What's the best argument a Muslims could come up with for a Christian like me to even consider converting to his heresy?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
What's the best argument a Muslims could come up with for a Christian like me to even consider converting to his heresy?
Islam and Christianity are both heresies of Judaism thoughbeit
Kek.
Sorry, you can't get me with this. I'm well versed in NT sholarship and I know for a fact that most accusations agaisnt it due to unreliability can be easily shot down and dismissed. And even if they were true, none of them would amount for arguments in favor of Islam and the Quran, just against Christianity. And let's not get into the horrendous problems agains thte authenticity of the Quran.
>do you like virgins?
Not in the same way that perverted Muslims do.
It's really pointless arguing with someone who has clearly made up his mind before even thinking. Christians just accept without thinking, same way they just accept the Bible without thought
Like I said, I'm well versed in Biblical scholarship, I'm by no means uneducated, I was not even raised as a Christian, in fact, I came to accept it because of the solid case in favor of it, I'm just curious if Muslims can come up with some argument that I haven't heard before against it and in favor of their own religion.
>I'm well versed in Biblical scholarship
How then, do you believe in the scripture that contradict and copy one another, attribute false authorships to themselves and has a documented history of addition, editing and forgery?
>How then, do you believe in the scripture that contradict and copy one another,
It does not, the writings are perfectly consistent if they come from different witnesses. If the gospels said the exact same thing over and over, that would be reason to suspect them.
>attribute false authorships to themselves
There really isn't any solid reason to reject the authorship of the gospels beyond pure skepticism and anti-Christian bias.
>and has a documented history of addition, editing and forgery?
There isn't any history, some of you always pretend like the Bible has been changed beyond recognition, this is laughable for actual historians.
>perfectly consistent
the gospels do not agree with one another, neither in the events of Jesus' life nor in theology.
>come from different witnesses
These witnesses are unknown
>the gospels said the exact same thing over and over, that would be reason to suspect them.
This is not very rigorous
>There really isn't any solid reason to reject the authorship of the gospels beyond pure skepticism and anti-Christian bias
Matthew, who is a disciple, appears to copy from Mark, who is only a student of a disciple. John contradicts Matthew and Mark and has a more developed theology. These conclusions were not made by modern atheists, but by 19th century Christians who studied the Bible earnestly.
>There isn't any history, some of you always pretend like the Bible has been changed beyond recognition, this is laughable for actual historians.
Pericope Adulterae, John 15-16 repeating John 14, Only begotten god vs son, read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture for more
>the gospels do not agree with one another,
Yes, they do, they just focus on different aspects.
>neither in the events of Jesus' life
They all report the same events.
>in theology.
The theology is the result of reading the texts, they themselves are not theological treatises anymore than a history book is. They merely report history, theology is the task of theologians.
>These witnesses are unknown
What exactly do you mean "unknown"? That we don't have their full biography? If that's the ridiculous standard that you're applying, then most of our records and unreliable.
>This is not very rigorous
I'm just following your own standards.
>Matthew, who is a disciple, appears to copy from Mark,
For anti-Christian scholars, I'm sure it does "appear" that way. In reality though, they're not.
John contradicts Matthew and Mark and has a more developed theology.
Where? Adding more information is not contradicting.
>These conclusions were not made by modern atheists, but by 19th century Christians who studied the Bible earnestly.
Scholarship had already been infected with atheism thoroughly by the 19th century, and no, most of these scholars were not Christian.
>read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
Already did, terrible book.
>There really isn't any solid reason
There exists no attribution of authorship in the texts of any of the Gospels, except for Luke. The earliest first page manuscript of Matthew(P. Oxy. 2) did not have the title "KATA MATTHAION"
According to Eusebius, who quotes from Papias, who narrated what heard from "people who knew" John the Disciple, Mark wrote the "sayings" (logia) of Jesus from the teachings of Peter in Hebrew, and Matthew also wrote Jesus' logia in Hebrew independently. The NT Gospels were obviously composed in Greek
>There exists no attribution of authorship in the texts of any of the Gospels, except for Luke.
They come from Church tradition, which shouldn't be immediately assumed to be wrong, unless you admit that you're prejudiced against Christianity. If you want to challenge Church tradition, actually show where it's wrong, don't just expect that we will all go along with your skepticism.
>According to Eusebius, who quotes from Papias, who narrated what heard from "people who knew" John the Disciple, Mark wrote the "sayings" (logia) of Jesus from the teachings of Peter in Hebrew, and Matthew also wrote Jesus' logia in Hebrew independently.
Well won't you look at that, we do have our own chain of narration.
>we do have our own chain of narration
The chain is cut(munqatti) in two places and would be classed as very weak. We don't know who these "people" were, and Eusebius never met Papias, he only quoted from his book
>they just focus on different aspects
this is cope. i believe, if you reflect very deeply, you will find your faith hanging on a thread. you believe in things just because they seem right to you. when, instead, you should only accept that which has evidence
>this is cope.
Nope, debunk it.
>i believe, if you reflect very deeply, you will find your faith hanging on a thread.
Nope, it teels pretty ironclad.
>you believe in things just because they seem right to you.
Wrong, like I said, I was raised as an atheist, I only became Christian after very careful study, I did not convert just because the Bible "rings true to me", unlike many Muslims who just convert because it resonantes with them.
>when, instead, you should only accept that which has evidence
What evidence is there for the Quran.
>solid case
Let me guess; you think you're on the right side of the bell curve?
You never really see Christians justify their faith through reason, it's always just emotion, "i can feel the holy spirit" "i just know jesus is god". And this sort of faith is very susceptible to change.
Likewise, they always justify their disbelief in islam through emotion, not reason. "i'm offended muhammad did this or that", "islam is a religion for brown people", "islam is a heresy"
If you are a Christian, you probably don't even listen to reason. To muslims, faith means being sure by way of reason; this is inconceivable to idiots and midwits
>faith means being sure by way of reason
You guys sincerely believe in angels and djinn. And while we are at it, you and the Christian you are arguing with both believe in the immaculate conception. Reason is not in great supply here.
Does reason mean not believing in miracle and metaphysics? What makes these two inherently illogical? In actuality, it is unreasonable to dismiss these two just because.
>What makes these two inherently illogical?
Well, for one there is no scientific evidence for miracles and in fact many miracles (the virgin Mary, Prophet Muhammad's night journey, etc.) violate scientific principles we have discovered that work in all documented circumstances. Not to mention that the creation story you find in the Abrahamic tradition is scientifically impossible.
Now you might say that science and faith do not mix and each have their own lane. But given that scientific laws work for all behavior you and I experience, why should we abandon them now when it comes to analyzing the stories we see in religion?
>there is no scientific evidence for miracles
Oyish should force people to learn philosophy of science before they can post. The very study of miracles, by their very definition, is not scientific, as they are irreplicable, and thus does not fall under the jurisdiction of science.
>But given that scientific laws work for all behavior you and I experience, why should we abandon them now when it comes to analyzing the stories we see in religion?
Because science does not explain the unobserved, irreplicable concepts of religion
So how would you then verify that a miracle did indeed happen?
>So how would you then verify that a miracle did indeed happen?
There is no way to verify it, that is the point. Science does not supercede, but is only silent on that which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable
If there is no way to verify any of its claims, why should I convert to your religion then?
>You never really see Christians justify their faith through reason, it's always just emotion, "i can feel the holy spirit" "i just know jesus is god".
On the contrary, I have never heard any Christian say this whenever they're asked about their reasons for converting. Unlike Muslim converts which are almost always extremely emitional and involve the Quran "speaking to them" in some nebulous way, just look at all those people on YouTube crying listening to Quran recitations, reason is very far away from them in those moments.
>Likewise, they always justify their disbelief in islam through emotion, not reason.
The many holes in the Quran are very reasoned and well known reasons for rejecting Islam, so much so that many ex-Muslims also leave the religion.
"i'm offended muhammad did this or that",
Pedophilia is indeed very offensive to decent people, anon.
>"islam is a religion for brown people",
Only /misc/tards say this, the same ones who try to pretend like Jesus was white.
>"islam is a heresy"
It objetively is.
Funny, because at its very core Islam is essentially emotional, just like all Abrahamic religions. It is not a path of inquiry or knowledge, but of devotion and relationship. In Judaism, the relationship between God and Man is analogous to that of a father and his children. In Christianity the relationship between God and humanity is compared to that of a bride and bridegroom. In Islam however, this relationship between God and man is exemplified by the master/slave relationship. I find this rather suggestive and telling in and of itself. Islam pretends to be all about reason and oh so logical, but it’s only a façade. When all is said and done, the justification for most of the terminally autistic practices of Islam is because the quran says so. For example, Muslims try and justify the prohibition against eating pork by saying it was because of parasites or that men should grow beards because it protects the skin from sunburn or some shit, but if you press them on it, most will admit that it doesn’t matter whether or not science or reason is on their side, because all that matters is that the quran says so, so you just do it. It is the ultimate slave morality. Doing things (or abstaining from them), not because it is in accordance with Reality and nature, but because a particular person (Allah in this case) tells you to do it. This makes for a pathetic, childish morality, and emotional religion, and one need not look far to find examples of muslims having emotional outbursts and throwing tantrums whenever someone pokes holes in their moronic ideology
This is my last post
>Islam is essentially emotional
Pure Islam in all its branches autistically adheres to the laws of logic. Logic is built on axioms, in Islam, the axiom is: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.
If you accept this axiom, then everything in Islam follows, we follow whatever Allah and His messenger says, nobody else has any authority, except through the statements of Allah and His messenger.
If you claim something about Islam, it must always have a chain going back to them. You can never take any piece of information for granted, whereas in Christianity, Catholics are currently accepting gays just because their pope said so.
In Islam, there is no centralized authority where whatever they say goes. The weight of your claim lies only in the evidence and logic you use. This is the essence of fiqh(understanding)
We Muslims understand, Christians and other religions only follow blindly
>If you accept this axiom,
What reason is there to accept these axioms and not others?
>In Islam, there is no centralized authority where whatever they say goes.
Yes there was, the Khalifa, but it was destroyed over a century ago.
The weight of your claim lies only in the evidence and logic you use.
So far you've haven't shown a shred of evidence for any of Islam's miracles.
>Pure Islam in all its branches autistically adheres to the laws of logic
autistically adheres to the quran and Mohammed** don’t just skip that part and call it “logic” just because you already accept the claim that any of that shit is true in the first place.
>In Islam, the axiom is: There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger
>If you accept this axiom, then everything in Islam follows
I never said Islam was incoherent/internally inconsistent. If you accept the core tenets of any religion then the rest follows, this isn’t unique to Islam. The problem is that there is no reason to accept such an axiom in the first place, specifically the second half (mohammed is a true prophet of God).
>The weight of your claim lies only in the evidence and logic you use
Unless that evidence and logic leads to a conclusion that is not concurrent with the Quran or the Hadiths, then you must follow the quran anyways and throw logic out the window
>We Muslims understand, Christians and other religions only follow blindly.
Lmao for all this play at being le rationalists you seem to be forgetting that the israelites have a long tradition of rationalism and debate that precedes the birth of Islam. Muslims can only cope by saying that the israelites corrupted the torah because they know Mohammed doesn’t meet the criteria it gives for a true prophet, but in the next breath they will tell you that the (corrupted) torah also predicted that Mohammed would come. And that’s not even mentioning the REAL philosophical traditions like Pyrrhonism, Madhyamika Buddhism, Neoplatonism or Vedanta. The philosophy of any of these schools absolutely debases and destroys Islam and any other devotional/emotional religion for that matter.
>You can never take any piece of information for granted, whereas in Christianity, Catholics are currently accepting gays just because their pope said so.
didn't the ottomans talked to muslim mistics on religious matters
The Ottoman empire legalized homosexuality in the 19th century.
>Logic is built on axioms, in Islam, the axiom is: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.
And if your axiom is wrong, the conclusions derived from it are wrong
>In Islam, there is no centralized authority where whatever they say goes.
>There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.
xddd
that's all religious people, muds included. not sure why you pretend you chose pisslam when, just like the anon you're arguing with, you were born into it, indoctrinated to believe it, and nothing will ever convince you to stray from it, even a time machine that allows you to go back in time and see muhamhead won't be enough. people like you are literal NPC's, just like him. no sentience, no free thought, only the script.
There is no such thing as atheist. You might not believe in God, but you definitely believe in a religion, whatever you may call it. You believe in principles, taboos, moralities. That makes you an NPC. You people claiming that this system of belief is somehow "common human decency" just exposes your npc thinking, religious people say the exact same thing. And like religious people, you also wish to spread this belief to the ends of the earth
>religion is morality
nothing moral about stoning people to death, achmed. your fallacy: strawman, appeal to past.
dismissed.
crazy that there are people who are capable of using the internet, but can't comprehend that adherence to liberal morality is just as if not more baseless than adherence to religious morality
From Moldbug's Open Letter, regarding historical Progressive Protestant Christianity:
When dealing with historical movements it’s often useful to ask: is this dead, or alive? If the former, what killed it, when, and how? If you cannot find any answers to these questions, it is a pretty good clue that you’re looking at something which isn’t dead.
And if it’s not dead, it must be alive. And if it’s alive, but you no longer identify it as a distinct movement, the only possible answer is that it has become so pervasive that you do not distinguish between it and reality itself. In other words, you do not feel you have any serious alternative to supporting the movement. And you are probably right.
Note that this is exactly how you, dear open-minded progressive, see the modern children of those stubborn “Fundamentalists.” You read the conflict asymmetrically. You don’t think of yourself as someone who believes in “Progressivism.” You don’t believe in anything. You are not a follower at all. You are a critical and independent thinker. Rather, it is your fundamentalist enemies, the tribe across the river, who are Jesus-besotted zombie bots.
The first step toward a historical perspective on the conflict is to acknowledge that both of these traditions are exactly that: traditions. You did not invent progressivism any more than Billy Joe invented fundamentalism. Thanks to Professor Hayes, we know this absolutely, because we know that both of these things existed 84 years ago, and you are not 84.
Moldbug refers to Carlton Hayes' History of Modern Europe, he continues:
And what is the difference between a mere tradition and an honest-to-god religion? Theology. A many-god or a three-god or a one-god tradition is a religion. A no-god tradition is… well, there isn’t really a word for it, is there? This is a good clue that someone has been tampering with the tools you use to think.
Chapter 9, Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/06/ol9-how-to-uninstall-cathedral/
That is completely absurd, and only a complete ignorant moron like you would believe in such stupidity.
>that's wrong because uhm....ur dumb 11!1!1
riveting stuff
rejection of the messiah is the heresy
>Guys I’m totally the messiah and the son of God
Literal doomsday cult
>guys you'll totally get 72 perfect virgins for eternity if you die for my cult
Totally not suspicious.
>12. You can still appreciate Jesus and love him.
The Wish version, if you can call it "Jesus".
>5. Healthy habits
Another lie. Eating at night for a month and inbreeding are super unhealthy.
>7. Anti-degeneracy
If you genuinely believe that you're beyond help.
>13. I can't stress the communal aspect enough.
Fake cultish "love" that goes out the window as soon as you start to notice how the cult doesn't really deliver on its promises of objective truth.
>9. Embraces natural masculinity.
Twirling around in a dress, singing with a homosexual high-pitched voice, shaving your armpits and mustache, censorship and seething like a teenage girl when people don't automatically convert to your questionable cult are the polar opposite of masculinity.
>10. Find spiritual ecstasy by following the Sharia
Beyond laughable.
Authenticity and dubious authorship of the New Testament, nonsensical theology that was conceived to patch over the many inconsistencies and internal contradictions of the NT
If the Bible is wrong, the Quran cannot possibly be true.
>b-but I don't like the Bible's content, it's too violent for me as I have the religion of peace that never slaughtered anyone
>secular academics help me!!!
I mean those would be reasons to leave Christianity, not convert to Islam. OP could just become atheist or follow a non-Abrahamic religion.
The muslim arguments are some of the worst ones. They claim St Paul changed it and never knew the apostles, which just doesn't make sense.
>The Quran speaks well of St Paul so this narrative is revisionist and recent
>St Paul was in a very nice position prior to his conversion with him studying under Gamaliel, so why would he leave it all just to distort some weird israeli sect and become a tent maker if not because of his genuine conversion?
>The book of Acts shows that St Paul met the apostles and took in their guidance, with the latter being aprehensive of him because of his persecution
>St Peter's epistles approve of him and his teaching
>if the writings were distorted, why weren't churches in distant parts of the world significantly different in theology?
>The Quran basically presents stories from rejected gospels bunched togheter that date back at most to the 2nd century unlike the NT
>Further, the idea the scriptures were corrupted comes from the Quran with it's position on the OT and NT being schizophrenic
>the apostolic fathers also speak of St Paul and reference his work as good, including St Polycarp who was thought by apostle St John
This whole thing is cope since St Paul in his epistles, especially Galatians 1:8, predicts Islam and it's evil.
>nonsensical theology that was conceived to patch over the many inconsistencies and internal contradictions of the NT
The Quran literally says Jesus is the Word of Allah, while also saying the the Word of Allah is eternal, creates birds (taken from a gnostic gospel), describes him as pure and born of a virgin, all of it taken from the bible. It also denies the crucifixion even though atheist scholars all agree it happened, said Allah just deceived people and forgot to say tell everyone for 600 years. The whole thing is a mixture of the scriptures, talmud (the whole view of cleanliness is from there and they even quote a line word by word), gnostic gospels and other stuff.
The corruption arguments make zero sense. The Muslims affirm that the Christ's Disciples taught correct doctrine. So Muslims have to demonstrate that teachings of the Disciples and Apostles were corrupted in an insanely short period of time. They have to explain why disciples of Disciples such as Sts Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement and even St Irenaeus (who in turn was a follower of St Ignatius) invented the doctrines of the Triniry, Christ's Divinity, Death and Resurrection independently and simultaneously given that they were preaching in different corners of the Roman Empire. By Islam's own standards there's a strong chain of narration (isnad) from Christ --> St John --> St Ignatius --> St Irenaeus. Additionally, if those doctrines are fabrications, why weren't they accosted by other early Christians who were also hearers of the Disciples and Apostles. Explain why their quotations of Scripture in the first and second century AD are virtually identical both in word and usage to prove the aforementioned doctrines. How were they able to coordinate these fabrications that supposedly weren't taught by the Apostles and Disciples in the exact same way? You're forced to argue that, even with ancient means of communication, that everyone in Rome, Alexandria, Lyon, Jerusalem and Antioch just suddenly started believing in these supposedly heretical doctrines by the end of the first century - only a bit more than half a century after Christ. Not just that, but that this wholesale corruption has left literally zero remnants of what was supposedly originally taught. Mind you, they also had to coordinate to corrupt Scripture in the eact same way. The other thing to consider is that given the Apostolic Fathers often addressed Christians en masse in a certain place in their writings, those Christians necessarily were already believing in the same thing given who these epistles were written. The logistics of the Islamic arguments make zero sense.
>describes him as pure and born of a virgin
Muslims can't explain why it's significant that Jesus was born of the Virgin beyond "it shows Allah's power and that Jesus was special". Miracles in Islam lack broader soteriological or typological import. It's no wonder the prophets in the Qur'an come across as monotone carbon copies of each other rather than each contributing in their own unique prophecies to paint a larger picture of the coming Messiah.
its what you get from low iq inbreeds
>Quran speaks well of St Paul
Paul is not mentioned in the Qur'an, if he is please show me
>The Quran speaks well of St Paul
Uh, where??
>The book of Acts shows that St Paul met the apostles
Acts doesn't cite any sources or eyewitnesses to the events it depicts, what reason is there to believe Acts beyond you wanting it to be true?
>St Peter's epistles
these epistles are spurious, what reason is there to accept these? there's no chain of narration, no actual way to know if they are legit, "just trust the church fathers bro"
>if the writings were distorted, why weren't churches in distant parts of the world significantly different in theology?
Bro doesn't know about gnosticism, arianism, marcionites etc. etc.
>the apostolic fathers also speak of St Paul and reference his work as good
Ah yes, the followers of Paul reference the works of Paul as good. Do you see the issue yet?
cont.
>Uh, where??
36:14 refers to Paul according to Ibn Kathir, and also 61:14 according to Qurtubi
also watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwGwbwFvhHw
>according to Ibn Kathir
Do muslims follow the Qur'an or Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi? While other Muslims scholars, like Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya called Paul a liar.
> While other Muslims scholars, like Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya called Paul a liar
Do muslims follow the Qur'an or Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya?
cont.
By providing alternative exegesis you're admitting that Qur'an still has to have exegetes. Your argument lies not in the risk of not following the Qur'an but in which exegesis of it is acceptable. Therefore, how do you determine that?
You are clearly uninformed about the diversity of early Christian theology. If you read the epistles of Paul, he wasn't accepted everywhere, in Galatians, some Christians from Jerusalem came to correct Paul's teachings, call him out as a liar and preach "another Gospel". And Paul's letter to the Galatians was essential him justifying himself.
He says, "Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, let him be cursed" Who do you think preached this different Gospel, for Paul to say such a thing?
According to Jospehus, after Jesus, his brother James became head of the temple and leader of the Christians, yet James is absent from the Gospels, allegedly disowning Christ. Yet Paul clearly hold James as an authority. Clearly you Christians don't have the full picture.
It is only because much of Ebionite and Gnostic writings were lost, that the only narrative that survives the Pauline one.
Why would you rely on Ebionite and Gnostic writings as a Muslim? Ebionites denied the Virgin Birth which Islam affirms. Gnostic still ascribed Divinity to Christ in various ways which Islam totally denies in any sense.
>Why would you rely on Ebionite and Gnostic writings as a Muslim?
Why wouldn't I want different historical accounts with different perspectives?
>Ebionites denied the Virgin Birth which Islam affirms
According to Eusebius, some affirmed the Virgin Birth
Muslims follow the Qur'an. The matter of Paul is a subsidiary issue which is up for debate. Some scholars are inclined to accept Paul, these scholars don't specialize in Biblical studies. And these scholars just namedrop him
>Muslims follow the Qur'an
How do you know how to pray?
>we follow the Quran
But you need the exegesis for that..
Exegesis might wrong, might be right. Ignorant non-muslims in the thread think the words of Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi are binding upon every muslim, when it's just their opinions
>How do you know how to pray?
Authentic sunnah
>According to Eusebius, some affirmed the Virgin Birth
Also, Irenaeus said this, not Eusebius
What reason is there to believe the Holy Karen beyond you wanting it to be true?
Muhammed got his quran in his sleep, with no eyewitnesses, so this argument would debunk the quranic position more.
>these epistles are spurious, what reason is there to accept these? there's no chain of narration, no actual way to know if they are legit, "just trust the church fathers bro"
Most secular scholars agree at least some of them are authentic.
>Bro doesn't know about gnosticism, arianism, marcionites etc. etc.
Gnostics and marcionites had their own gospels or just changed the existing ones.
>Ah yes, the followers of Paul reference the works of Paul as good. Do you see the issue yet?
How do you know they are followers of St Paul? Antioch, Rome, Smyrna all of them are pretty far from one another, so you would have to wonder what his path was. The bible and church tradition describe how this was possible and how it went down, so you have to submit to the biblical account he was with St Peter, who was the one who founded Antioch before he went to Rome to found the see and got martyred with St Paul.
do you like virgins? how about 72 of them?
Allah will give you endless penis to put in translucent virgin houris or eternal young boys that look like pearls.
A far better deal and still sucks, however they are right about women, and when they say humans were created to be slaves of the divine.
As a Muslim I wouldn't argue with you about religion. There's a verse in the Qur'an about not arguing about religion as well as some hadith.
Does that answer your questions?
>muslims argue with others about religion because there's a verse in the Quran
>muslims don't argue with others about religon because there's a verse in the Quran
Do you not see the problem here?
Yeah, you're making stuff up. Muslims are not to argue about religion
>Call people to the path of your Lord with wisdom and good advice and ARGUE with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who strays from His path, and knows best who is rightly guided.
Abdool is lying, as usual.
*yawn*
I'm still waiting to see an Abdool that doesn't lie all the fricking time.
You're using the term "to argue" in two senses. If you mean to "discuss" then yes, if you mean to "fight" then no. It's contextual. Besides which that verse is talking about proselytising, which is permitted as everyone is invited to Islam. My point is that it is explicity not allowed in Islam to become involved in (discourteous) argument with regards to religion. A Muslim according to Islam can invite you to Islam even by debate, a Muslim may not according to Islam become engaged in fights (arguments) about religion.
Al-Kafirun
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Say: 'O unbelievers, (1) I serve not what you serve (2) and you are not serving what I serve, (3) nor am I serving what you have served, (4) neither are you serving what I serve (5) To you your religion, and to me my religion!' (6)
>not arguing becomes not being involved in (discourteous) argument
Nice backtracking abdool. The word "argue" is neutral, it says nothing of how discourteous the argument is or isn't. You can drop the pretense of knowing what the heck you're trying to discuss. Accept that you have low IQ and move on.
>The word "argue" is neutral
It's not neutral, it's contextual
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/argue
Important to bear in mind also that the source material is in Arabic, so if you really wanted to you could dig into the translations and the meanings of the words in Arabic
>Abdool is lying, as usual.
>*yawn*
You're not a real Christian, you're just an atheist pretending to be one. A Christian wouldn't false flag like this: "hurr I want to convert to Islam plz argue" just so you can draw out Muslims who try to argue with you in good faith, but you are only interested in mockery.
>well, ACKTUALLY Jesus was a Muslim
Yes, Islam teaches that the religion of Jesus (pbuh) and the religion of Muhammad (pbuh) are the same religion
"Isa" is the Wish version of Jesus. A "messiah" who does...nothing in particular. And whose recorded teachings contradict islam at every turn in one way or another.
>teachings contradict islam
Care to elaborate
Sincerity in prayer, don't show off, perfume yourself and be joyous when you fast, etc...all of this contradicts islamic practice.
Do good to your enemies (muslims are so bad they don't even do good to themselves). The implementation of monogamy, primogeniture, exogamy, etc by catholics all have beneficial consequences that are completely avoided in islam. Even the Quran tacitly acknowledges christians are superior (3:55 61:14).
>Sincerity in prayer, don't show off, perfume yourself and be joyous when you fast
This is Islamic though, are you saying Jesus is against these?
>Do good to your enemies
There are Islamic rules of war, and also on the treatment of prisoners of war. I don't know any teachings from Jesus pertaining to war
>monogamy
allowed in Islam
>primogeniture
To an extent exists in Islam in that male offspring are favoured in inheritance matters
>exogamy
allowed in Islam
These aren't contradictory, in fact they're mostly complimentary
>This is Islamic though
maybe in theory, but the practice is different. You see how you people take a lot of space to pray in the street in the West? That's showing off before people and that's giving a bad image of your religion (keep doing that btw). We've seen people stop in the middle of traffic to pray there.
>There are Islamic rules of war, and also on the treatment of prisoners of war.
Yes, like how to enslave people and rape women. There are indeed rules for that.
>allowed in Islam
I should have added patriarchy because it's more than that, it's about the complementary role of the father to be present for his children to educate them and make them learn good and evil, this is lacking in islam, mothers often do the education part and we see the awful results.
>To an extent exists in Islam in that male offspring are favoured in inheritance matters
This has nothing to do with primogeniture. Primogeniture is when the firstborn son gets the greater part of the inheritance, this prevents brothers from assassinating each other to become the king, etc...if ottomans had implemented that they wouldn't have murdered their brothers in cold blood with the full approval of sheikhs.
>allowed in Islam
Cousin marriage is often forced in practice, don't bullshit me.
>You see how you people take a lot of space to pray in the street in the West? That's showing off before people and that's giving a bad image of your religion (keep doing that btw). We've seen people stop in the middle of traffic to pray there.
Oh shut the frick up you disingenuous moron. What some idiots do in the street means nothing.
>Oh shut the frick up you disingenuous moron
What the frick did you just say about me Abdool? Would you prefer to discuss how islam allows father-daughter incest?
I don't give a frick about your propaganda infographics. Eat shit, and die
>calls direct quotes from muslim scholars "propaganda"
You just became an ex-muslim, murtad. Your blood is halal for an islamic state.
>No and neither did the early Christians
You'll have a very difficult time trying to prove that achmed.
>You just became an ex-muslim, murtad. Your blood is halal for an islamic state.
Like I said. Eat. Shit. And. Die.
Moortad better hide before the sharia patrol finds him. Prepare to join your Profit in Jahannam.
>christians are superior
To unbelievers, as in heathens yes.
Those Christians who followed their religion up until the appearance of Muhammad (pbuh) were all on the right path, the same religion as Islam
>Those Christians who followed their religion up until the appearance of Muhammad (pbuh) were all on the right path
You approve belief in the trinity and atoning crucifixion then.
>inb4 special pleading
>You approve belief in the trinity and atoning crucifixion then
No and neither did the early Christians, and that's why God established Islam (again)
What does Messiah mean according to Muslims?
Jesus the Messiah name directly translated into Arabic is Isa al-Masih, messiah means the anointed one and has the same meaning in Islam as in Christianity that is that Isa will return and kill the Antichrist.
As far as I'm aware the only difference between Islam and Christianity pertaining to Jesus is whether he was crucified and died. There's no relevant doctrine of atonement in Islam related to the crucifixion, but the doctrine of repentance is essentially the same.
What is the significance of being anointed?
>What is the significance of being anointed?
What it means is that he, the anointed one, will return to the world and kill the Antichrist
Wrong. Anointing is what happens to a king. He is anointed with oil. Saul was anointed. David was anointed. Solomon was anointed. If Christ is the Anointed One, Who is He a King of?
I suppose after he kills the Antichrist he'll be in charge. Haven't really thought about it deeply
Yeah this
is what it means in Arabic. Also on the Wikipedia page says:
In Abrahamic religions, a messiah or messias (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ, romanized: māšīaḥ; Greek: μεσσίας, messías; Arabic: مسيح, masīḥ; lit.'the anointed one') is a saviour or liberator of a group of people.
al-Masīḥ (Arabic: المسيح, pronounced [maˈsiːħ], lit. 'the anointed', 'the traveller', or 'one who cures by caressing') is the Arabic word for messiah used by both Arab Christians and Muslims. In modern Arabic, it is used as one of the many titles of Jesus, referred to as Yasūʿ al-Masih (يسوع المسيح) by Arab Christians and Īsā al-Masīḥ (عيسى المسيح) by Muslims.
Every good boy grows up wanting to dress upas a Templar or Cowboy. Every bad boy dresses up as a Raghead or Indian.
You knows times are bad when this is reversed.
Convert and you get a brown gf.
You can get brown gfs anywhere. Especially ones you don't have to cuck to and lose your soul over. Every Muslim convert here was a desperate incel who thought he had no options. Or someone who literally got mentally dominated by an inbred moron.
Qu'est ce que c'est que cette merde et pourquoi t'as ça sur ton ordinateur
>whitos
qui parle comme ça sérieusement
Big win.
They're all nuts.
They'll drive you nuts too.
Women in general, I mean.
there is no way to convert a chad christian to that blasphemy of a religion
Islam has had more Chads through history than Christianity did though
As a Muslim I don't think this matters or is relevant and is unnecessarily devisive
As a Muslim I think people prefer the religion that has more chads, and Islam comes out on top by a large margin
You have a point. I suppose it's like whether to read loudly at night to frighten off devils, or read quietly at night so as not to awaken people
Yes exactly, it's two sides of the same coin, a complement to each other.
>Islam has had more Chads through history than Christianity did though
What the frick does this even mean?
The statement is evident for those endowed with reason
Ok, explain it to me.
Bro what? I said it's evident, ie., requiring no explanation.
Explain it anyways.
Surely it must be a simple task. Go on.
It means they beat the shit out of the Bizantines, and they have 100% legal dicky through marriage, that is what it means.
First of all, you're no Christian if you think a religion is superior to another.
Second, a Muslim is no Muslim if he thinks he should try to convert others.
Oh, and this is for you, atheist/disbeliever: https://youtube.com/shorts/9DcPBeOnHHE
I think the only real arguments for this site is social. as religions, they are practically the same shit.
>What's the best argument a Muslims could come up with for a Christian like me to even consider converting to his heresy?
You can marry a bunch of women and keep an infinite more as concubines.
Islam pros
>No bullshit like the Trinity or taking Jesus being the son of God literally (which as the Muslims point out evolved later)
>More organized and less theologically messy
>Removes a lot of superfluous and psychopathic parts of the old and new testaments
>Still has mystics like the Sufis for people who actually care about theology beyond the serfslop (Christians killed their mystics)
Christianity pros
>Paul lets us ignore backwards Hebrew customs like genital mutilation (blood offering to Yahweh) and abstinence from pork and alcohol
>No muhammed
>Less obviously sinful things like child marriage and polygamy being decreed by God.
>So theologically disorganized and messy you can ignore the dumb and evil parts (Muslims can't)
Cons of both
>Too israeli, neither will let go its roots as a cult of a semitic war God
>Designed to build empires
>Very unclear what's supposed to be literal and allegory.
>Less obviously sinful things
Child marriage isn't sinful in Christianity, and I welcome Christians to prove me wrong with actual scripture, and not emotion
The issue is that Islam affirms it while Christianity doesn't have a position
I could forgive Islam if it was just something Muhammad did instead of god literally decreeing it
>Less obviously sinful things
As an objective observer of religions, why would you even have such a concept of "sin"? a "sin" in what religion?
Most religious people tell me morality is objective because we humans can instinctively tell what is wrong, such as murder or theft.
I think deep down we know pedophilia is wrong and marriage is for two people
>marriage is for two people
Tell that to Muslims
The wives don't marry each other
>I think deep down we know pedophilia is wrong and marriage is for two people
That's just Western Christian morality without the theology, which the world adopted because of colonialism and american hegemony.
The case that monogamy and strict adherence to feminist age gap rules are inate to humanity is a weak one. Western society itself is regressing into polygamy
Women are property, you stupid ignorant idiot.
>obviously sinful things
You will get deep fried in hell forever.
that islam isn't explicitly against alcohol consumption and can basically be observed the same way most born-into-christians observe their religion; IE: not very seriously..
>basically don't be drunk.
>don't eat pork or other weird animals.
>lunar calandar bullshit that christian popes basically corrected for with the solar gregorian calendar.
>pray regularly, multiple times a day, and don't be a slob about it either.
downsides are polygamy and having actual named heirs and holy sites that aren't something you can argue against without undermining the whole basis; also not having institutions that survived in reletively stable forms like the catholic church or the orthodox church(s)...
Also the people technically in charge of those religiously mandated holy-sites are a bunch of tacky iconoclastic hicks,
I'm really starting to realize why so many people become "I worship myself mAaAaAaAan!" atheists, because if it's between that and submitting myself to incongruent, illogical, ahistorical, ideological tradLARPing horseshit then why the frick shouldn't I just lift weights and put my wiener in nice looking holes forever?
1. Pure monotheism. As a former Christian I understand the trinity, and I do see how Christinas view it as monotheism, I just don't agree with it. Islam's monotheism does a better job at describing the incomprehensibility of God.
2. Structured worship routine. 5 daily prayers and meditations throughout the day.
3. Strong community. You can go to the mosque for any of the prayers and there will be other men there.
4. No drinking
5. Healthy habits
6. Cleanliness
7. Anti-degeneracy
8. It has a spiritual side (Sufism) that is so, so vast and it's a fascinating ocean to dive into.- Christianity has this, particularly in eastern rites, but IMO it's not comparable. I'd actually argue that Buddhism's influence on Islam was a big part of this.
9. Embraces natural masculinity.
10. Find spiritual ecstasy by following the Sharia. Sufi monks strictly follow it to become more enlightened.
11. If it matters to you, you can have 4 wives.
12. You can still appreciate Jesus and love him.
13. I can't stress the communal aspect enough.
There's even more, anon. I'd love to chat more.
>1. Pure monotheism.
I find unitarianism sterile and unappealing. The complexity of the Trinity is more fascinating, thought-provoking and does a better job at describing the incomprehensibility of God.
>2. Structured worship routine
We have the same in Catholicism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours
>3. Strong community
We have the same.
>4. No drinking
This is actually a negative for Islam, IMO
>5. Healthy habits
Hardly, practices like Ramadan are terrible for your health.
>6. Cleanliness
Every remotely civilized person pratices cleanliness.
>7. Anti-degeneracy
Islam allows pedophilia and polygamy.
>8. It has a spiritual side (Sufism) that is so, so vast and it's a fascinating ocean to dive into
Christianityi's is better.
>9. Embraces natural masculinity.
i.e. coomerism.
>10. Find spiritual ecstasy by following the Sharia.
Somebody hasn't heard of Christian mystics.
>11. If it matters to you, you can have 4 wives.
Polygamy is degenerate.
>12. You can still appreciate Jesus and love him.
No, Muslims love "Isa", a completely different person that Jesus Christ.
>13. I can't stress the communal aspect enough.
I can't stress that we have community too enough.
>I find unitarianism sterile and unappealing
Truth will not change, no matter your opinion. "Have you seen the one who has taken their own desire as their god?" Allah is talking about (You)
What are your objections to the Trinity?
Shia Islam has all the basedness of both christiniaty and Islam.
christianity is cringe israeli goyslope but islam is so obviously fake and Muhammed is such an obvious grifter its not even funny
Christianity is same shit, different smell, in the overall dung pile that is Abrahamism.
Christianity is a Pauline heresy, in which the strictly monotheistic religion of the israelites was turned into polytheism (the trinity) and idol worship (worshipping Jesus instead of God). Islam corrects this mistake.