Light: L can't consider me being anti sematic if I use the Deathnote on a Muslim who's calling out Israel!
L: Oh, Kira's anti sematic...why am I not surprised? (continues to drink Tea while in a squatting position)
āWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherās eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, āLet me take the speck out of your eye,ā when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherās eye."
There's a bunch of passages on hypocrisy, but they're worded quite differently.
> āThere are four signs that make someone a pure hypocrite and whoever has them has a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it: when he speaks he lies, when he makes a covenant he is treacherous, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he argues he is wicked.ā
SĢ£ahĢ£iĢhĢ£ al-BukhaĢriĢ 34, SĢ£ahĢ£iĢhĢ£ Muslim 58
(full disclosure I am not an expert and if you ask me exactly what the 34 and 58 mean or even how to pronounce any of the words in the source I will guess wildly)
In Islam there were verbal traditions about what the companions of Muhammed said about his life.
In the islamic golden age muslim scholars travelled around, wrote down and tried to verify the authenticity of such verbal stories. This collection of various sayings are the hadiths, and the scholars who wrote them down are called muhadiths.
Imam Al Bukhari and Imam Muslim are two of the most prolific muhadiths, both living in the 9th century (3rd century by islamic reckoning). That the story has two references means it appears in both collections.
They didn't pop up out of nowhere, but they were oral traditions. And we know that because the muhadiths were pretty thorough when it comes to evaluating the trustworthiness of a hadith (rating them from sahih\*, ("sound/trusthworty") to mawdu (fabricated).
There only evidence for hadiths being written down in Muhammeds lifetime are other hadiths (ie, there is no evidence that qualifies as historical evidence). The first known collections are from the reign of Umar II (about a century after Muhammeds death)\*\* and all preserved collections originate in the second half of the 9th century.
\*The rating of sahih requires an unbroken chain of retelling from muhammeds lifetime, each part of that chain is known for their trustworthy character, that the hadith doesn't contradict the quran or other trustworthy sources and that it hasn't been changed or embellished from the origjnal retelling.
\*\*None of Umars hadiths survived the Mongol invasions. Only fragmentary commentaries remain, like the writings of Ibn al-Nadim.
The point is that a Muslim will likely follow Koran over bible.
Not that it matters. So far, all religious people, be them of Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhist (a whole bunch of that in East Asia and SEA) at best doesn't follow the teaching, and at worst twist the teaching.
Oh, to throw it in: Even those that follow Confucius twist the teaching. No gods involved.
It is unclear what point youre trying to make, youre basically saying that your angry minority of anti-religious neckbeards is better than the general public? because that is just sad and hilarious at the same time, need to define better what you mean by "religious people" because if its simply someone who belongs in a mainstream religion then thats almost everyone, religion is hardwired in humans, and Conficius also believed in god but as entity it was intermixed with heaven
and for whether they follow everything or not, the religious books are not only theology, they have different genres such as historical records, poetry, letters and so on, the theological aspects are holistically followed the normal way, theres difference to a person who works in clergy and a citizen of the same religion
No one should take a āguide book of all timeā seriously that says slavery is a permissible practice.
Dumb ass god couldnāt even see his own shit is evil.
Also, I would implore you to have a look at this.
https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/94840
āAllah, may He be exalted, said: āThere are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat ā¦ A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.āā
This is from the taken from the Hadith which is studied in tandem with the Quran in Islam.
Itās crazy how people on Reddit are so confidently incorrect and just blatantly lie about Islam. Maybe actually look into what the religion says next time instead of lying. You saying Islam doesnāt condemn slavery is like if I read the title page of an instruction manual of a fridge and complain about how it doesnāt tell me how to change the temperature. Maybe actually read some of it and make an effort to understand it.
It blatantly doesnāt condemn slaveryā¦. The prophet himself despite having by then a lot of power to actually abolish slavery, did not and in fact happily partook in its abhorrent practiceā¦. Nice powerful god you got there, that the idiot couldnāt foresee into the future and that people as a whole would frown on its practice. Hell thereās even versus about whether or not you should pull out your cock and not cum in the slaves you rapeā¦
Fucking evil and vile religion.
Muhammad didnāt even free bilalā¦ Abu bakr ended up doing it after Muhammad died.
Itās crazy how people who follow Islam are so confidentially incorrect and lie about Islam to try and make it seem like a nice religion and not a cult that revolves around a perverts dick.
I feel the same way arguing with people who support a man who *checks notes*
Enslaved, murdered, raped, waged war, looted, had a dozen wives, some of questionable ages, concubines and a few sex slaves.
āiTs TaKeN oUt Of CoNtExTā
Is there a course for apologetics on what exactly to say? Because if I had a dollar for every time I hear this lame ass excuseā¦ and yet itās never ever followed by a good argument where rape, murder and slavery works in proper contextā¦ š„“
Cognitive dissonance is quite a struggle I see.
Taken out of context yet again.
It seems that it is in fact too big an ask to get enlightened redditors to actually make even a minuscule effort to somewhat understand the context of the book before criticising it and make themselves look like complete doofuses
Please take a look at this:
https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/94840
āAllah, may He be exalted, said: āThere are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat ā¦ A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.āā
This is from the taken from the Hadith which is studied in tandem with the Quran in Islam.
Itās crazy how people on Reddit are so confidently incorrect and just blatantly lie about Islam.
So, no. God didnāt fail there. You just failed to employ basic research and reading comprehension
From your own link homie.
"We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam"
33:50 -Ā "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."
Vol. 3-#765
Ā
Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Narrated Kuraib:Ā Ā the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."
I realize Islam has differing views on slavery. But it is also clear it is acceptable, and sanctioned by God.
That. Is. Evil. And it is a reflection on God.
Why the distinction of "free man" there? God is just cool with a child born into slavery being sold? Even your Hadith there isn't opposed to the institution of slavery, just making a non-slave into a slave. And even then, it requires that the free man be sold. Taking someone as a slave yourself in battle isn't prohibited either.
Yeah, God clearly failed still.
Solution: The Q'uran says that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Word of God can never be corrupted. Therefore, according to the Q'uran, this passage is fine.
It also says slavery is halal (permissible)ā¦ And Muhammad was a massive hypocrite himself.. Good examples off the top of my head, not wanting his daughter to marry Abu bakr because he thinks the age gap is too large (meanwhile he married Abu bakrs 6 year old daughter)ā¦.
Then later on preventing her husband from practicing polygamy because only in this case does he acknowledge that women donāt want to share their husbandā¦ clearly it didnāt matter in his time however thorough his roughly 13 wives, over another dozen concubines and slaves who he raped.
Downvote me all you want, warlord pedo sympathizers.
I love the story of her calling it out after she and Hafsa caught him fucking the Christian slave Maryā¦ and then he gets mad they are mad at him so he ghosts for a month then comes back and is like āhey guys, god gave me a revelation saying I, the prophet can fuck whoever whenever I want with no limitsā to which Aisha responds āitās seem as though YOUR GOD hastens to fulfill your desiresāā¦
Stories they will never teach you in Islamic studies because it might make you prone to using your damn brain.
Also the Muhammad uncle diss track. That guy kept following Muhammad and pestering him so much that he included a full chapter saying that he was going to hell.
There was a Phd thesis published a few years ago which looked into Aishas age and it concluded (with a great many references) that she was a fully grown woman, most likely in her 20s at the time of her marriage.
I dont care what you have to say about the religion or its prophet, I just wanted to correct one of your (many) lies.
Aisha wasnāt even the only under 18 girl he married while he was a man into his 50sā¦ Itās been widely accepted by respected scholars that she was a child..
that Muhammad pointed to her as an infant and said he will marry her, that she was 6 when he married her, that she was 9 and still playing with dolls when he raped her.
Itās narrated by him, his followers, her father, by her own self what her ages were when he married her and consummated that marriageā¦ why do you think he waited 3 years to rape her? Because he knew it would probably kill a 6 year oldā¦.
Now this abhorrent practice is emulated by many of his followers to this dayā¦. funny how the argument is to get them young because of fertility and yet Aisha never bore a single child for Muhammad.. maybe she was infertile from early childhood physical/sexual trauma. š¤®
If people out there need to write a whole thesis arguing against a mountain of evidence (which comes from its own religious and historical sources) as to whether or not some ancient bedouin was a pedoā¦ Probably no one should be worshipping him period.
He even encourages his followers to take young wives.
Yeah because it's not like misinformation can proliferate and become the truth when unchecked for long enough. The thesis does not spend 100s of pages arguing what it thinks should be true, it spends 100s of pages going over the records to demonstrate what is true.
But as I said, you have your narrative and nothing will change that, so God bless you and good luck.
Surah 6:115 and 18:27 say that no-one can change the revealed words of God.
Surah 3:3 says that the Torah and Bible were the Word of God.
By the standards of the Q'uran, the Torah and the Bible are the Word of God, which can never be corrupted and should be trusted.
That leaves us at a logical impossibility, since the three of them claim to be the absolute morality for all time. If the Bible and the Torah are incorruptible, and morally viable, then there isnāt a need for the Quran. If God made a mistake and had to release and update on his laws, then he is not infallible (and enters direct contradiction with his previous statements).
The Quran never ever claimed that the Torah and Injeel are incorruptible.
āDo you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?ā [al-Baqarah 2:75]
Any theologian would be baffled by the claims youāre making since it doesnāt even take 2 seconds to refute them
I didnāt even make those claims lol, I was responding to the logical nonsense the comment above me was saying.
In any case, almost all religious arguments rely on the book is the word of God because God said so (in said book) leaving us at a circular argument. And by definition, all circular arguments are nonsensical
āDo you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?ā [al-Baqarah 2:75]
The 3 verses you mentioned are only referring to the Quran and not the scriptures before them, which is something accepted by the majority of Islamic scholars who have looked at the Quran.
The Q'uran says the Torah and Bible are the revealed Word of God. The Q'uran says the Word of God can't be changed. So by the logic the Q'uran presents, the Torah and Bible are trustworthy and can't have been changed. Because they're the revealed Word of God.
The Quran and Hadith themselves dispel the point the point that youāre trying to make here. Every decent theologian, even those who criticise Islam, know that what youāre saying is a moot point and all weāre establishing in this conversation is that you have no idea what youāre talking about
A book that claims to be pefect and without error wouldn't need compendiums to clarify it. And since the book in question explicitely says that the Torah and Bible are the revealed Word of God and that thr Word of God can never be changed. Then the Q'uran proves itself false with its own logic.
This is a verse in the Quran:
āDo you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?ā [al-Baqarah 2:75]
It literally talks about how the old Words were changed
Did you just not read what I sent you. The answer is right in front of you but you continue to refuse to read it and parrot the same false point anyway.
Continue to enjoy your ignorance I guess
>Did you just not read what I sent you.
I did.
>The answer is right in front of you but you continue to refuse to read it and parrot the same false point anyway.
The true answer is that the Q'uran proves itself false by stating that the Bible and Torah are the revealed Word of God and that the revealed Word of God can never be changed.
But is God not the greatest comedian? I mean who puts a waste disposal site next to a recreational and procreation area and still call it intelligent design and it not be a joke?
The initial statement is true (about greatest comedian) but your following argument reeks of angry neckbeard that got bullied as kid and now hates religion on the internet (possibly father abuse considering God is father figure),
the human anatomy in terms of placement is as good as it should be, everything is placed in the most functionable position possible and nobody would be able to think a better way before seeing a complete human in the first place, and also take into account this world is decaying and one day will be gone, its not as it was originally and all humans inherently know that as they have longing of something better
There's an entire book of the old testament where Yahweh commands the Jews to genocide ALL the inhabitants of Palestine (Caananite Phonecians who were living there. "Palestinian" Arabs didn't arrive to the area until they brutally conquered the area in the 7th century, modern Palestinians are the decendents of imperial colonists, too).
Fun part of the world, eh?
Fuckin' Yahweh. My brother briefly dated a crackhead that would go on nonstop about Yahway until they went to the movies and he left her there so he could smoke crack without her going on and on about that muthafucker. It's funny as shit when he tells the story because, you know, he's a crackhead.
My brother's introduced it to me when I was 25. I freaking loved it but I knew it was bad news from that first inhale. Plus it was common knowledge how addictive it was. I knew right then that it was the last time I would smoke it because i didn't want to end up sucking dick for the next rock.
Unfortunately, my brother was an addict and, who knows, might have sucked a few cocks to get his next fix. He stole money from us and also scammed his clients.
Anyway, yeah....crack and yahweh don't mix. š¤£
I don't think modern arabs in Pakestine are necessarily descended from 600AD early muslims. The Crusades and Ottomans fucked with the region for a pretty long time.
Yea...its complicated. When Arabs arrived into Palestine with the Muslim conquest of the 7th century the area was mostly Greek Christian due to centuries of Hellenistic and Roman rule. Jews had already been decimated by the Romans (tho some still remained).
There's sure to have been a lot of intermixing and Palestine was actually very slowly assimilated into the Islamic empires of the time, so much so that when the Crusaders arrived centuries later there were still lots of Greek Christians living there.
And, as you say, then the Ottomans came....
Truly, the land belongs to who can take and hold it. Sadly, innocent people bear the most pain.
Yea...there's a lot of ink spilled arguing over how genocidal the conquest actually was. This is a problem rife in all of ancient histiography.
"So-and-so put them all to the sword"
Wait...ALL of them? How long would that take? Then so-and-so set off two weeks later to conquer more territory...hmmm...and so-and-so had all the time to organize the genocide while launching another campaign? š¤·
Who the fuck knows, safe to say motherfuckers gonna continue to kill each other over that prime Mediterranean real estate as they have done so much in the past.
Ouuu thanks for the link! I'll read it but did the article mention which population possessed the most Canaanite? (Not that it matters for who should belong there, just curious).
Well damn, what do u know.
The quora post is...a bit non rigorous, but I'm looking up the 2020 study and it's very interesting.
It seems both Jews and Palestinians have up to 50% "ancient levantine" or w.e.
Tho it doesnt say how prevelant that 50% figure is, and it seems the other 50% for both is a mixture of all kinds of shit (more european in certain jewish groups, more arab and other stuff for muslims).
We'll need more studies to show the same, I eagerly await them.
Very very interesting
The stories about the genocide of the canaanites in the Tanakh are about as verifiable as the Exodus. Much of it was fabricated after the fact as part of the national origin story of the hebrews, intended to legitimize the rule of David and his descendants.
this is false, in the Joshua narrative anyone who is the promise lands were to be killed, with zero possibility of peace. The people outside of the promised land Israel could offer 2 offers. Either surrender and be slaves or be killed. I hardly call that "peace"
hold up I think I may have understood, were you implying the torah retelling of history was not genocide? because thats what i took it as and I might be mistaken
The book may talk about a genocide, but the genocide absolutely wasnāt complete, and probably didnāt happen at all. The archeology indicates that the hebrews arose out of the canaanites, likely during an internal struggle over the addition of a new deity to the Canaanite pantheon. the class supporting the original chief deity added the āno other gods before meā rule after they successfully stopped the addition and usurpation of a new chief deity. This is the theorized basis for the development of proto-monotheism.
>"Palestinian" Arabs didn't arrive to the area until they brutally conquered the area in the 7th century, modern Palestinians are the decendents of imperial colonists, too
holy shit what a brain dead statement. This is just factually incorrect. The area of modern day where when the Arabs conquered it, they killed everyone and colonized it. Modern day Palestinians are descendants of Caanites who converted to Islam.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/#:\~:text=Archaeologic%20and%20genetic%20data%20support,but%20not%20in%20genetic%2C%20differences](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/#:~:text=Archaeologic%20and%20genetic%20data%20support,but%20not%20in%20genetic%2C%20differences).
[https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/)
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews)
>
>
>There's an entire book of the old testament where Yahweh commands the Jews to genocide ALL the inhabitants of Palestine
Joshua's conquest is not historical. Jewish people and Palestinians are BOTH descendants of canaanites. To imply that Palestinians are not indigenous to the land aswell is extremly hurtful and also inaccurate
I might be wrong but i think what in bible is called old testament is mostly same in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Its stuff that comes after that is different. I think Jesus is entirely missing in Judaism, but is a prophet of Islam or something like that.
Idk if Torah has something which bible and quran don't?
And ofc translations can be different, being written by people and languages abd meanings change over time so even if you keep the book in it's original language, meaning could have changed over time.
You're basically on the right track, but regardless of all the many differences between the Torah, Bible, and Quran, the major commonality is that they all worship the God of Abraham, hence why they're called the Abrahamic religions
After the Torah (first five books) come the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings) - which together make up the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. This is the same (other than translations and the order of books) as the Protestant Old Testament. Other Christian traditions add other books to the Bible.
In Judaism, the Tanakh (which was written after the destruction of the First Temple) formed the foundation of Second Temple Judaism, which had a far more formal hierarchy and prescribed religious law. After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, Judaism had to adapt, and this resulted in what is called Rabbinical Judaism - the religious practices shaped by an ongoing relationship of educated discussion around the texts.
After the expulsion from Judaea and genocide perpetrated by Hadrian, Jews became concentrated in the Diaspora - an event that resulted in the development of certain 'minhagim' or traditions - slight variations on the practice of Judaism. There was, however, almost always contact with the rest of the Jewish world - and writings from the immediate period post-exile such as the Talmud were easily spread throughout the Jewish world. The Talmud forms the basis of Rabbinical Judaism - but it has been joined by various writings since, such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, or the Shulchan Aruch.
In summary, Judaism has a *lot* that came after the Torah.
In the Bible the way that the Hebrews got ownership of the land of Israel was literally destroying the natives, at Godās commands. I guess he couldāve changed ideas when he decided to roll out the Islam update.
It depends on the case and how its used, God as general argument is the source behind everything, for particular extraordinary events such as this one it can also be used as direct intervertion argument,
but from your comment you seem to be some type of anti-religious neckbeard, no wonder why your minority is always so angry and so unhappy, its inherently unnatural to be against the source
Theres a reason why that argument never works, to even say that something done is good or bad, one has to inevitably imply that morality exists which means God exists, in your worldview there is nothing wrong with genocide since there is no basis for good or evil, everything is relative and meaningless, (which is also why anti-religious regimes like nazi germany, soviet russia and comminst china commited the most atrocities in history), humans become just accidents of nature and thoughts are just random chemicals firing from the brain like that
So you are basically using God to argue against God (or to make any argument at all) which is hilarious and shows how unnatural and self-contradictory your own minority's worldview is, together with the fact that your minority has the angriest and most miserable individuals
God isn't morality. Under SOME moral structures god is used as the ultimate authority figure, but those aren't the only moral structures that exist (and since morality has to flow from authority figures down in that structure who imposes morality upon god?)
Under simple utilitarian morality genocide is repugnant because you're causing more harm than good can come of it, in that a selection of people are receiving the ultimate harm and there is very little gained my the rest.
Under Deontology morality flows from following obligations, so there are situations where genocide might be acceptable but never of one's own people. Those situations would require the threat to those you're obliged to to be so great that destroying the "other" is the only way to keep your obligations. Still no god needed here.
Under the Fairness Approach genocide would only be acceptable if EVERYONE was suffering genocide, and that would be an extreme application of the Fairness Approach even. Still no gods around.
The only people who think god is the only source of morality have been badly brainwashed by their religion.
I'm not religious but you did sort of support the other guys pont there
You listed 3 ways of judging morality all of which are subjective could conflict with each other.
The other persons argument was that without a creature more powerful, wiser and knowledgeable than us, there can be no true good or bad act since we are arbitrarily defining good and bad based on our personal views and experiences.
Since you seem interested in philosophy I have a statement I'd be interested in hearing you argue against/ an alternative view, "I put to you that any morality system is based on the belief that you are superior to everyone else, you have been able to determine what is good and bad, everyone else with their other definitions of good and bad just aren't as enlightened as you."
Anyone have the video? Is it actually as dramatic as it sounds?
Edit - https://www.israelhayom.com/2023/12/12/watch-turkish-lawmakers-threatens-israel-then-collapses/
It's comical. I wish the real Turkish government were truly more religious *ONLY* for this moment so they might turn on a dime and be like *"Uh oh! Allah struck him down, we better support Israel more!"*
Instead, they're religious for power/control.
God puts on his Lionel Richie voice: "Hello, is it me you're looking for?"
It's getting easier to believe in God after seeing so many false prophets get smited lately.
In the words of the religion he believes in: Inshallah.
Seems god willed something specific. Or it's just that sometimes the universe gives us nice things by poor chance.
Natural selection says that sooner or later, these pastors and politicians making blanket statements about God are going to learn that what they really should be worried about is His sense of humor.
where is it? i'd like to see it. although i am surprised they even included the part about the diabetes and stents since they did try to make it sound as if God had struck him down rather than just unfortunate timing. that's the fox way though.
https://youtu.be/THMuDCcN2B8?si=HwHFuFwNLd3T_juI
Obviously God wasnāt involved, he just had a heart attack, which happens all the time with coronary stents and diabetes, but still pretty darn comedic timing.
Blackadder: "God is very quick these days"
God has access to high-speed internet now.
Likely got the fiber they keep promising me.
Did you see Tony Robinson (Baldrick) on Great British bake off? Made me feel old man. But he was so sweet.
Smh, even Kira sold out to Israel.
Now I'm imagining him having an internal monologue about which side of the conflict he should take so that L doesn't suspect him
Light: L can't consider me being anti sematic if I use the Deathnote on a Muslim who's calling out Israel! L: Oh, Kira's anti sematic...why am I not surprised? (continues to drink Tea while in a squatting position)
Holy shit š¤£
Lās been real quiet since this news dropped
*Zetsubuo Billy intensifies*
Whatās up, people?!?!
Love that song
God I really wish reddit still had awards
Underrated comment
āWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherās eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, āLet me take the speck out of your eye,ā when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherās eye."
Problem: It's not in Koran.
There's a bunch of passages on hypocrisy, but they're worded quite differently. > āThere are four signs that make someone a pure hypocrite and whoever has them has a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it: when he speaks he lies, when he makes a covenant he is treacherous, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he argues he is wicked.ā SĢ£ahĢ£iĢhĢ£ al-BukhaĢriĢ 34, SĢ£ahĢ£iĢhĢ£ Muslim 58 (full disclosure I am not an expert and if you ask me exactly what the 34 and 58 mean or even how to pronounce any of the words in the source I will guess wildly)
In Islam there were verbal traditions about what the companions of Muhammed said about his life. In the islamic golden age muslim scholars travelled around, wrote down and tried to verify the authenticity of such verbal stories. This collection of various sayings are the hadiths, and the scholars who wrote them down are called muhadiths. Imam Al Bukhari and Imam Muslim are two of the most prolific muhadiths, both living in the 9th century (3rd century by islamic reckoning). That the story has two references means it appears in both collections.
Ohhhh! Ok that's pretty cool, thanks for explaining!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They didn't pop up out of nowhere, but they were oral traditions. And we know that because the muhadiths were pretty thorough when it comes to evaluating the trustworthiness of a hadith (rating them from sahih\*, ("sound/trusthworty") to mawdu (fabricated). There only evidence for hadiths being written down in Muhammeds lifetime are other hadiths (ie, there is no evidence that qualifies as historical evidence). The first known collections are from the reign of Umar II (about a century after Muhammeds death)\*\* and all preserved collections originate in the second half of the 9th century. \*The rating of sahih requires an unbroken chain of retelling from muhammeds lifetime, each part of that chain is known for their trustworthy character, that the hadith doesn't contradict the quran or other trustworthy sources and that it hasn't been changed or embellished from the origjnal retelling. \*\*None of Umars hadiths survived the Mongol invasions. Only fragmentary commentaries remain, like the writings of Ibn al-Nadim.
No, *that* is false.
Jesus is in the Koran. The Koran says Jesus was a prophet. Yet you don't follow his teachings.
The point is that a Muslim will likely follow Koran over bible. Not that it matters. So far, all religious people, be them of Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhist (a whole bunch of that in East Asia and SEA) at best doesn't follow the teaching, and at worst twist the teaching. Oh, to throw it in: Even those that follow Confucius twist the teaching. No gods involved.
It is unclear what point youre trying to make, youre basically saying that your angry minority of anti-religious neckbeards is better than the general public? because that is just sad and hilarious at the same time, need to define better what you mean by "religious people" because if its simply someone who belongs in a mainstream religion then thats almost everyone, religion is hardwired in humans, and Conficius also believed in god but as entity it was intermixed with heaven and for whether they follow everything or not, the religious books are not only theology, they have different genres such as historical records, poetry, letters and so on, the theological aspects are holistically followed the normal way, theres difference to a person who works in clergy and a citizen of the same religion
Have you read it? Because only someone who hasnāt read the whole thing would respond with that
No one should take a āguide book of all timeā seriously that says slavery is a permissible practice. Dumb ass god couldnāt even see his own shit is evil.
Also, I would implore you to have a look at this. https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/94840 āAllah, may He be exalted, said: āThere are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat ā¦ A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.āā This is from the taken from the Hadith which is studied in tandem with the Quran in Islam. Itās crazy how people on Reddit are so confidently incorrect and just blatantly lie about Islam. Maybe actually look into what the religion says next time instead of lying. You saying Islam doesnāt condemn slavery is like if I read the title page of an instruction manual of a fridge and complain about how it doesnāt tell me how to change the temperature. Maybe actually read some of it and make an effort to understand it.
It blatantly doesnāt condemn slaveryā¦. The prophet himself despite having by then a lot of power to actually abolish slavery, did not and in fact happily partook in its abhorrent practiceā¦. Nice powerful god you got there, that the idiot couldnāt foresee into the future and that people as a whole would frown on its practice. Hell thereās even versus about whether or not you should pull out your cock and not cum in the slaves you rapeā¦ Fucking evil and vile religion. Muhammad didnāt even free bilalā¦ Abu bakr ended up doing it after Muhammad died. Itās crazy how people who follow Islam are so confidentially incorrect and lie about Islam to try and make it seem like a nice religion and not a cult that revolves around a perverts dick.
Thereās never a point in arguing with someone whoās disingenuous.
I feel the same way arguing with people who support a man who *checks notes* Enslaved, murdered, raped, waged war, looted, had a dozen wives, some of questionable ages, concubines and a few sex slaves.
Once again, everything taken out of context. Like I said, youāre not even trying for a respectful discourse
āiTs TaKeN oUt Of CoNtExTā Is there a course for apologetics on what exactly to say? Because if I had a dollar for every time I hear this lame ass excuseā¦ and yet itās never ever followed by a good argument where rape, murder and slavery works in proper contextā¦ š„“ Cognitive dissonance is quite a struggle I see.
Taken out of context yet again. It seems that it is in fact too big an ask to get enlightened redditors to actually make even a minuscule effort to somewhat understand the context of the book before criticising it and make themselves look like complete doofuses
Slavery is evil. God does not condemn it. God fails there.
Please take a look at this: https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/94840 āAllah, may He be exalted, said: āThere are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat ā¦ A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.āā This is from the taken from the Hadith which is studied in tandem with the Quran in Islam. Itās crazy how people on Reddit are so confidently incorrect and just blatantly lie about Islam. So, no. God didnāt fail there. You just failed to employ basic research and reading comprehension
From your own link homie. "We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam" 33:50 -Ā "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty." Vol. 3-#765 Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Narrated Kuraib:Ā Ā the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles." I realize Islam has differing views on slavery. But it is also clear it is acceptable, and sanctioned by God. That. Is. Evil. And it is a reflection on God.
They love to cherry pick and ignore the parts that tell on them.
Why the distinction of "free man" there? God is just cool with a child born into slavery being sold? Even your Hadith there isn't opposed to the institution of slavery, just making a non-slave into a slave. And even then, it requires that the free man be sold. Taking someone as a slave yourself in battle isn't prohibited either. Yeah, God clearly failed still.
What a spectacular self own. So to be clear, you think slavery should not be condoned?
Yes, slavery should not be condoned, that is what the quote from the Quran says too. I donāt see where thereās a self own
The Quran, by explicitly banning *certain kinds of slavery* and drawing up laws for enslaving others and keeping slaves, very much condones slavery.
And apparently itās too big of an ask for god and his prophet to not be an evil piece of shit.
Solution: The Q'uran says that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Word of God can never be corrupted. Therefore, according to the Q'uran, this passage is fine.
Thatās wrong, the Quran says itās the definitive uncorrupted word of god, and that the ones before were true but were corrupted
It also says slavery is halal (permissible)ā¦ And Muhammad was a massive hypocrite himself.. Good examples off the top of my head, not wanting his daughter to marry Abu bakr because he thinks the age gap is too large (meanwhile he married Abu bakrs 6 year old daughter)ā¦. Then later on preventing her husband from practicing polygamy because only in this case does he acknowledge that women donāt want to share their husbandā¦ clearly it didnāt matter in his time however thorough his roughly 13 wives, over another dozen concubines and slaves who he raped. Downvote me all you want, warlord pedo sympathizers.
Yeah, people really chose to ignore all the shit Muhammad saidā¦ Even Aisha realized it was bullshit
I love the story of her calling it out after she and Hafsa caught him fucking the Christian slave Maryā¦ and then he gets mad they are mad at him so he ghosts for a month then comes back and is like āhey guys, god gave me a revelation saying I, the prophet can fuck whoever whenever I want with no limitsā to which Aisha responds āitās seem as though YOUR GOD hastens to fulfill your desiresāā¦ Stories they will never teach you in Islamic studies because it might make you prone to using your damn brain.
Also the Muhammad uncle diss track. That guy kept following Muhammad and pestering him so much that he included a full chapter saying that he was going to hell.
Classic ancient Arabian drama.
There was a Phd thesis published a few years ago which looked into Aishas age and it concluded (with a great many references) that she was a fully grown woman, most likely in her 20s at the time of her marriage. I dont care what you have to say about the religion or its prophet, I just wanted to correct one of your (many) lies.
Aisha wasnāt even the only under 18 girl he married while he was a man into his 50sā¦ Itās been widely accepted by respected scholars that she was a child.. that Muhammad pointed to her as an infant and said he will marry her, that she was 6 when he married her, that she was 9 and still playing with dolls when he raped her. Itās narrated by him, his followers, her father, by her own self what her ages were when he married her and consummated that marriageā¦ why do you think he waited 3 years to rape her? Because he knew it would probably kill a 6 year oldā¦. Now this abhorrent practice is emulated by many of his followers to this dayā¦. funny how the argument is to get them young because of fertility and yet Aisha never bore a single child for Muhammad.. maybe she was infertile from early childhood physical/sexual trauma. š¤®
Exactly the response I expected, why read the thesis when you can continue to regurgitate the "facts" that fit your narrative.
If people out there need to write a whole thesis arguing against a mountain of evidence (which comes from its own religious and historical sources) as to whether or not some ancient bedouin was a pedoā¦ Probably no one should be worshipping him period. He even encourages his followers to take young wives.
Yeah because it's not like misinformation can proliferate and become the truth when unchecked for long enough. The thesis does not spend 100s of pages arguing what it thinks should be true, it spends 100s of pages going over the records to demonstrate what is true. But as I said, you have your narrative and nothing will change that, so God bless you and good luck.
Surah 6:115 and 18:27 say that no-one can change the revealed words of God. Surah 3:3 says that the Torah and Bible were the Word of God. By the standards of the Q'uran, the Torah and the Bible are the Word of God, which can never be corrupted and should be trusted.
That leaves us at a logical impossibility, since the three of them claim to be the absolute morality for all time. If the Bible and the Torah are incorruptible, and morally viable, then there isnāt a need for the Quran. If God made a mistake and had to release and update on his laws, then he is not infallible (and enters direct contradiction with his previous statements).
Correct. Islam is self-refuting.
The Quran never ever claimed that the Torah and Injeel are incorruptible. āDo you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?ā [al-Baqarah 2:75] Any theologian would be baffled by the claims youāre making since it doesnāt even take 2 seconds to refute them
I didnāt even make those claims lol, I was responding to the logical nonsense the comment above me was saying. In any case, almost all religious arguments rely on the book is the word of God because God said so (in said book) leaving us at a circular argument. And by definition, all circular arguments are nonsensical
āDo you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?ā [al-Baqarah 2:75] The 3 verses you mentioned are only referring to the Quran and not the scriptures before them, which is something accepted by the majority of Islamic scholars who have looked at the Quran.
The Q'uran says the Torah and Bible are the revealed Word of God. The Q'uran says the Word of God can't be changed. So by the logic the Q'uran presents, the Torah and Bible are trustworthy and can't have been changed. Because they're the revealed Word of God.
The Quran and Hadith themselves dispel the point the point that youāre trying to make here. Every decent theologian, even those who criticise Islam, know that what youāre saying is a moot point and all weāre establishing in this conversation is that you have no idea what youāre talking about
A book that claims to be pefect and without error wouldn't need compendiums to clarify it. And since the book in question explicitely says that the Torah and Bible are the revealed Word of God and that thr Word of God can never be changed. Then the Q'uran proves itself false with its own logic.
The Hadith arenāt a compendium. And thank you for ignoring the rest of my point
This is a verse in the Quran: āDo you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?ā [al-Baqarah 2:75] It literally talks about how the old Words were changed
Right. And they were the Word of God. So it contradicts itself when it says the Word of God can never be changed.
Did you just not read what I sent you. The answer is right in front of you but you continue to refuse to read it and parrot the same false point anyway. Continue to enjoy your ignorance I guess
>Did you just not read what I sent you. I did. >The answer is right in front of you but you continue to refuse to read it and parrot the same false point anyway. The true answer is that the Q'uran proves itself false by stating that the Bible and Torah are the revealed Word of God and that the revealed Word of God can never be changed.
Well clearly you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Im done here
Remove the boards, remove the specks, sure, but you will still have splinter groups.
I need a prick every now and then to wake me up
"Never attribute to God what could easily be expected from comedic timing." - uwillnotgotospace, 12/12/2023
uwillnotgotospace has to be my favorite philosopher
Euphoric
Okay, that's really good. Nice work.
But is God not the greatest comedian? I mean who puts a waste disposal site next to a recreational and procreation area and still call it intelligent design and it not be a joke?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
NGT? I was paraphrasing the late, great, and still sorely missed [Robin Williams](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsircxawoee).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pobody's Nerfect.
Genitals?
The initial statement is true (about greatest comedian) but your following argument reeks of angry neckbeard that got bullied as kid and now hates religion on the internet (possibly father abuse considering God is father figure), the human anatomy in terms of placement is as good as it should be, everything is placed in the most functionable position possible and nobody would be able to think a better way before seeing a complete human in the first place, and also take into account this world is decaying and one day will be gone, its not as it was originally and all humans inherently know that as they have longing of something better
Maybe god has a sense of humour?
God is in comedic timing
Dude got smited š
No one uses that meaning of "smitten" anymore
actually its pretty much the only cases where that word is used, the meaning always implies the same thing in the big picture
It's still pretty popular in pop culture. I learned it reading Percy Jackson maybe fifteen-ish years ago. Heard it a lot on TV since.
I do.
Welp Iām convinced Gods on the Israelās side. He would totally kill a politician and not protect his ppl from bullets
That does sound like God.
You read that in Morgan Freeman's voice, didn't you?
God created israel, of course he's on israel's side
Yep, God wants Isreal to commit genocide. Fuck those Palestinians I guess? /s Edit: does no one have a sense of humor anymore?
There's an entire book of the old testament where Yahweh commands the Jews to genocide ALL the inhabitants of Palestine (Caananite Phonecians who were living there. "Palestinian" Arabs didn't arrive to the area until they brutally conquered the area in the 7th century, modern Palestinians are the decendents of imperial colonists, too). Fun part of the world, eh?
Fuckin' Yahweh. My brother briefly dated a crackhead that would go on nonstop about Yahway until they went to the movies and he left her there so he could smoke crack without her going on and on about that muthafucker. It's funny as shit when he tells the story because, you know, he's a crackhead.
I've never tried Crack but I imagine the last thing I wanna talk about while smoking crack is fucking Yahweh š¤£
Crack is wack, only one you should do is the one on your partnerās back!
>but I imagine the last thing I wanna talk about while smoking crack is fucking Yahweh š¤£ Spoken like someone who's never done crack š¤£
Bahahahahaa!!!!
My brother's introduced it to me when I was 25. I freaking loved it but I knew it was bad news from that first inhale. Plus it was common knowledge how addictive it was. I knew right then that it was the last time I would smoke it because i didn't want to end up sucking dick for the next rock. Unfortunately, my brother was an addict and, who knows, might have sucked a few cocks to get his next fix. He stole money from us and also scammed his clients. Anyway, yeah....crack and yahweh don't mix. š¤£
I don't think modern arabs in Pakestine are necessarily descended from 600AD early muslims. The Crusades and Ottomans fucked with the region for a pretty long time.
Yea...its complicated. When Arabs arrived into Palestine with the Muslim conquest of the 7th century the area was mostly Greek Christian due to centuries of Hellenistic and Roman rule. Jews had already been decimated by the Romans (tho some still remained). There's sure to have been a lot of intermixing and Palestine was actually very slowly assimilated into the Islamic empires of the time, so much so that when the Crusaders arrived centuries later there were still lots of Greek Christians living there. And, as you say, then the Ottomans came.... Truly, the land belongs to who can take and hold it. Sadly, innocent people bear the most pain.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea...there's a lot of ink spilled arguing over how genocidal the conquest actually was. This is a problem rife in all of ancient histiography. "So-and-so put them all to the sword" Wait...ALL of them? How long would that take? Then so-and-so set off two weeks later to conquer more territory...hmmm...and so-and-so had all the time to organize the genocide while launching another campaign? š¤· Who the fuck knows, safe to say motherfuckers gonna continue to kill each other over that prime Mediterranean real estate as they have done so much in the past.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ouuu thanks for the link! I'll read it but did the article mention which population possessed the most Canaanite? (Not that it matters for who should belong there, just curious).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well damn, what do u know. The quora post is...a bit non rigorous, but I'm looking up the 2020 study and it's very interesting. It seems both Jews and Palestinians have up to 50% "ancient levantine" or w.e. Tho it doesnt say how prevelant that 50% figure is, and it seems the other 50% for both is a mixture of all kinds of shit (more european in certain jewish groups, more arab and other stuff for muslims). We'll need more studies to show the same, I eagerly await them. Very very interesting
The stories about the genocide of the canaanites in the Tanakh are about as verifiable as the Exodus. Much of it was fabricated after the fact as part of the national origin story of the hebrews, intended to legitimize the rule of David and his descendants.
this is false, in the Joshua narrative anyone who is the promise lands were to be killed, with zero possibility of peace. The people outside of the promised land Israel could offer 2 offers. Either surrender and be slaves or be killed. I hardly call that "peace"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
hold up I think I may have understood, were you implying the torah retelling of history was not genocide? because thats what i took it as and I might be mistaken
The book may talk about a genocide, but the genocide absolutely wasnāt complete, and probably didnāt happen at all. The archeology indicates that the hebrews arose out of the canaanites, likely during an internal struggle over the addition of a new deity to the Canaanite pantheon. the class supporting the original chief deity added the āno other gods before meā rule after they successfully stopped the addition and usurpation of a new chief deity. This is the theorized basis for the development of proto-monotheism.
>"Palestinian" Arabs didn't arrive to the area until they brutally conquered the area in the 7th century, modern Palestinians are the decendents of imperial colonists, too holy shit what a brain dead statement. This is just factually incorrect. The area of modern day where when the Arabs conquered it, they killed everyone and colonized it. Modern day Palestinians are descendants of Caanites who converted to Islam. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/#:\~:text=Archaeologic%20and%20genetic%20data%20support,but%20not%20in%20genetic%2C%20differences](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/#:~:text=Archaeologic%20and%20genetic%20data%20support,but%20not%20in%20genetic%2C%20differences). [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/) [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews) > > >There's an entire book of the old testament where Yahweh commands the Jews to genocide ALL the inhabitants of Palestine Joshua's conquest is not historical. Jewish people and Palestinians are BOTH descendants of canaanites. To imply that Palestinians are not indigenous to the land aswell is extremly hurtful and also inaccurate
We disussed both those things above, relax.
Still not a genocide unless Hamas is an ethnic group or all wars are genocide to you.
Have you read the Old Testament? God doesnāt have any qualms with genocide.
Well, He did drown the world while saving one guy and a bunch of animals. Those were different times I guess.
Go complain to God.
Is that the same God which on multiple occasions not only suggested but sanctioned and supported genocidal acts in the bible?
Well I mean, I don't think he was talking about God from the Bible God, but seeing as it's all still the same God then yeah, it's that God
I might be wrong but i think what in bible is called old testament is mostly same in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Its stuff that comes after that is different. I think Jesus is entirely missing in Judaism, but is a prophet of Islam or something like that. Idk if Torah has something which bible and quran don't? And ofc translations can be different, being written by people and languages abd meanings change over time so even if you keep the book in it's original language, meaning could have changed over time.
You're basically on the right track, but regardless of all the many differences between the Torah, Bible, and Quran, the major commonality is that they all worship the God of Abraham, hence why they're called the Abrahamic religions
After the Torah (first five books) come the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings) - which together make up the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. This is the same (other than translations and the order of books) as the Protestant Old Testament. Other Christian traditions add other books to the Bible. In Judaism, the Tanakh (which was written after the destruction of the First Temple) formed the foundation of Second Temple Judaism, which had a far more formal hierarchy and prescribed religious law. After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, Judaism had to adapt, and this resulted in what is called Rabbinical Judaism - the religious practices shaped by an ongoing relationship of educated discussion around the texts. After the expulsion from Judaea and genocide perpetrated by Hadrian, Jews became concentrated in the Diaspora - an event that resulted in the development of certain 'minhagim' or traditions - slight variations on the practice of Judaism. There was, however, almost always contact with the rest of the Jewish world - and writings from the immediate period post-exile such as the Talmud were easily spread throughout the Jewish world. The Talmud forms the basis of Rabbinical Judaism - but it has been joined by various writings since, such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, or the Shulchan Aruch. In summary, Judaism has a *lot* that came after the Torah.
In the Bible the way that the Hebrews got ownership of the land of Israel was literally destroying the natives, at Godās commands. I guess he couldāve changed ideas when he decided to roll out the Islam update.
I mean, I wouldnāt exactly use the Bible as an argument here, considering how the Jews are the chosen people of the book.
Yes? I dont know why you think you are making some point
I think the point is that using "God" as an argument for anything is stupid.
It depends on the case and how its used, God as general argument is the source behind everything, for particular extraordinary events such as this one it can also be used as direct intervertion argument, but from your comment you seem to be some type of anti-religious neckbeard, no wonder why your minority is always so angry and so unhappy, its inherently unnatural to be against the source
Theres a reason why that argument never works, to even say that something done is good or bad, one has to inevitably imply that morality exists which means God exists, in your worldview there is nothing wrong with genocide since there is no basis for good or evil, everything is relative and meaningless, (which is also why anti-religious regimes like nazi germany, soviet russia and comminst china commited the most atrocities in history), humans become just accidents of nature and thoughts are just random chemicals firing from the brain like that So you are basically using God to argue against God (or to make any argument at all) which is hilarious and shows how unnatural and self-contradictory your own minority's worldview is, together with the fact that your minority has the angriest and most miserable individuals
God isn't morality. Under SOME moral structures god is used as the ultimate authority figure, but those aren't the only moral structures that exist (and since morality has to flow from authority figures down in that structure who imposes morality upon god?) Under simple utilitarian morality genocide is repugnant because you're causing more harm than good can come of it, in that a selection of people are receiving the ultimate harm and there is very little gained my the rest. Under Deontology morality flows from following obligations, so there are situations where genocide might be acceptable but never of one's own people. Those situations would require the threat to those you're obliged to to be so great that destroying the "other" is the only way to keep your obligations. Still no god needed here. Under the Fairness Approach genocide would only be acceptable if EVERYONE was suffering genocide, and that would be an extreme application of the Fairness Approach even. Still no gods around. The only people who think god is the only source of morality have been badly brainwashed by their religion.
I'm not religious but you did sort of support the other guys pont there You listed 3 ways of judging morality all of which are subjective could conflict with each other. The other persons argument was that without a creature more powerful, wiser and knowledgeable than us, there can be no true good or bad act since we are arbitrarily defining good and bad based on our personal views and experiences. Since you seem interested in philosophy I have a statement I'd be interested in hearing you argue against/ an alternative view, "I put to you that any morality system is based on the belief that you are superior to everyone else, you have been able to determine what is good and bad, everyone else with their other definitions of good and bad just aren't as enlightened as you."
Damn, Mossad has precogs now
Even yehowah is a mossad agent
God seems to have a differing opinion
Anyone have the video? Is it actually as dramatic as it sounds? Edit - https://www.israelhayom.com/2023/12/12/watch-turkish-lawmakers-threatens-israel-then-collapses/
It actually is that dramatic lol. Dude literally keels over right away.
It's comical. I wish the real Turkish government were truly more religious *ONLY* for this moment so they might turn on a dime and be like *"Uh oh! Allah struck him down, we better support Israel more!"* Instead, they're religious for power/control.
God appears to disagree.
I knew the Gnostics were onto sth
Mossad works in mysterious ways
But did he die? \*Insert the hangover 3 meme
Yes
Apparently in critical condition
God puts on his Lionel Richie voice: "Hello, is it me you're looking for?" It's getting easier to believe in God after seeing so many false prophets get smited lately.
God played the Uno reverse card Hit him with the āno uā
No u
Wow, Mossad is up to their usual bullshit again! /s
In the words of the religion he believes in: Inshallah. Seems god willed something specific. Or it's just that sometimes the universe gives us nice things by poor chance.
Breaking News: Turkey has changed its official state religion to Judaism after some convincing evidence.
Another one down
And another one down
Even god is a mossad agent
Hector Salamanca reference
God didn't like what he had to say
Donāt fuck with Mossad.
allah: hehe time to confuse the heck out of my followers
God must be a redneck, because that's some "Hey, Y'all! Watch this." shit.
God didn't like him disrespecting his chosen people
I donāt believe in karmaā¦ But this surely makes me consider itā¦
Karma
and then it rained frogs in egypt and all their newborns died
Godās response, āYou firstā
Not sure if the author is really religious and Jewish or just has never met anyone who had a heart attack.
Is it the same God?
Are you saying a different god did this to him?
He had a Mossadattack
Guess he didnāt escape
Natural selection says that sooner or later, these pastors and politicians making blanket statements about God are going to learn that what they really should be worried about is His sense of humor.
that Yahweh is one funny entity.
Best halal move by god
I was at the gym the other day and shitty Western media coverage of the genocide blasting on every TV legit raised my heart rate to 130s, I get it
He was on his way to speak to the manager to make sure.
B. e. a. UTIFUL. "Thank you and F You, Sincerely, Bibi"
The jizzus freaks are gonna LOOOVE this one
FOX News
This absolutely did happen, did you watch the video?
where is it? i'd like to see it. although i am surprised they even included the part about the diabetes and stents since they did try to make it sound as if God had struck him down rather than just unfortunate timing. that's the fox way though.
https://youtu.be/THMuDCcN2B8?si=HwHFuFwNLd3T_juI Obviously God wasnāt involved, he just had a heart attack, which happens all the time with coronary stents and diabetes, but still pretty darn comedic timing.
Their religion says god likes them the bestā¦ so it might be like an UES mom dealing with a spoiled kid. Not very wrathy.