MUSLIMS GTFIH

[tomahawk]

i know i know hahaa, i was referring to op as a cunt, not the dude

Mb brah I didn't understand the shit

 

[abzz]

Mb brah I didn't understand the shit

i was raging, it's my bad, not yours hahaa

 

[tomahawk]

interesting, how come?

I can't be sure
But I'm definitely not Ashari

 

[tomahawk]

i was raging, it's my bad, not yours hahaa

I like you brah

 

[abzz]

I can't be sure
But I'm definitely not Ashari

good.

 

[abzz]

I like you brah

well, guess what?

i like you more tomahawk

 

[Histy]

you are so fucking retarded it hurts to read this shit. i would debunk these shitty arguments one by one, but i can tell you're a close minded retarded piece of shit who doesn't learn anything. you are the epitome of this:

View attachment 4535492

Love you brother

 

[tomahawk]

good.

Asharism is the worst of the three but at least its better than the Mutazillites the guy fought

 

[abzz]

Love you brother

love you more akhi

 

[larpslayer1488]

you can't assume that lmao. there are plenty of adults who aren't mentally fit to consent, and who are easily fooled/manipulated by greater society. you can clearly see from historical records that aish R.A was smarter than both me and you, let's be honest

i think that you're just trying to place modern societal norms, mixed with some hasty generalisation, on a very specific situation that occurred 1400+ years ago jfl

Just because it occurred 1400 years ago doesn't make it right, and although your first point true that there are plenty of adults not fit for consent. But that does not change the fact that for children under 12-13, consent is generally impossible due to limited abstract thinking and vulnerability to authority figures. I'm still surprised Muslims defend this still to this day

 

[larpslayer1488]

i think that you're just trying to place modern societal norms, mixed with some hasty generalisation, on a very specific situation that occurred 1400+ years ago jfl

Also you mistaken my honesty for hatred, there's a reason why I judge by beliefs and not race/skin

 

[aristrocratic]

while Muhammad is depicted as sinful and performing no miracles

jfl

 

[abzz]

Just because it occurred 1400 years ago doesn't make it right, and although your first point true that there are plenty of adults not fit for consent. But that does not change the fact that for children under 12-13, consent is generally impossible due to limited abstract thinking and vulnerability to authority figures. I'm still surprised Muslims defend this still to this day

that was never my claim, im just telling you that it was a societal norm, and placing modern standards on it is unfair.

MUHH THE ROMANS WASHED THEMSELVES WITH PEE, GROSS! but with context, you would understand, right?

yes, key word "generally" what is it in your mind that turns a general rule, into a context-free law across all societies and eras you admit that there are some exceptions, but you're too adamant about your claim and refuse to concede because of your stubbornness.

 

[abzz]

Also you mistaken my honesty for hatred, there's a reason why I judge by beliefs and not race/skin

i didn't mistake anything, im calling out your bullshit, and, rightfully so in my opinion

 

[LGG]

The most popular dilemma is simply called "the Islamic dilemma." It can be summarized very easily. The Quran affirms the Bible; the Bible doesn't affirm the Quran (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:44, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:46, Galatians 1:8-9). This dilemma isn't new and can be dated back to the 8th century (George of B'eltan). The second dilemma I call the "love dilemma". This is more of a dilemma with non-Triune Gods in general, but the argument goes something like this: if God is love, then who does he love from eternity? In a Trinity, you have an eternal bond of love, the Father loves the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a bond of that love, but in a non-Triune God, it needs creation to love, meaning love is an attribute added to a non-Triune God after creation, which means God's attributes change with creation, which creates two dilemmas. 1. How can an eternal, unchanging God change with creation, and 2. How can God be love if love isn't a part of its identity? The third dilemma is similar to the first and is called the "talmudic dilemma." Basically, there is more than enough evidence to support the idea that the Quran copied some parts of the Talmud (Qur'an 21:51-67 - Avodah Zarah 54b, Qur'an 27:16-19 - Gittin 68b, Qur'an 2:30-34 -Sanhedrin 38b, Qur'an 21:68-70 - Pesachim 118a, Qur'an 2:31 - Chullin 60a). This creates a dilemma: not only does the Quran contradict the Talmud, but the Talmud is also not recognized in the Islamic canon. Creating a dilemma, how can an uninspired text make its way into the Quran? (Assuming the Quran is from God and eternal) Allah somehow made a mistake and used an uninspired, blasphemous text in his eternal, undying, and uncorrupted word or the Talmud is the inspired word of Allah not only does this make no sense because the Talmud says Isa or Jesus is burning in fecal matter in hell (Gittin 57a) but the Talmud spefically warns of a prophet that contradicts the Torah which fits Muhammad perfectly (Sanhedrin 90a). (Assuming the Quran is written) The writers of the Quran used an uninspired text that blasphemes prophets and warns of false prophets like Muhammad in the holy word of Allah, meaning the Quran is not perfect and is liable for mistakes, making it unreliable. The fourth dilemma I call the "miracles dilemma". It's pretty simple: According to the Quran Jesus performed miracles and was sinless (Qur'an 3:49, Qur'an 5:110, Qur'an 3:36, Qur'an 19:19). Muhammad, however, the final and greatest prophet, not only performed zero miracles (Qur'an 6:37, Qur'an 6:109, Qur'an 17:90-93), but also sinned (Qur'an 47:19, Qur'an 48:1-2, Qur'an 93:7, Qur'an 66:1) according to Sahih al-Bukhari 6307 Muhammad was sinning 70 times a day on average. Basically, the point of this argument is that even in the Quran itself and hadiths, Muhammad is less great than Jesus because Jesus was sinless and performed miracles, while Muhammad did neither. The fifth dilemma is called the "Uthman dilemma". This argument questions the claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved and unchanging. According to Sahih al-Bukhari 4987, Uthman burned a bunch of Qurans for being "unreliable." This creates a dilemma. How did he know which Quran was reliable without the divine messenger of Allah? This dilemma, in my opinion, is probably the weakest so far, but I digress. These are separate arguments not really dilemmas but point out contradictions in the Quran and Hadiths
1. Child marriage and Aisha. This is probably the most popular argument against Islam and is the hardest to defend if you live in the West and not some third-world shithole that still practices child marriage. Aisha was 6, Muhammad was 53.
2. Quran and Hadith contradictions. The first one is apostasy, which in the Quran is not punishable by death (Quran 2:256), but later hadiths claim it is (Bukhari 6922). Sharia law requires death for apostates, overriding the Quran and putting man-written text over the Holy and Inspired word of Allah.
3. The Quran, early on, not only affirmed pagan gods (the satanic verses) but was very peace orinated as Muhammad gained power, though it focused more on the sword and spreading the religion by force (Qur'an 9:5, Qur'an 9:29). The argument basically goes like this: Muhammad, once he gained power, overrode the earlier revelations of Allah, and became more power-hungry filled with murder and decite and became the very thing he preached against.
4. The Quran has multiple scientific errors, such as claiming the earth is flat (Qur'an 15:19, 79:30), claiming the sun sets in "murky water" (Qur'an 18:86), claiming humans are created from a blood clot (Qur'an 23:12-14), claiming mountains hold up the earth (Qur'an 78:6-7, 16:15), claiming salt and fresh water can never mix which is false (Qur'an 55:19-20), claiming sperm comes the spine (Qur'an 23:12-14).
5. The "angel" argument. Basically, the Bible in the New Testament warns of false prophets receiving messages from "angels of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 1:8-9). Muhammad received his revelation from an angel. The New Testament is very clear that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messiah, meaning no prophets are needed after Him (Hebrews 1:1-2, John 14:6, Acts 3:22-23). And warns against false prophets receiving messages from "angels". Muhammad fits this category perfectly.
6. The "aorta" argument. Qur'an 69:44-46 states, "And if he had fabricated about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut his aorta (or main artery); and there is no one of you who could prevent it." claiming that Muhammad, if he is lying about Allah, will have his aorta cut. Then, in a later Aishan Hadith, it states "The revelation comes to me like the ringing of a bell; sometimes it is so heavy that I feel as if my aorta is being cut." (Sahih Muslim 2316, Sahih Bukhari 7437). Muhammad literally said that he is lying, his aorta will be cut, then on his deathbed says, "I feel as if my aorta is being cut". Basically condemning himself and admitting he's a false prophet.
7. The crucifixion denial. According to Qur'an 4:157-158 Jesus was never crucified. This creates a lot of problems. The first one is that this simply is just false; there isn't a single non-Islamic source that claims this. Literally zero. Two, the Quran never says who replaced Jesus on the cross; it just says "another was made to resemble him". Three, why would God trick humanity, not only created the worlds largest religion but biggest threat to Islam? Fourth, this implies the resurrection never happens, which is also false because we have hundreds of witnesses and dozens of matyrs that went to their death preaching it. Five, if Jesus was never cruificed that He failed His mission on earth, which was to forgive humanity's sins and fulfill scripture. The Bible is very clear that a suffering servant will arise (Isaiah 53) and will die for humanity's sins (Psalm 22:16-18, Zechariah 12:10, Hosea 6:2, Psalm 32:1-2, Micah 7:18-19). If Jesus never did this, then how are humanity's sins forgiven? This means Allah just forgives sins without any justice or sacrifice. Islam basically believes in a purely works-based salvation because they have no savior who bore the sins of humanity.

dnr

 

[larpslayer1488]

that was never my claim, im just telling you that it was a societal norm, and placing modern standards on it is unfair.

MUHH THE ROMANS WASHED THEMSELVES WITH PEE, GROSS! but with context, you would understand, right?

yes, key word "generally" what is it in your mind that turns a general rule, into a context-free law across all societies and eras you admit that there are some exceptions, but you're too adamant about your claim and refuse to concede because of your stubbornness.

if muslims deem marrying a 6 year olds as a "normal societal norm" then wouldn't it be right to point out that it's a pedofile braindead behaiviour (for the reasons i pointed out earlier)?

2nd point, this is not correlated whatsoever

people under 12 can't consent this is basic fucking knowledge even if we ignore all our human laws, they literally can't

 

[austrianpsycho]

The most popular dilemma is simply called "the Islamic dilemma." It can be summarized very easily. The Quran affirms the Bible; the Bible doesn't affirm the Quran (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:44, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:46, Galatians 1:8-9). This dilemma isn't new and can be dated back to the 8th century (George of B'eltan). The second dilemma I call the "love dilemma". This is more of a dilemma with non-Triune Gods in general, but the argument goes something like this: if God is love, then who does he love from eternity? In a Trinity, you have an eternal bond of love, the Father loves the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a bond of that love, but in a non-Triune God, it needs creation to love, meaning love is an attribute added to a non-Triune God after creation, which means God's attributes change with creation, which creates two dilemmas. 1. How can an eternal, unchanging God change with creation, and 2. How can God be love if love isn't a part of its identity? The third dilemma is similar to the first and is called the "talmudic dilemma." Basically, there is more than enough evidence to support the idea that the Quran copied some parts of the Talmud (Qur'an 21:51-67 - Avodah Zarah 54b, Qur'an 27:16-19 - Gittin 68b, Qur'an 2:30-34 -Sanhedrin 38b, Qur'an 21:68-70 - Pesachim 118a, Qur'an 2:31 - Chullin 60a). This creates a dilemma: not only does the Quran contradict the Talmud, but the Talmud is also not recognized in the Islamic canon. Creating a dilemma, how can an uninspired text make its way into the Quran? (Assuming the Quran is from God and eternal) Allah somehow made a mistake and used an uninspired, blasphemous text in his eternal, undying, and uncorrupted word or the Talmud is the inspired word of Allah not only does this make no sense because the Talmud says Isa or Jesus is burning in fecal matter in hell (Gittin 57a) but the Talmud spefically warns of a prophet that contradicts the Torah which fits Muhammad perfectly (Sanhedrin 90a). (Assuming the Quran is written) The writers of the Quran used an uninspired text that blasphemes prophets and warns of false prophets like Muhammad in the holy word of Allah, meaning the Quran is not perfect and is liable for mistakes, making it unreliable. The fourth dilemma I call the "miracles dilemma". It's pretty simple: According to the Quran Jesus performed miracles and was sinless (Qur'an 3:49, Qur'an 5:110, Qur'an 3:36, Qur'an 19:19). Muhammad, however, the final and greatest prophet, not only performed zero miracles (Qur'an 6:37, Qur'an 6:109, Qur'an 17:90-93), but also sinned (Qur'an 47:19, Qur'an 48:1-2, Qur'an 93:7, Qur'an 66:1) according to Sahih al-Bukhari 6307 Muhammad was sinning 70 times a day on average. Basically, the point of this argument is that even in the Quran itself and hadiths, Muhammad is less great than Jesus because Jesus was sinless and performed miracles, while Muhammad did neither. The fifth dilemma is called the "Uthman dilemma". This argument questions the claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved and unchanging. According to Sahih al-Bukhari 4987, Uthman burned a bunch of Qurans for being "unreliable." This creates a dilemma. How did he know which Quran was reliable without the divine messenger of Allah? This dilemma, in my opinion, is probably the weakest so far, but I digress. These are separate arguments not really dilemmas but point out contradictions in the Quran and Hadiths
1. Child marriage and Aisha. This is probably the most popular argument against Islam and is the hardest to defend if you live in the West and not some third-world shithole that still practices child marriage. Aisha was 6, Muhammad was 53.
2. Quran and Hadith contradictions. The first one is apostasy, which in the Quran is not punishable by death (Quran 2:256), but later hadiths claim it is (Bukhari 6922). Sharia law requires death for apostates, overriding the Quran and putting man-written text over the Holy and Inspired word of Allah.
3. The Quran, early on, not only affirmed pagan gods (the satanic verses) but was very peace orinated as Muhammad gained power, though it focused more on the sword and spreading the religion by force (Qur'an 9:5, Qur'an 9:29). The argument basically goes like this: Muhammad, once he gained power, overrode the earlier revelations of Allah, and became more power-hungry filled with murder and decite and became the very thing he preached against.
4. The Quran has multiple scientific errors, such as claiming the earth is flat (Qur'an 15:19, 79:30), claiming the sun sets in "murky water" (Qur'an 18:86), claiming humans are created from a blood clot (Qur'an 23:12-14), claiming mountains hold up the earth (Qur'an 78:6-7, 16:15), claiming salt and fresh water can never mix which is false (Qur'an 55:19-20), claiming sperm comes the spine (Qur'an 23:12-14).
5. The "angel" argument. Basically, the Bible in the New Testament warns of false prophets receiving messages from "angels of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 1:8-9). Muhammad received his revelation from an angel. The New Testament is very clear that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messiah, meaning no prophets are needed after Him (Hebrews 1:1-2, John 14:6, Acts 3:22-23). And warns against false prophets receiving messages from "angels". Muhammad fits this category perfectly.
6. The "aorta" argument. Qur'an 69:44-46 states, "And if he had fabricated about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut his aorta (or main artery); and there is no one of you who could prevent it." claiming that Muhammad, if he is lying about Allah, will have his aorta cut. Then, in a later Aishan Hadith, it states "The revelation comes to me like the ringing of a bell; sometimes it is so heavy that I feel as if my aorta is being cut." (Sahih Muslim 2316, Sahih Bukhari 7437). Muhammad literally said that he is lying, his aorta will be cut, then on his deathbed says, "I feel as if my aorta is being cut". Basically condemning himself and admitting he's a false prophet.
7. The crucifixion denial. According to Qur'an 4:157-158 Jesus was never crucified. This creates a lot of problems. The first one is that this simply is just false; there isn't a single non-Islamic source that claims this. Literally zero. Two, the Quran never says who replaced Jesus on the cross; it just says "another was made to resemble him". Three, why would God trick humanity, not only created the worlds largest religion but biggest threat to Islam? Fourth, this implies the resurrection never happens, which is also false because we have hundreds of witnesses and dozens of matyrs that went to their death preaching it. Five, if Jesus was never cruificed that He failed His mission on earth, which was to forgive humanity's sins and fulfill scripture. The Bible is very clear that a suffering servant will arise (Isaiah 53) and will die for humanity's sins (Psalm 22:16-18, Zechariah 12:10, Hosea 6:2, Psalm 32:1-2, Micah 7:18-19). If Jesus never did this, then how are humanity's sins forgiven? This means Allah just forgives sins without any justice or sacrifice. Islam basically believes in a purely works-based salvation because they have no savior who bore the sins of humanity.

low iq beef
both sides are retardet
embrace peace like both religions teach

 

[abzz]

if muslims deem marrying a 6 year olds as a "normal societal norm" then wouldn't it be right to point out that it's a pedofile braindead behaiviour (for the reasons i pointed out earlier)?

2nd point, this is not correlated whatsoever

people under 12 can't consent this is basic fucking knowledge even if we ignore all our human laws, they literally can't

right now, of course it would be frowned upon. but, if the laws didn't change, and everyone around you would do it, you wouldn't bat an eye.

this is just pure historic illiteracy

+ since when are we using moral, modern empirical claims upon an era that didn't have such an established framework?

 

[hawaiiancursee]

The most popular dilemma is simply called "the Islamic dilemma." It can be summarized very easily. The Quran affirms the Bible; the Bible doesn't affirm the Quran (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:44, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:46, Galatians 1:8-9). This dilemma isn't new and can be dated back to the 8th century (George of B'eltan). The second dilemma I call the "love dilemma". This is more of a dilemma with non-Triune Gods in general, but the argument goes something like this: if God is love, then who does he love from eternity? In a Trinity, you have an eternal bond of love, the Father loves the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a bond of that love, but in a non-Triune God, it needs creation to love, meaning love is an attribute added to a non-Triune God after creation, which means God's attributes change with creation, which creates two dilemmas. 1. How can an eternal, unchanging God change with creation, and 2. How can God be love if love isn't a part of its identity? The third dilemma is similar to the first and is called the "talmudic dilemma." Basically, there is more than enough evidence to support the idea that the Quran copied some parts of the Talmud (Qur'an 21:51-67 - Avodah Zarah 54b, Qur'an 27:16-19 - Gittin 68b, Qur'an 2:30-34 -Sanhedrin 38b, Qur'an 21:68-70 - Pesachim 118a, Qur'an 2:31 - Chullin 60a). This creates a dilemma: not only does the Quran contradict the Talmud, but the Talmud is also not recognized in the Islamic canon. Creating a dilemma, how can an uninspired text make its way into the Quran? (Assuming the Quran is from God and eternal) Allah somehow made a mistake and used an uninspired, blasphemous text in his eternal, undying, and uncorrupted word or the Talmud is the inspired word of Allah not only does this make no sense because the Talmud says Isa or Jesus is burning in fecal matter in hell (Gittin 57a) but the Talmud spefically warns of a prophet that contradicts the Torah which fits Muhammad perfectly (Sanhedrin 90a). (Assuming the Quran is written) The writers of the Quran used an uninspired text that blasphemes prophets and warns of false prophets like Muhammad in the holy word of Allah, meaning the Quran is not perfect and is liable for mistakes, making it unreliable. The fourth dilemma I call the "miracles dilemma". It's pretty simple: According to the Quran Jesus performed miracles and was sinless (Qur'an 3:49, Qur'an 5:110, Qur'an 3:36, Qur'an 19:19). Muhammad, however, the final and greatest prophet, not only performed zero miracles (Qur'an 6:37, Qur'an 6:109, Qur'an 17:90-93), but also sinned (Qur'an 47:19, Qur'an 48:1-2, Qur'an 93:7, Qur'an 66:1) according to Sahih al-Bukhari 6307 Muhammad was sinning 70 times a day on average. Basically, the point of this argument is that even in the Quran itself and hadiths, Muhammad is less great than Jesus because Jesus was sinless and performed miracles, while Muhammad did neither. The fifth dilemma is called the "Uthman dilemma". This argument questions the claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved and unchanging. According to Sahih al-Bukhari 4987, Uthman burned a bunch of Qurans for being "unreliable." This creates a dilemma. How did he know which Quran was reliable without the divine messenger of Allah? This dilemma, in my opinion, is probably the weakest so far, but I digress. These are separate arguments not really dilemmas but point out contradictions in the Quran and Hadiths
1. Child marriage and Aisha. This is probably the most popular argument against Islam and is the hardest to defend if you live in the West and not some third-world shithole that still practices child marriage. Aisha was 6, Muhammad was 53.
2. Quran and Hadith contradictions. The first one is apostasy, which in the Quran is not punishable by death (Quran 2:256), but later hadiths claim it is (Bukhari 6922). Sharia law requires death for apostates, overriding the Quran and putting man-written text over the Holy and Inspired word of Allah.
3. The Quran, early on, not only affirmed pagan gods (the satanic verses) but was very peace orinated as Muhammad gained power, though it focused more on the sword and spreading the religion by force (Qur'an 9:5, Qur'an 9:29). The argument basically goes like this: Muhammad, once he gained power, overrode the earlier revelations of Allah, and became more power-hungry filled with murder and decite and became the very thing he preached against.
4. The Quran has multiple scientific errors, such as claiming the earth is flat (Qur'an 15:19, 79:30), claiming the sun sets in "murky water" (Qur'an 18:86), claiming humans are created from a blood clot (Qur'an 23:12-14), claiming mountains hold up the earth (Qur'an 78:6-7, 16:15), claiming salt and fresh water can never mix which is false (Qur'an 55:19-20), claiming sperm comes the spine (Qur'an 23:12-14).
5. The "angel" argument. Basically, the Bible in the New Testament warns of false prophets receiving messages from "angels of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 1:8-9). Muhammad received his revelation from an angel. The New Testament is very clear that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messiah, meaning no prophets are needed after Him (Hebrews 1:1-2, John 14:6, Acts 3:22-23). And warns against false prophets receiving messages from "angels". Muhammad fits this category perfectly.
6. The "aorta" argument. Qur'an 69:44-46 states, "And if he had fabricated about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut his aorta (or main artery); and there is no one of you who could prevent it." claiming that Muhammad, if he is lying about Allah, will have his aorta cut. Then, in a later Aishan Hadith, it states "The revelation comes to me like the ringing of a bell; sometimes it is so heavy that I feel as if my aorta is being cut." (Sahih Muslim 2316, Sahih Bukhari 7437). Muhammad literally said that he is lying, his aorta will be cut, then on his deathbed says, "I feel as if my aorta is being cut". Basically condemning himself and admitting he's a false prophet.
7. The crucifixion denial. According to Qur'an 4:157-158 Jesus was never crucified. This creates a lot of problems. The first one is that this simply is just false; there isn't a single non-Islamic source that claims this. Literally zero. Two, the Quran never says who replaced Jesus on the cross; it just says "another was made to resemble him". Three, why would God trick humanity, not only created the worlds largest religion but biggest threat to Islam? Fourth, this implies the resurrection never happens, which is also false because we have hundreds of witnesses and dozens of matyrs that went to their death preaching it. Five, if Jesus was never cruificed that He failed His mission on earth, which was to forgive humanity's sins and fulfill scripture. The Bible is very clear that a suffering servant will arise (Isaiah 53) and will die for humanity's sins (Psalm 22:16-18, Zechariah 12:10, Hosea 6:2, Psalm 32:1-2, Micah 7:18-19). If Jesus never did this, then how are humanity's sins forgiven? This means Allah just forgives sins without any justice or sacrifice. Islam basically believes in a purely works-based salvation because they have no savior who bore the sins of humanity.

I ain't reading allat bro

 

[larpslayer1488]

right now, of course it would be frowned upon. but, if the laws didn't change, and everyone around you would do it, you wouldn't bat an eye.

this is just pure historic illiteracy

+ since when are we using moral, modern empirical claims upon an era that didn't have such an established framework?

say if laws didn't change up until 2026 and we had the same laws, it would change pretty fucking quickly because they'd realize that children literally can't consent sufficiently, they can, will and have been groomed and if those laws existed today they would change pretty fucking quickly

and also since you didn't read the OG post which brings out a lot of valid points how about we just pay attention to a single one since you didn't want to read the entire thing (which is fair to be honest its long as fuck) but you normalize marrying a 6 year old by doing mental gymnastics but its fine i wanna focus on denial of crucifixion

Do you believe jesus was crucified?

 

[abzz]

say if laws didn't change up until 2026 and we had the same laws, it would change pretty fucking quickly because they'd realize that children literally can't consent sufficiently, they can, will and have been groomed and if those laws existed today they would change pretty fucking quickly

and also since you didn't read the OG post which brings out a lot of valid points how about we just pay attention to a single one since you didn't want to read the entire thing (which is fair to be honest its long as fuck) but you normalize marrying a 6 year old by doing mental gymnastics but its fine i wanna focus on denial of crucifixion

Do you believe jesus was crucified?

so you literally just confirm that applying today's conclusions to the past is literally anachronistic

i skimmed past it, all of these arguments are so easy to debunk. it's been don't many many many times in the past

no, jesus was not crucified. it was made to appear so, and therefore it's reasonable to assume that people believe it + that's what history says, that he "was."

 

[larpslayer1488]

so you literally just confirm that applying today's conclusions to the past is literally anachronistic

So you think we should allow 6 year olds to marry? i mean Muhammad was a prophet with knowledge from god according to you so shouldn't he have known better than not to groom a 6 year old? it's literally scientific that no 6 year old can really consent not just societal.

i skimmed past it, all of these arguments are so easy to debunk. it's been don't many many many times in the past

Fair enough but i want you to debate the crucifixion of jesus without using a conspiracy theory-like argument

no, jesus was not crucified. it was made to appear so, and therefore it's reasonable to assume that people believe it + that's what history says, that he "was."

What's more believable, that Jesus was crucified or that some god came down and saved Jesus whilst tricking humanity, and in doing so, creating the biggest threat to Islam? That "saving of Jesus" created more non-believers of Islam than anything else.

 

[abzz]

So you think we should allow 6 year olds to marry? i mean Muhammad was a prophet with knowledge from god according to you so shouldn't he have known better than not to groom a 6 year old? it's literally scientific that no 6 year old can really consent not just societal.

Fair enough but i want you to debate the crucifixion of jesus without using a conspiracy theory-like argument

What's more believable, that Jesus was crucified or that some god came down and saved Jesus whilst tricking humanity, and in doing so, creating the biggest threat to Islam? That "saving of Jesus" created more non-believers of Islam than anything else.

in VERY certain conditions, i believe it can be fine. if rationality and will to proceed can be measured then yeah sure.

sure

holy fallacy sandwich. false dilemma + stawman + begging the question lmao
if you want to assess which option is more believable, you have to investigate the reliability of the scripture that claims such events. "threat to islam" jfl. muslims, christians, jews, atheists, you name it. "muhh why does god allow them to exist if it poses a threat and creates non believers"

maybe because that's the whole point were given free will, and we can rationally decide what path we want to follow. if you want to choose something other than islam, fine by me. i have no problem with that. just don't spread your hatred

 

[larpslayer1488]

in VERY certain conditions, i believe it can be fine. if rationality and will to proceed can be measured then yeah sure.

Even if we ignore all the societal norms this is just wrong, there's no conditions or anything that could make it rational or just, you just don't want to admit it because your religion just falls to pieces

holy fallacy sandwich. false dilemma + stawman + begging the question lmao
if you want to assess which option is more believable, you have to investigate the reliability of the scripture that claims such events. "threat to islam" jfl. muslims, christians, jews, atheists, you name it. "muhh why does god allow them to exist if it poses a threat and creates non believers"

First of all it's "straw man fallcy" which is to exaggerate your argument, but everything I've said is completely reasonable, if I told you that the Man you saw die in your own eyes was actually saved and got replaced by someone we don't even know, would you believe me? It's very reasonable to doubt this conspiracy theory-like "believe me bro" thing, especially from someone who came 600 years later and married a 6 year old.

maybe because that's the whole point were given free will, and we can rationally decide what path we want to follow. if you want to choose something other than islam, fine by me. i have no problem with that. just don't spread your hatred

Free will? Is that the reason why your "Allah" wants to kill apostates and polytheists? Nowhere have I said anything unreasonable therefore it's not hatred.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Overused argument the Quran affirms the bible already debunked go to debate vids

It does affirm the Bible it hasn’t been debunked all your too debaters have lost in debates with Christian’s and secularists on this topic.

I don’t approve of this thread as it’s random but the content it true

 

[ccwb]

It does affirm the Bible it hasn’t been debunked all your too debaters have lost in debates with Christian’s and secularists on this topic.

I don’t approve of this thread as it’s random but the content it true

It says injeel which is gospel not bible. And btw ur so called debaters got debunked by Muslim orthodox

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

It says injeel which is gospel not bible. And btw ur so called debaters got debunked by Muslim orthodox

Your book affirms both the injeel and Torah

Sura 2:40
40) Children of Israel!56 Recall My favour which I had bestowed on you, and fulfil your covenant with Me and I shall fulfil My covenant with you, and fear Me alone. (2:41) And believe in the Book which I have revealed and which confirms the Scripture you already have, and be not foremost among its deniers. Do not sell My signs for a trifling gain, 57and beware of My wrath.

Sura 5:68


Sura 10:94

Alll prove your god your prophet confirm Torah and Bible your religion is just inconsistent

But tbh I’m over debating over religion and esp with low IQs

People will believe in what they do and there’s nothing that can be done for them as your issue is of the heart not intellect so to summarise I won’t debate you as there’s no point I’ll win and even when I win you’ll still
Be muslim And we willl achieve nothing so I won’t waste my time hence why I stopped religious threads infidels will remain pagans

 

[ccwb]

Your book affirms both the injeel and Torah

Sura 2:40
40) Children of Israel!56 Recall My favour which I had bestowed on you, and fulfil your covenant with Me and I shall fulfil My covenant with you, and fear Me alone. (2:41) And believe in the Book which I have revealed and which confirms the Scripture you already have, and be not foremost among its deniers. Do not sell My signs for a trifling gain, 57and beware of My wrath.

Sura 5:68


Sura 10:94

Alll prove your god your prophet confirm Torah and Bible your religion is just inconsistent

But tbh I’m over debating over religion and esp with low IQs

People will believe in what they do and there’s nothing that can be done for them as your issue is of the heart not intellect so to summarise I won’t debate you as there’s no point I’ll win and even when I win you’ll still
Be muslim And we willl achieve nothing so I won’t waste my time hence why I stopped religious threads infidels will remain pagans

Show me where it says bible? There’s no place it says bible, the gospel is what was revealed to Jesus and btw ur own book isn’t even reliable it’s not even written in its own language, the oldest book you have (copy/edition) isn’t even at the time of Moses, plus Paul didn’t actually see Jesus in his sleep, was all bs and don’t come saying prophet Mohammed didn’t see Gabriel the difference is one was a normal guy the second is the one who’s been witnessed and said to be the most truthful guy (Al sadiq al ameen) the truthful and loyal, not to mention you js said infidels PAGANS are u srsly calling Muslim pagans?🫩 I SHOULD be the one saying this cuz your god has 3 forms while Islam’s the only religion with absolute extreme monotheism, and btw in bible it says blasphemy against Holy Spirit isn’t forgiven but for Jesus it’s, and before saying it’s on the human form can you show where it says human form ? It’s general and god should specify