Who's in for some fun challenges?

do you mind expanding a little more?

i know in the past it was normal for women to wear viels

Welcome back. Don’t know you at all, I think I may have joined after you left. I like many of your topics. I have read English translations of the Quran twice, but not an expert by any means. I am LDS (Christian), and, although I’ve been in many countries in Europe and Asia, never in the Middle East.

I have a History Doctorate, but an Engineer (retired) by profession. I am fascinated by Middle eastern culture and have deep knowledge of ancient Egypt.

One of these days, I’d enjoy a debate. Might you be interested in a debate of preservation, or other subject, comparing the Quran to the Book of Mormon?

A set of guidelines that falls within the norms established by particular post-biblical voices which I see as authoritative, setting behavioral standards.

It isn’t about not “feeling” bound. It is about recognizing authority. In the same way that I, as a Jew, don’t recognize the authority of the gospels to say anything, or of an Imam to tell me how to live,

a reform Jew doesn’t recognize the authority of an orthodox person to tell him what Judaism is and demands.

Which is why reform Jews have respect for reform authority. Not accepting the authority of group A doesn’t mean lacking acknowledgement of any authority.

Actually, that’s exactly what we are talking about.

To believe what you say about Judaism is to demonstrate an ignorance of Jewish history. The reform movement is a codification (19th century) of beliefs and sentiments that have much deeper roots. If you are rejecting the entire notion that reform Judaism sees itself as, foundationally, being a valid Abrahamic religion, just following a different authority, then there is nothing more to say.

This, coupled with the overstatement you made about the applicability and purpose of modest clothing (especially as it relates to the hair), makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation.

No, claims of a member of a group are not feelings. Claims that the established authority of that group is binding is the same as the claim of binding authority from any other denomination unless you get to decide what counts and what doesn’t.

And how can you make a claim about religious authority and law and expect this not to be a discussion about the various authorities involved?

One version of it, yes.

This analogy fails as there is only one “law of the land” in the US whereas there are different versions and understandings of Jewish law.

That is a statement which would be denied by anyone familiar with the history of reform Judaism and its roots.

And a reform Jew might have a different understanding of the “ultimate authority.”

It is tough to answer this because individuals within the movement have individual ideas but the movement’s platform has the understanding that God gave the authority to people to adapt and modify, understanding text in the light of current society. Precedent for this is well over a thousand years old. You should review “AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM” by Samuel S. Cohon for a fuller discussion of the development of authority in Judaism.

And the reform movement says the exact same thing, seeing its iteration as a religion crafted through the disciples that they deem as authoritative. Your decision about what is or isn’t a religion isn’t very persuasive.

With what? The historical facts of the roots or Reform Judaism? The precedents for the reform movement trace back (according to reform understanding) to biblical times.

I’m not sure you and I would agree on what those scriptures are or say. Do you cede authority about Jewish concepts to experts in Judaism, or will you insist that you know better?

Except, as stated, this isn’t a denial of authority, but an assertion of different authority and a different understanding of the source texts.

I specifically left out the part about the bible in the definition of Creationism bc Creationism and intelligent design are the same idea, and I didn't want you to have to argue anything from the bible.

BOP is evenly shared.

Biological Evolution: the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.

Biodiversity: the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem

I’m in favor of it, as it is determined by certain authorities. I don’t adhere to it as it is codified by others.

Then you don’t understand Jewish law. The simplest example I can give is the difference between the Shulchan Aruch’s rulings, the Rambam’s rulings and the Ramo’s rulings. Each is binding and yet no one follows all of them.

No, I’m saying that the reform movement aimed to understand a process of evolution and development in Jewish law which led to a very different canon of rulings still under the heading of “Jewish law as driven by ancient authority.”

Based in the understandings of man, through the lens of the time period and the knowledge base of the

It isn’t a red herring to say that your question requires a much more complex understanding than you have about a topic and defies a simplistic or conflated answer. And, no, I am not talking about feelings when I point out claims and religious authority, no matter how many times you say it is about feelings.

They would say that that isn’t the goal of existence, to mirror a man who lived thousands of years ago even though the world has changed. They would say that they mirror him more in their understanding of law’s interaction with the world around it. Again, that was covered in the article I referenced which you called a red herring.

That would be how you feel about it. If you had read the material I presented, you would have seen the proof presented and would be more reluctant to make some absolute statement in the face of contrary facts. You call something fraudulent, but that doesn't make it so, any more than someone saying your understanding is fraudulent creates reality.

Their ultimate authority is the scripture and their leaders who develop meaning from the text, same as any other group of Jews’ premise.

And the “ultimate authority” for reform Jews is the same idea as any other Jews’. The specific object (the particular voices) and what those voices say are different.

General:

God Is (God, as defined in the Islamic tradition of course)

Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet

The Quran is faithfully preserved

The Quran is a true revelation

Islam is a religion of peace

The Hadith tradition is genuine

Christianity vs. Islam:

Tawhid vs. Trinity

Quran vs. Bible preservation

Quran vs. NT preservation

Truth of Quran vs. Bible

Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories

Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets

Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity

Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity

Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity

Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity

Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity

History of Muslims vs. Christians

Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity

Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests

Secularism vs. Islam:

Islamic state vs. Secular state

Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism

Islamic education vs. Secular education

Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics

Islamic history vs. Secular history

Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism

Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism

Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests

Hard challenges (for me):

The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history

Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history

Islamic penal law is superior to Secular penal law

History in Islamic tradition is superior to History in the Western tradition

The origin of Common Law is primarily Islamic Law

Eastern Christianity is superior to Western Christianity

The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions

The zionist cause of Israel is culpable

Atheism is unattainable 

Darwinian Evolution is more literature than science

Subsaharan Africa adopted civilization before White Europe (non-Mediterranean)

Nicholas Copernicus is a plagerist

Classical Physics is primarily an Islamic invention

The Arab race is the most influential race in history

Democracy is a terrible government system

Erdogan vs. any current European leader

The Islamic world will surpass the Western world by 2050

The Belt & Road project is good

China will surpass the Western world by 2040

The world order will go back to its pre-Western dominion by 2070

China has already surpassed the US

The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state

  I have asked you why it cannot reform?  Are you suggesting  that it can?

- Do you want to debate the topic? Or is this just to converse? If so, there have already been reformation movements in Islam, namely Salafism.

 I have read English translations of the Quran twice, 

 Is it correct that to truly understand the Quran in context one has to learn it in Arabic?

- Absolutely. At least bring the verses in their proper context, even in English.#93

Yassine

#28 student of Greek

fauxlaw

I, too, am a student of Greek, and can confirm the Bringer's contextual argument is spot on, and Stephen is completely dismissing it, to his laughable credit.

Well.... Issues surrounding the novel in question, were media driven by both camps, in respect of the social climate. 

This is not Darwinian evolution. My grandma had ginger hair, I have black hair. The definition begs the question... Evolutionists always put their claim in the definition, as if these are deductive truths. Not even the most serious theories in physics dare do this. To avoid this nonsense, we must set up a new rule: + No definition which assumes naturalism materialism or neo-Darwinism is allowed. Claims are assumed from founded merit, not truistic definitions.

- The argument is about the Theory of Evolution, which states: Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to produce a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, to form all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via natural selection & random mutations.

Though you failed to the acknowledge the similar "explosion of hatred" towards Islam.

Not “must.” Some do, some don’t. There have been many opinions and changes over the last 100 years. You should read the Ben Ish Chai Bo 1:12, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 30:page 105, Hide and Seek page 27. Or https://jlifeoc.com/on-orthodox-judaisms-rules-of-head-covering/ fifth paragraph, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzniut#Hair_covering .

So then there isn’t just “one law.”

Because it sees a constant thread in law’s evolution – it adapts and changes with the times (starting biblically).

It does answer the question. You may not like the answer, but it is an answer.

Asking that question and insisting it isn’t complex is useless. It IS complex. I cited an article which deals with it and approaches many of the complexities but you didn’t read it. That doesn’t change the complexity, it just reflects a willful ignorance from which you insist on speaking.

I don’t recall mentioning anything about “good.” I said that reform Jews would claim that they are more in line with what Moses’ approach to law was in a larger sense because the specifics are less important and Moses endorsed that through his approach to the law on that higher level.

According to that article, yes, the reform movement would claim exactly that.

And you are not reading the article I cited.

No, you don’t. Saying you do doesn’t change that.

They say that hair covering is not necessary – it is not scripturally present except in an inference made in post biblical times and the reasons innovated for that inference are not relevant so the authority they subscribe to does not demand adherence to the post biblical rule. The rule itself is not even very clear within Orthodox circles. In terms of homosexuality, they see the sociological underpinnings of the rule and note the changes in society which make the original rule less relevant, and since their authority structure gives their current leaders the power to recontextualize and therefore revise law, they come to a different conclusion about the behavior’s propriety. Here is a 1987 resolution, for example. https://urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/support-inclusion-lesbian-and-gay-jews

Ah, so they have the same ultimate authority but you don’t like how they view and use that authority, so the ultimate authority, according to you, is…you.

My man, you can message me before declining and I can modify the details before you accept. 

Evolution only deals with life after it's already been here, so your proposed definition falsly conflates evolution and abiogenesis, which are different theories. Your definition is about abiogenesis, not evolution.

My definition is the standard definition of biological evolution.

The theory has been improved a lot since Darwin's time since the discovery of other mechanisms of evolution that aren't natural selection, therefore I'm not going to argue just for evolution by natural selection, and I'd like some flexibility with the evidence I can bring to the table. 

How would you define him in Islam?

I don’t know much about Islam and Judaism as I do about Christianity. 

But I assume God in all of them has a general theme.

Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet

By true prophet you mean God spoke through him? It’s a claim. 

The Quran is faithfully preserved

I don’t doubt that. From what I know Islam was created during war times and gave structure to the people. Some concepts are bit outdated.

The Quran is a true revelation

It’s a claim. 

Islam is a religion of peace

What do you mean Islam is a religion of peace exactly? Peace can mean ‘there will be peace if you do what I tell you to do.’

The Hadith tradition is genuine

Maybe.

Tawhid vs. Trinity

As an atheist I find it Interesting, I did not know about Tawhid.

But from what I understand, the Trinity is three parts of a whole. I consider there’s more meaning in that.

Quran vs. NT preservation

I would say Quran wins. But that’s not necessarily a good thing. 

Conservatism on its own doesn’t get you anywhere. 

Truth of Quran vs. Bible

What do you mean by truth, and how do you know?

Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories

In what sense? How much meaning you interpret from them?

Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets

In what sense? Which are more virtuous? It might be a tough argument for you to make.

Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity

In what sense?

Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity

In what sense?

Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity

In what sense? World views in religion change all the time. Including religious sects. 

Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity

How? 

Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity

Human rights isn’t an abrahamic argument to have. 

History of Muslims vs. Christians

There’s a lot of history.

Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity

Just because books say so, doesn’t make it science.

Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests

Both are bad.

Islamic state vs. Secular state

In what way?

Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism

How? Secularism essentially mean it doesn’t play favourites with religion.

Islamic education vs. Secular education

How? Secular education isn’t bogged down by dogma.

Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics

There’s no such thing as “secular ethics” apart from being anti-theocratic. 

People are ethical regardless of religion. 

Islamic history vs. Secular history

Freedom of religion vs. Islam. Alright.

Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism

Secularism doesn’t have a doctrine unlike religion.

Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism

You don’t know what secularism is.

Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests

Again, you don’t know what secularism is.

The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history

Yeah I guarantee it isn’t if you’re including books published yesterday. 

Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history

Yeah I guarantee he isn’t.

Islamic penal law is superior to Secular penal law

Secularism isn’t a whole doctrine. It just lets people not be bogged down by dogma so people can reason open and rationally.

History in Islamic tradition is superior to History in the Western tradition

I think the “Western” concept is pretty new. I don’t think it’s a single tradition or culture. 

I think you would agree Islam doesn’t have a single tradition or culture either.

Although there are underlying pillars in both. Though one isn’t a religion. 

The origin of Common Law is primarily Islamic Law

There are far older religions than Islam.

The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions

Definitely not. Though don’t know about all sects

The zionist cause of Israel is culpable

Depends on what cause you focus on. If you mean treating Palestinians as second class citizens then yeah. 

The Jewish people have been oppressed for a millennium by Christian’s and Islamist’s. Do you think they should have a home?

Atheism is unattainable 

How? We’re all born atheists (have a lack of faith on gods.)

Darwinian Evolution is more literature than science

Darwinism was first a hypothesis that turned out to be scientifically true.

Though not everything Darwin said was right. Scientists don’t treat founders of scientific fields as prophets.

Subsaharan Africa adopted civilization before White Europe (non-Mediterranean)

I would agree with that. Don’t you?

Democracy is a terrible government system

It’s great when it functions correctly, not when it isn’t corrupted by money and power. 

Erdogan vs. any current European leader

Erdogan has been known to go after journalists, help Isis and repress the Kurds that fought Isis.

The Islamic world will surpass the Western world by 2050

In what way? 

China will surpass the Western world by 2040

China is catching up to America. 

The world order will go back to its pre-Western dominion by 2070

What do you mean?

The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state

Until it can’t handle the corruption anymore. 

Interesting. And what part of the Quran has been reformed?  "The satanic verses"?  Those will be the verses that Muhammad said had been given to him by Satan that he, "the greatest of all the prophets",  had "mistaken" for divine revelation, would they?

Please correct me if I have that wrong.

- God = singular absolute necessary being. (absolute = omniscient & omnipotent)

Nicholas Copernicus is a plagerist