make you understand anything that goes against your dogma.
Oh, dogma, that reminds me of a ma'am that thinks exactly like you. Lol.

Nothing I described is dogma. It's just reality.
dogma(def): something held as an established opinion

This is what I said 

Islam is a way of life so focuses on all aspects of life: social, political, legal, etc. It rejects secularism.
Is this part not true? 
Secularism is a hoax anyway. There is no freedom for all. Not everyone has rights even in western countries.
So everyone has rights in the west? Does someone have the right to be nude? Does someone have the right to not be vaccinated and not lose their job? There are many other examples
The more lawful a society, the less freedom it has
This is not true? What's anarchy then? 
 Freedom is overrated. Truth matters more. 
If it is the truth then personal freedoms don't matter. True? 

And I'm the one that's dogmatic? 
#140
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@aql_reason
I'm afraid at this point you have simply ignored literally everything I said about the Hypostatic Union and the Divine nature.

And He was not in His divine essence simultaneously created and creator at the time of the Incarnation.
But He was...
The Divine essence cannot cease to be what it is.

Again, at risk of pointlessly repeating myself, there was no change to the Divine essence at the incarnation. Because the Divine essence cannot change. God is immutable. When we say "God became man" we mean the divine essence was united to something that was created, i.e the body of Jesus, but the D.E. itself did not "become" created in the sense that it ceased being creator and was now created. That doesn't even make logical sense to say that and it's not what we teach.

There was a very ancient heresy called Kenosis which taught the D.E. lost some of it's attributes during the incarnation. We beat those guys and that is not what we teach. To formulate it mathematically, A=Divine Essence. B=created flesh. 

We are not saying, A turned into B and therefore ceased being A.  We are also not saying A and B were united in such a way that they became a hybrid blend of each other (C). (Both of those mistaken views would entail the contradiction you're speaking about)

What we ARE saying is A was united to B (AB) but both natures remained perfectly intact. The human nature was not swallowed up by the Divine, and the Divine did not cease being divine and turn human. 

I want you to really give some thought to that before responding.

In regards to "Can God make a square circle or a rock so heavy he cant lift it"

The reason God "cant" do any of those things is because they do not exist. There is no category for a married bachelor or a square circle or a rock so heavy omnipotence cant influence it. They are just combinations of words that don't mean anything.

However, you're assuming God cannot become incarnate, and then arguing that because God cant become incarnate, a body he inhabits is not a thing that exists, therefore He can't make a body for Himself because its a logical contradiction. Not only are you arguing in a circle, that is a HUGE leap. You're telling me an all powerful God could not create a body and step into it? What is logically impossible about that? Given the formulation I laid out above, where the D.E. does not cease being what it is, I will ask again, where is the logical contradiction. 

"The Islamic concept of God emphasizes that he is absolutely pure and free from association with other beings, which means attributing the powers and qualities of God to his creation, and vice versa (wikipedia)"

Accept the Quran does exactly this. How does Allah create man? He breathes into the clay and it becomes man, correct?

How does Jesus create birds in  Surah Al-Ma'idah? 

"How I taught you writing, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel. How you moulded a bird from clay—by My Will—and breathed into it and it became a ˹real˺ bird—by My Will. "

Did Allah take Jesus as a partner in creation? If no, why did he give him the same exact power to create that Allah alone should possess? 

Why did Allah AND Gibreel create the body of Jesus together?

Surah At-Tahrim

˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.

If Allah alone is creator and giver of life, what in the world is going on in this Aya? Was Gibreel Allah's partner in creating Isa? 


If Allah has no partners, it certainly seems Gibreel and Isa create and help him create in identical manners. 

#141
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@aql_reason
Stephen wrote: Nope. What I have said was  "Religion in itself, to me makes no sense, " HERE>>#113
aql_reason wrote: This is what you said, "I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren."



And that is the response I gave. 
aql_reason wrote: You made the argument that religion is bad because it enforces things which effect you,
Go back and read the whole quote.
This is what I wrote.
Stephen wrote: 
 I don't fkn care what religion one chooses to follow as long as it has no baring on my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.#113
Notice I said- chooses                              ^^^^^^^                         
                             

aql_reason wrote:  So you care when religion enforces things on other people that don't agree with it, yes?
And you have used the word en-"FORCE"- es  .

So, tell me,  is it wrong for someone or group to en- force their religious ideology onto others. Yes or No?

And what is the punishment for apostates in Islam?



#142
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
Intolerance is the real enemy.

To You Your Religion and To Me Mine (Qur'an 109:6)

Let there be no compulsion in religion. (Qur'an 2:256)

May God bless the Man whosaid those things.
#143
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Intolerance is the real enemy.
Yes. If only muslims were more tolerant and didnt throw gays off buildings.
#144
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"A 16-year-old who made headlines in early October, after she entered a subway car in Iran with her hair uncovered, only to be removed from the car unconscious a short while later, has died, per reports from state media.
Armita Geravand, who collapsed in Tehran on Oct. 1, has spent the past few weeks in a coma, with doctors monitoring her condition. In a post shared on X (formerly Twitter) New York's Center for Human Rights in Iran commented: "We are profoundly saddened to report the passing of 16-year-old Armita Geravand, after she slipped into a coma following a reported assault by forced-hijab enforcers in the Tehran metro.""

""Armita's untimely death has left numerous unanswered questions in its wake. According to eyewitness accounts reported in the media, she was attacked by enforcers of the state's mandatory hijab law. Notably, moments before the incident, Armita was observed without a hijab."
Authorities have continued to deny the allegations against them, saying that Geravand fainted after her blood pressure dropped because she skipped breakfast, the New York Times reported.

Geravand's death comes just over a year after that of Masha Amini—a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died in police custody in Iran in September 2022, after she was arrested by the morality police for allegedly not following the country's strict hijab laws. Her death sparked protests worldwide, and triggered a national uprising that became Iran’s longest protest since the late ‘70s."

#145
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Morphinekid77
I'll answer your question after doing a reading on the Hypostatic Union  part.
#146
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Stephen
aql_reason wrote:  So you care when religion enforces things on other people that don't agree with it, yes?
And you have used the word en-"FORCE"- es  .
Yes you are right. Even if I did write that, you would still be against it.
aql_reason wrote:  So you care when religion chooses things on other people that don't agree with it, yes

So, tell me,  is it wrong for someone or group to en- force their religious ideology onto others. Yes or No?
Not necessarily. Even though there is no compulsion in choosing religion i.e no one can force you to convert to Islam. In the context of legality, you don't have to believe in Islam but would still be enforced of its practices (like Hijab laws). This was the point I was arguing. Secular countries enforce their ideology onto those who don't agree as well (nudity, guns, vaccines, etc.). Like I said, we can have a debate on this issue because I have valid reasons for believing this. It could be titled "Hijab Laws" I will be PRO you will be CON. 

And what is the punishment for apostates in Islam?
Depends on how you define apostasy 
#147
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@aql_reason



.
aql_reason, .

YOUR EMBARRASSING QUR’AN STUPID QUOTE:  “Allah is the Arabic word for God. It is the same God for all abrahamic religions. So your sentence is contradictory because Christians follow Allah.” 
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10238/posts/419442

YOU are about as Qur’an STUPID as the former RUNAWAYS from their faith of Islam, Yassine and Path2Paradise! LOL!

What is CONTRADICTORY is how can Christians follow your camel-humper Allah God when in fact, His words are stated herewith within the disgusting Qur’an: ”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Qur’an 5:51) 
https://quran.com/5/51?translations=20,84,17,85,101,18,95,19,22 

How can your Allah God be the same God as the Christians when Allah said to Muslims to not be friends with the Jews and Christians? GET IT MUSLIM FOOL? HUH?


NEXT ISLAMIC MUSLIM FOOL LIKE “AQL_REASON” THAT WANTS TO NOT ONLY EMBARRASS HIMSELF OF BEING STUPID REGARDING HIS SATANIC QUR’AN, BUT THE SICKENING RELIGION OF ISLAM AS WELL, WILL BE … ?

.
#148
Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 47
0
0
5
Morphinekid77's avatar
Morphinekid77
0
0
5
-->
@aql_reason
Cool beans. I also recommend doing some reading into "Chalcedonian Christology." Talk to you soon. 
#149
aql_reason
aql_reason's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 54
0
0
4
aql_reason's avatar
aql_reason
0
0
4
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I understand you're in high school so not a lot of things click yet. 

YOUR EMBARRASSING QUR’AN STUPID QUOTE:  “Allah is the Arabic word for God. It is the same God for all abrahamic religions. So your sentence is contradictory because Christians follow Allah.” 

What do Christians in the middle east call God? Allah, yes? What language did Jesus speak? Aramaic, yes? Whats the word for God in Aramaic? Elahi 

Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[23] The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼElāh (אלה), but its emphatic state is ʼElāhā (אלהא).

What does Allah mean? 

"Most considered it to be derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the deity, the God" (source: wikipedia)"

So you see Allah means "the God" as he is "the God" of the the Abrahmic religion. G is capital. Christians, Jews, and Muslims. 

How can your Allah God be the same God as the Christians when Allah said to Muslims to not be friends with the Jews and Christians? GET IT MUSLIM FOOL? HUH?
In the same Quran, it says that they are people of the book and will be rewarded. These are generalizations made by Quran. Not contradictions. This verse pertains to those that bash Islam from the Christians and Jews. They are not to be taken as friends. Would you take the one who is the enemy of Christianity as your friend? If you will, then you're the fool. 

Don't embarrass yourself. 
#150
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Stephen
And what is the punishment for apostates in Islam?

"Conversion from Islam to another religion is grounds for the charge of apostasy, which is legally punishable by death, although courts have not carried out a death sentence for apostasy in recent years. The Basic Law states the duty of every citizen is to defend Islam, society, and the homeland."


"A Saudi court sentenced a Yemeni man to 15 years in prison for apostasy on October 21, 2021, based on comments made via two anonymous Twitter accounts, Human Rights Watch said today. The court found that the tweets were promoting “apostasy, unbelief, and atheism.”"