|
Amun Khonsu posted:Keep in mind that although Muslims believe in the Bible (New Testament), we don't rely on it for our belief system because the earliest writings are from 132AD (in aramaic) and wasnt cannonized until 325AD (in greek). Furthermore it has no isnad. Yes, 100 to over 300 years after Jesus. Just to distract from paedo chat for a moment, this actually isn't true. None of the new testament books (in fact none of the biblical books at all, with the exception of some passages in the book of Daniel) were composed in Aramaic. All the new testament books were composed in koine Greek. Furthermore, virtually all scholars would date all of the nt corpus to prior to 132 ad. Only 2 peter and Jude were likely to have been written after the first quarter of the first century, but the authentic Pauline letter were written 15-30 years after the death of Jesus (~50-65ad) and the gospels some time after this (~70-100ad). We have a fragment of the gospel of john (the last gospel to be written) which dates to 125ad, so that sets a pretty solid terminus ante quem for the gospels at least. Lastly the nt wasn't canonised in 325ad (you're thinking of the council of nicea which addressed unrelated christological issues among other things). If you want to get technical, the biblical canon wasn't formally set until the council of Trent in the 16th century, but the exhaustive list of 27 books which make up the nt was largely set by the end of the second century.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 09:26 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:51 |
|
Immortan posted:
All things considered, he took Arab society from having basically unlimited wives, women not inheriting anything from their parents or husbands if there was a son, not being able to own land without a man having bought it first, not being able to run a business unless their husband had started it first (Khadija's deal), not being able to divorce their husbands, not being able to travel without a male chaperone, and not being able to vote, to one where all of those things were permitted... within not even one generation. To give perspective, women couldn't even vote in the US until after WW2, and going from unlimited wives to just four seems a bit more culturally jarring than, say, legislating that you can only own SOME types of guns, but not all of them, something we still haven't managed, and that's just for some loving guns, not an age old marital practice that many noble families and entire cities were based around. Don't confuse modern Arab society with anything Muhammad was pushing, because it's become so hosed up and corrupt and it's not actually supported if you read the rules laid down in the Quran, let alone just look at the Prophet's own life, particularly with regard to his first wife. Not being an apologist, but carte blanche saying he was a terrible patriarchal monster is a bit of the opposite extreme and isn't really supported except by post-Ottoman Arab society. Fuzz fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Dec 26, 2015 |
# ? Dec 26, 2015 10:57 |
|
Blurred posted:Just to distract from paedo chat for a moment, this actually isn't true. None of the new testament books (in fact none of the biblical books at all, with the exception of some passages in the book of Daniel) were composed in Aramaic. All the new testament books were composed in koine Greek. Furthermore, virtually all scholars would date all of the nt corpus to prior to 132 ad. Only 2 peter and Jude were likely to have been written after the first quarter of the first century, but the authentic Pauline letter were written 15-30 years after the death of Jesus (~50-65ad) and the gospels some time after this (~70-100ad). We have a fragment of the gospel of john (the last gospel to be written) which dates to 125ad, so that sets a pretty solid terminus ante quem for the gospels at least. Lastly the nt wasn't canonised in 325ad (you're thinking of the council of nicea which addressed unrelated christological issues among other things). If you want to get technical, the biblical canon wasn't formally set until the council of Trent in the 16th century, but the exhaustive list of 27 books which make up the nt was largely set by the end of the second century. There is evidence that Aramaic was the dominant language in the area, though greek was a language spoken commonly for conducting business. Today's "Greek" bible has Aramaic word references all throughout it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Aramaic_place_names_in_the_New_Testament). We dont know what language it was composed in, but it would most likely not be Greek since all of the disciples were Jews who spoke Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic for non-business related matters (and especially religious matters). I had some articles given to me by a friend who identified that there were papyrus fragments recovered that are in Aramaic that date to 132-135AD. I seemed not to have written that source down in my articles. Ill have to do some research on this again to re-confirm. Regarding the canonization of the Bible, it was 395 A.D under Constantine's supervision, along with 300+ Greek Bishops (who excluded the Latin Church Bishops) from Greek half of Rome. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Dec 26, 2015 |
# ? Dec 26, 2015 11:02 |
|
Immortan posted:***vitriol, diatribe and ignorant rant*** I dont know how this thread got hijacked by individuals who feel the need to distort and circumvent the facts about the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. However, now that you feel good about yourselves, respect the OP and purpose of this thread and take it elsewhere please. Lets move on. Amun Khonsu posted:Now you are delving into the "science of hadith" and if you dont understand the historical and cultural context, isnad (chain of narration), and the nature of the hadith, jurisprudence regarding Isnad and how to apply them then it's best not to make such assertions. Amun Khonsu posted:"Modern standards" in the United States alone very greatly but all are very early regarding marriage. According to various US state law, a girl with her parents consent can marry and have sex in that marriage in her early to mid teens. Check it out and lets talk modern standards in relation to the ancient marriages of the Prophet Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States Specially note the ages: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas surc posted:Can we just agree that people did stuff back in the day that would not be socially acceptable today without debating the merits or accuracy of child-loving for like 30 posts, and also without some weird attempt to discredit a dude because obviously god would have made him act in a way we find ok right at this exact moment in time or whatever? This poo poo is retarded and both sides come off creepy obsessed with the exact definition of child-loving. Agreed. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Dec 26, 2015 |
# ? Dec 26, 2015 11:09 |
|
Semi relevant to yesterday, on an aside, but since Jesus is so prominent in the Quran (he and Mary account for the bulk of storytelling in the Quran), a lot of Muslims actually celebrate Christmas in the US, though it's more about fasting and then eating a big dinner than gifts or any of that other Roman stuff.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 13:47 |
|
Fuzz posted:Semi relevant to yesterday, on an aside, but since Jesus is so prominent in the Quran (he and Mary account for the bulk of storytelling in the Quran), a lot of Muslims actually celebrate Christmas in the US, though it's more about fasting and then eating a big dinner than gifts or any of that other Roman stuff. Over here (Netherlands) there is a popular muslim facebook group that tells people celebrating christmas or even wishing people merry christmas is one of the gravest sins possible. So i kind of doubt this.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 14:06 |
|
Fuzz posted:Semi relevant to yesterday, on an aside, but since Jesus is so prominent in the Quran (he and Mary account for the bulk of storytelling in the Quran), a lot of Muslims actually celebrate Christmas in the US, though it's more about fasting and then eating a big dinner than gifts or any of that other Roman stuff. Yes, I dont celebrate it but am sure to wish all of my family and friends a happy Christmas (or go to their parties if invited), just as I do with friends from other faiths on their religious/secular holidays. IMO its more about time together as a family, hard to come by these days. NihilismNow posted:Over here (Netherlands) there is a popular muslim facebook group that tells people celebrating christmas or even wishing people merry christmas is one of the gravest sins possible. So i kind of doubt this. People like to try to link it to "shirk" (associating partners to God) to the holiday since it is also celebrated by Christians. In my view, as long as you arent praying, singing songs or drawing pictures in a devotional act or to a religious figure, etc, then there is no issue. For example, i recently wrote my son's school a letter to explain why he cannot participate in some activities. Ill share with you my letter. quote:Now that we are heading to the end of the year, we wanted to drop you a note regarding [my son] involvement in upcoming Christmas activities. Firstly, let me say we value the rich cultural and religious diversity and learning the children receive here at [School]. We understand that, like us, [School] promotes and values this diversity. It worked like a charm and is a fine medium that satisfies all sensible sides of the debate. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Dec 26, 2015 |
# ? Dec 26, 2015 14:32 |
|
Yeah I dunno what the gently caress, when I was a kid we just sang the drat songs and my parents never wrote any over the top letters about it. No one cares, God knows what's in your heart.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 14:43 |
|
I know poo poo about Islam, but I can guarantee you that God doesn't give a single gently caress about a kid singing a Christmas song in school. If God is so stupid that he mistakes a Christmas carol for real idolatry, I don't even know what to say here.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 18:00 |
|
Fuzz posted:Don't confuse modern Arab society with anything Muhammad was pushing, because it's become so hosed up and corrupt and it's not actually supported if you read the rules laid down in the Quran, let alone just look at the Prophet's own life, particularly with regard to his first wife. The barbaric & patriarchal passages in the Quran regarding women are abhorrent at the very least and it's intellectually dishonest to say that they would be the same if the "Prophet" who wrote them was a woman. The amount of double-talk among apologists about this is surreal. Amun Khonsu posted:I dont know how this thread got hijacked by individuals who feel the need to distort and circumvent the facts about the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. However, now that you feel good about yourselves, respect the OP and purpose of this thread and take it elsewhere please. Lets move on. Don't call something "fact" that you cannot prove. It also isn't unanimously agreed upon by historians. It's very evident that you're a reactionary ideologue when you come across opposition to your religion. Even if your beliefs about Aisha are correct, you're still regarding a mass murderer as a moral figure. It sounds like you intuitively know that Islam is nothing more than fiction yet you latch onto it due to an existential identity crises.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 18:52 |
|
Amun Khonsu posted:It worked like a charm and is a fine medium that satisfies all sensible sides of the debate. When did your son choose to be a Muslim, just out of curiosity?
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 20:13 |
|
Immortan posted:Don't call something "fact" that you cannot prove. Immortan posted:Holy poo poo, yes he did. The indulgence of historical revisionism among religious apologists is hilariously onerous these days, especially w/r/t to Islam.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 20:18 |
|
Amun Khonsu posted:There is evidence that Aramaic was the dominant language in the area, though greek was a language spoken commonly for conducting business. Today's "Greek" bible has Aramaic word references all throughout it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Aramaic_place_names_in_the_New_Testament).[ There is the occasional Aramaic word in the gospels, but that wasn't the language they were written in, I can assure you. Mark elaborates on the meaning of certain Aramaic terms in his gospel - why would he have done that if he had written in Aramaic? quote:We dont know what language it was composed in, but it would most likely not be Greek since all of the disciples were Jews who spoke Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic for non-business related matters (and especially religious matters). I had some articles given to me by a friend who identified that there were papyrus fragments recovered that are in Aramaic that date to 132-135AD. I seemed not to have written that source down in my articles. Ill have to do some research on this again to re-confirm. Jesus and his apostles would have spoken Aramaic, yes, but they didn't write any of the new testament texts. When a text has been written in a different language and subsequently translated, it's usually possible to tell based on syntax, idiomatic language and so on. There is nothing at all to indicate that the nt texts were written in anything other than Greek (with the possible exception of hebrews and the hypothetical q gospel) and all of the earliest manuscripts are in Greek. If there are any Aramaic versions of any nt text dating to the early part of the second century, then that would certainly be brews to me. quote:Regarding the canonization of the Bible, it was 395 A.D under Constantine's supervision, along with 300+ Greek Bishops (who excluded the Latin Church Bishops) from Greek half of Rome. You seem to be a bit confused. Constantine wasn't emperor anywhere near that time, and I don't think there were any major councils (certainly not an ecumenical one) in that year either. Like i said, the canon of the bible wasn't decided formally within the Catholic church until the council of Trent in the 16th century: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon Edit: noticed that you used 325ad in your previous post. That was the year of the council of nicea, but -like I said - the council of nicea didn't make any pronouncements about the biblical canon. Blurred fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 26, 2015 |
# ? Dec 26, 2015 20:28 |
|
Isn't interesting how historians and apologists differ on this issue? I wonder what the crux of it could be! We know your stupidity is only rivaled by your reading comprehension and you don't have to illustrate it to us any further.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 20:32 |
|
Immortan posted:Isn't interesting how historians and apologists differ on this issue? edit: Amon Khonsu, I know how your family feels: when I was in high school one of my teachers made reading the Bible mandatory, which was fine since it was a literature class and most English-language literature is heavily influenced by the Bible, the problem was she wanted us to read a Protestant translation, which I was not OK with. It took a lot of work for me to be able to read a Catholic translation instead. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 26, 2015 |
# ? Dec 26, 2015 20:40 |
|
HEY GAL posted:Can you please repost the historians you cite, i think i missed that He never will, he is a literal unironic Trump supporter and this is his schtick: making claims contrary to visible evidence and then never substantiating them.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 23:18 |
|
ashgromnies posted:He never will, he is a literal unironic Trump supporter and this is his schtick: making claims contrary to visible evidence and then never substantiating them.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2015 23:20 |
|
Fuzz posted:To give perspective, women couldn't even vote in the US until after WW2 1920. You're a war late.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 00:18 |
|
ashgromnies posted:He never will, he is a literal unironic Trump supporter and this is his schtick: making claims contrary to visible evidence and then never substantiating them. This is cute coming from the guy whining about GBS in QCS all the time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 00:58 |
|
I'm sorry I didn't hear any references in that post from the guy who thinks it's super crucial to cite sources when making claims.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 01:12 |
|
MrNemo posted:I'm sorry I didn't hear any references in that post from the guy who thinks it's super crucial to cite sources when making claims. This ^ It is clear that he is just here to cause problems and disrupt the thread, not ask a question or read the facts posted (this is an "Ask me/us about Islam" thread). He is just being a clown. Just look at his rapsheet since June 2015. http://www.somethingawful.com/forum-rules/forum-rules/ Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 01:27 |
|
Blurred posted:When did your son choose to be a Muslim, just out of curiosity? My son was born into Islam. Blurred posted:There is the occasional Aramaic word in the gospels, but that wasn't the language they were written in, I can assure you. Mark elaborates on the meaning of certain Aramaic terms in his gospel - why would he have done that if he had written in Aramaic? You are half right, the process began under Constentine at the Council of Nicea 325AD and until the Council of Carthage 397AD when a canon was issued, although prior to this (no one knows when) the unofficial canon was already authoritative in the Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397 Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 01:28 |
|
MrNemo posted:I'm sorry I didn't hear any references in that post from the guy who thinks it's super crucial to cite sources when making claims. Except I've never asked for a source because Muhammad's pedophilia and genocidal actions are well known among a significant segment of historians with no ideological agenda.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 07:05 |
|
Immortan posted:Except I've never asked for a source because Muhammad's pedophilia and genocidal actions are well known among a significant segment of historians with no ideological agenda. It's well known among a significant segment of SA posters without no ideological agenda that your gimmick is tedious and comprehensively played out. gently caress off.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 07:09 |
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:It's well known among a significant segment of SA posters without no ideological agenda that your gimmick is tedious and comprehensively played out. gently caress off. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread with a dissenting opinion towards Islam treated without outright hostility.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 07:15 |
|
Blurred posted:When did your son choose to be a Muslim, just out of curiosity? Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose. That said, this is not in any way different from any other religion. The only difference is that no other religion kills people for choosing an alternate path (if they're allowed to), as far as I'm aware. Lassitude fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 07:41 |
|
Lassitude posted:Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose. I found the discussion earlier in the thread where people were saying that the passage talking about that can be read to basically mean "If people ditch islam to fight against islam they're the enemy, if they go do their own thing let them be" to be interesting, and show that maybe it's not quite as simple as "people deciding to not be muslims should be killed" as a part of islam. Also, Christianity has a long and storied history of murdering the poo poo out of heretics. E: admittedly that was generally murdering people for believing in the wrong type of christianity instead of renouncing it entirely, but I don't really think that's better. :/ E2: Oh wait or maybe you're talking about law as enforced currently in islamic states, in which case yeah that's no good, and I guess more than just an issue of scripture, because governmental policy is a whole other beast. surc fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 08:36 |
|
Lassitude posted:Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose. Shari’ah is never properly represented when it is carried out in ways that it forbids or contradict the teachings of the religion. Just a point of order here. One cannot be put on trial by a court of shari'ah and sentenced to death by the state for leaving Islam alone. Im not saying that this has not been done contrary to the laws of Islam. However, apostasy in Islam is much more than simply leaving the faith, it also includes actively working to destroy the Islamic State (ie treason, a crime that in the US could get you the death penalty just 50-60 years ago). Back in the day when the Christian Roman Empire was run by the Pope under Canon Law and the Islamic Arab Empire was ruled by the Caliphate under Shari'ah, apostasy was viewed in this way by both Christendom and Islam. The Quran is clear regarding religious freedom. "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." Qur'an 2:256 "And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?" Qur'an 10:99 "And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."" Qur'an 18:29 "Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."" Qur'an 109:1-6 Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 09:24 |
|
Lassitude posted:Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose. Islam is the only Abrahamic religion which allows and condones polygamy in addition to this. It's shameful how Turkey (a NATO member) is gradually succumbing to islamism under Erdogan; where customs such as these become the norm.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:03 |
|
Immortan posted:Islam is the only Abrahamic religion which allows and condones polygamy in addition to this. It's shameful how Turkey (a NATO member) is gradually succumbing to islamism under Erdogan; where practices such as these become the norm. Have you even read the Bible, either Jewish Scriptures or New Testament? Islam forbids polygamy. It tolerates polygyny and discourages it by placing a lot of limitations. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:04 |
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Islam forbids polygamy. Amun Khonsu posted:It tolerates polygyny but discourages it by placing limitations. This is the sort of insufferable double-talk among religious apologists that I mentioned earlier. Please tell me that you find polygyny reprehensible.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:12 |
|
Immortan posted:This is the sort of insufferable double-talk among religious apologists that I mentioned earlier. Please tell me that you find polygyny reprehensible. Ask me a question about Islam and I will answer it. Ask me about myself in PM. Otherwise gtfo. This is not a debate thread. Its an "Ask us" thread. Respect the OP and the purpose of this thread, ffs.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:15 |
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Ask me a question about Islam and I will answer it. Ask me about myself in PM. Otherwise gtfo. This is not a debate thread. Its an "Ask us" thread. I'm asking whether you believe polygyny is repugnant or not. E: Whats with these ninja edits you keep doing, I can't keep up.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:17 |
|
Immortan posted:I'm asking whether you believe polygyny is repugnant or not. Repugnant? No, so long as it is agreed upon by the people involved.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:23 |
|
Did you buy me this av?
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 10:45 |
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Ask me a question about Islam and I will answer it. Ask me about myself in PM. Otherwise gtfo. This is not a debate thread. Its an "Ask us" thread. Ops don't get to write new rules here, and normal users don't get to moderate threads. Ask/Tell isn't your personal soapbox, people can disagree with you. Also, your pedo apologism is really creepy and you should stay away from children. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 13:54 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:Ops don't get to write new rules here, and normal users don't get to moderate threads. Ask/Tell isn't your personal soapbox, people can disagree with you. Also, your pedo apologism is really creepy and you should stay away from children. And you dont get to tell me what I can ask for in this thread. Asking for a bit of respect and staying in the spirit of the thread is not too much to ask. 3 ppl told you guys to take that crap elsewhere. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 14:23 |
|
I apologize to those who have been reading this thread in dismay over the negative crap being posted in it. I have devoted my spare time to answering questions based on my knowledge and experiences. Im not going to continue to engage the diatribe, vitriol and hate-mongering from clowns as I have better things I can be doing. From here out, I will be growing my IGNORE list, so that I can focus on answering questions, discussing and learning with you. I expect people not to agree with me, that is how we (I) learn. However, if people are going to be disrespectful and offensive clowns intending to cause trouble and derail the thread, then BLOCKED. I suggest that the others answering questions and reading this thread do the same, if you havent already done so Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Dec 27, 2015 |
# ? Dec 27, 2015 14:51 |
|
Typical "moderate" behaviour. Act all civilized until someone gets critical and then throw a fit.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 17:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:51 |
|
Amun Khonsu posted:I apologize to those who have been reading this thread in dismay over the negative crap being posted in it. I have devoted my spare time to answering questions based on my knowledge and experiences. Im not going to continue to engage the diatribe, vitriol and hate-mongering from clowns as I have better things I can be doing. I have no problem with pedophilia apologists & and polygyny enthusiasts putting me on ignore.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2015 18:30 |