Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Calendar 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login 
Old Forum 
|
Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help |
| Register Login Old Forum |
|
Advertisement: |
| Interfaith Dialogue | |
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue |
 Topic: Did Muhammad condone lying? |
  |
| << Prev Page of 21 Next >> |
| Author | Message |
|
Andalus
Moderator Group 
Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1187 |
   Posted: 11 May 2008 at 12:32am |
|
Not much in the way of a response, Just the usual drviel you are so known for.
Once again, the facts seem to have passed you by. Perhaps that is your fate. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:33). Why? (and this is what you cannot get your head round) because he despised it (Genesis 25:34). This is not down to me, or my "theology", it is what the text says. But that is precisely what you are trying to get us to doubt, or so it seems. And why? Because your Muhammad seemed to think that Jacob was a prophet whose sole purpose (how did you detail it?) was to convey to mankind the will of God (or something like that)
The facts are quite clear, the problem is that you are unable to see past your pauline dogma crack pipe.
With all things being equal for you (your intellectual impotence), I shall try to simplify so that you may follow.
There are two aspects to this side topic you are now using to obfuscate from the main thesis (common chicanery from evangelicals).
a) the story itself (does it make sense, the internal working of the account, etc, etc), and its implication that Jesus, according to your theology, condones the theft of inhertited birthright.
1) Esau comes in from the field, his brother, the chosen one to be the line through Abraham, offers his brother nothing (so much for being Torah observant!), and uses this moment to "trick" his brother.
2) Only a bible thumper would seriously believe, that a person actually "sold" his birthright for food in a moment of hunger. This is the "internal" problem with the story if you take it literal, which the bible does not actually, specfically address, and one is left for interperting. If you want to believe that Esau would actually "believe" that he would give up his right to inheritance for a refreshment, then your intellect is truly impotent. But if your happy, then I am happy for you. If we use the principle that what does not make sense is problably not true, then for rational to prevail, one must conclude that there was no real transaction of inheritance rights for a simple meal. One may blame Esau for not taking his inheritance rights serious, but his crime is by far less than what is committed by Jacob.
3) The story has not outcome on the thesis that Jesus condoned theft. In fact, the story just adds another trait flaw in Jacob (he is a twice offender). It is a non-sequitur. I do not care if the verse repeats three times that "he despised it", the problem is that it also is a "non sequitur", and internally, it makes no sense.
You further venture down the path of strawmen, I did not say that the text omitted anything, nor did I argue what Prophet Muhammd (saw) though or did not think about it. If you want to further with your usual "deflections", then I will simply remove this part of the thread and begin a new one for this relevant matter.
Keep tot he topic. |
|
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
Andalus
Moderator Group
Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1187 |
Posted: 11 May 2008 at 1:00am |
|
I am unaware of any branch of Christianity which states that, although flawed, we are incapable of making correct choices.
Perhaps it is your lack of reasning skills that prevent you from being aware of a great many things? Of course you are just playing the typical, tired evangelical dance. It is the core of your doctrine that we are incapable of following God's laws, which is why we need Jesus. Without Jesus, we are unable to do what is right in this world because we are at the mercy of the devil. This is the underlying idea of your faith, and for you to pretend that this is not the case exposes more of your willful distortion of the truth.
Jacob, for instance, was not born with any such destiny. (Neither was Abraham, Isaac or Joseph). If you think otherwise, prove it from the Bible. Or is this another quranic overlap you're trying to get me to swallow?
You used "men" in general, as I am, in terms of men who had such roles. I will now entertain your deflection.
Before I begin, are you then saying that
1) Abraham did not have a mission to teach man about God?
2) Isaac?
3) Joseph?
I find it amazing. Your faith can find some relationship with Jesus and all kinds of absurd "foreshadowing", but you do not believe that any of these men had such a mission?
The overlap that seems to be repeating itself with any thread from you is soley placed on your extremely poor critical thinking skills and continued distortion of thread space.
Originally posted by andalus Moses echoes a thesis in opposition to your replacement theology: Deut 30 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. By revealing men who were more flawed than many of the audience members, it is so easy to pass off petty excuses for not following the commands of God. Your OT has God telling you that His commands are not too difficult." I sorry doo bop, there goes that little problem with your intellect, the "impotent" problem. I will connect the dots for you.
1) righteous men vs flawed men
2) ability to be righteous
3) the church vs the reality of your bible in terms of being righteous
4) the category of men who were righteous
5) the verse from your word of "gaawd" that clearly supports the existence of the above
Simple enough for you? Hope this helps...
I haven't been, I was talking about Joseph.
Once again, put down your Pauline crack pipe. The "individual" was related to terms of "generalities" which demonstrate the ability to be a righteous man, the ability to be able to follow the commands of God, and the false position of the church with regards to being righteous.
[quote]
Joseph did not follow the law, nor did Jacob, nor did Isaac, nor did Abraham. They all died before the law was even given.... Oh! So now "we" are talking about more than Joseph. So are you now suggesting that they were lawless? LOL......If you say they were not under law, then now they are lawless. Bandits there doo bop?
 I will not even entertain this until I see what absurdities roll from your fingertips......I cannot wait...
|
|
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Andalus
Moderator Group
Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1187 |
Posted: 11 May 2008 at 1:09am |
|
Condone: To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
I would say this is very poor. If you condone a thing then why forgive it? forgiving something clearly implies that you know it to be wrong, and yet forgive it. Forgiving something clearly implies you do not condone it.
I would say that the dicitonary is right on, and I would also say that it is "forgive, OR, disregard", not meaning that forgive being the word in theology as in, "he forgave our sins".
So once again you are merely confirming what has been said. Muhammad/Allah has clearly ordered muslims to fight, go to war and shed blood. War, they say, is deception. Therefore muslims have been ordered to deceive. Christians, on the other hand, have not been ordered to fight, go to war, or shed blood for any reason. Commands to the nation of Israel in this respect are not valid for us, for reasons I've been over already (we are not the nation of Israel, not living under the mosaic covenant, and do not have a land to conquer or defend) No, once again you are using your Christian given sense of "willfull" distortion to force text to fit your ill concieved, and unargued position.
|
|
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ron Webb
Male Humanism Senior Member 
Joined: 30 January 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1403 |
Posted: 11 May 2008 at 7:41am |
|
Originally posted by Andalus
2) Only a bible thumper would seriously believe, that a person actually "sold" his birthright for food in a moment of hunger. This is the "internal" problem with the story if you take it literal, which the bible does not actually, specfically address, and one is left for interperting. If you want to believe that Esau would actually "believe" that he would give up his right to inheritance for a refreshment, then your intellect is truly impotent. But if your happy, then I am happy for you. If we use the principle that what does not make sense is problably not true, then for rational to prevail, one must conclude that there was no real transaction of inheritance rights for a simple meal. One may blame Esau for not taking his inheritance rights serious, but his crime is by far less than what is committed by Jacob. Apparently that isn't what God thought. The message of the story, to me, is that lack of ambition is as bad or worse than having too much.
3) The story has not outcome on the thesis that Jesus condoned theft. In fact, the story just adds another trait flaw in Jacob (he is a twice offender). It is a non-sequitur. I do not care if the verse repeats three times that "he despised it", the problem is that it also is a "non sequitur", and internally, it makes no sense. Again, I regret having chosen the word "condone" in the subject of this discussion. Of course God condones lying and other sins, in the sense of forgiving them or overlooking them. The question I should have started with is, does God approve of lying? The Jacob/Esau story does not show approval, only forgiveness and a hard choice between two unworthy candidates. Edited by Ron Webb - 11 May 2008 at 7:42am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Servetus
Male Christian Senior Member
Joined: 04 April 2001 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2097 |
Posted: 14 May 2008 at 2:12pm |
|
I am not meaning to interrupt, but I am interested to know if, in your opinion, the story of Rahab and the Israeli spies suggests that God approves of lying in times of warfare (Josh. 2:4-23)? It does to me and I raised the issue and explained why on page 14 of this thread. Rahab is considered a heroine in Jewish history and St. James, in his Epistle (2:25), states that she was justified by this act, which, as I read it, certainly included subterfuge and lies. Serv Edited by Servetus - 14 May 2008 at 4:36pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ron Webb
Male Humanism Senior Member
Joined: 30 January 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1403 |
Posted: 14 May 2008 at 5:06pm |
|
The passage in Joshua merely recounts the story, without indicating approval; but yes, I agree that St. James seems to have approved of it, and by extension God must also have approved as well. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, I think there is a moral difference between lying to keep people from harm, as Rahab did, versus lying to lure someone to his death. There is also a moral difference between condoning or even approving of a spontaneous lie in an emergency situation, versus a premeditated lie as part of a murder plot. But perhaps that is just splitting hairs. We can agree that "war is deception" no matter what your religion.
My problem with the story of Rahab is not the lie, but the whole justification for the Israelites attacking Jericho in the first place. It really looks like unprovoked aggression to me.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Servetus
Male Christian Senior Member
Joined: 04 April 2001 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2097 |
Posted: 15 May 2008 at 9:03am |
|
Hi Ron,
I read it differently. The approval, to my ear, is both tacitly and at other times explicitly stated. This, in sum, is what the author of Deuteronomy (traditionally, Moses), Joshua’s predecessor, had to say (and the destruction, or, perhaps more accurately, the acquisition of Jericho was part of the process): “The eternal God ... shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them. (33:27)”
Thank you for hearing me. I would like to discuss the rest of your points, but my time on this board today is short. Best regards, Serv Edited by Servetus - 15 May 2008 at 9:06am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Doo-bop
Senior Member
Joined: 04 March 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 531 |
Posted: 16 May 2008 at 9:19am |
|
Originally posted by Andalus
Not much in the way of a response, Just the usual drviel you are so known for. Once again, the facts seem to have passed you by. Perhaps that is your fate. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:33). Why? (and this is what you cannot get your head round) because he despised it (Genesis 25:34). This is not down to me, or my "theology", it is what the text says. But that is precisely what you are trying to get us to doubt, or so it seems. And why? Because your Muhammad seemed to think that Jacob was a prophet whose sole purpose (how did you detail it?) was to convey to mankind the will of God (or something like that)
The facts are quite clear, the problem is that you are unable to see past your pauline dogma crack pipe.
With all things being equal for you (your intellectual impotence), I shall try to simplify so that you may follow.
There are two aspects to this side topic you are now using to obfuscate from the main thesis (common chicanery from evangelicals).
a) the story itself (does it make sense, the internal working of the account, etc, etc), and its implication that Jesus, according to your theology, condones the theft of inhertited birthright.
1) Esau comes in from the field, his brother, the chosen one to be the line through Abraham, offers his brother nothing (so much for being Torah observant!), and uses this moment to "trick" his brother.
2) Only a bible thumper would seriously believe, that a person actually "sold" his birthright for food in a moment of hunger. This is the "internal" problem with the story if you take it literal, which the bible does not actually, specfically address, and one is left for interperting. If you want to believe that Esau would actually "believe" that he would give up his right to inheritance for a refreshment, then your intellect is truly impotent. But if your happy, then I am happy for you. If we use the principle that what does not make sense is problably not true, then for rational to prevail, one must conclude that there was no real transaction of inheritance rights for a simple meal. One may blame Esau for not taking his inheritance rights serious, but his crime is by far less than what is committed by Jacob.
3) The story has not outcome on the thesis that Jesus condoned theft. In fact, the story just adds another trait flaw in Jacob (he is a twice offender). It is a non-sequitur. I do not care if the verse repeats three times that "he despised it", the problem is that it also is a "non sequitur", and internally, it makes no sense.
You further venture down the path of strawmen, I did not say that the text omitted anything, nor did I argue what Prophet Muhammd (saw) though or did not think about it. If you want to further with your usual "deflections", then I will simply remove this part of the thread and begin a new one for this relevant matter.
Keep tot he topic. Oh please.............. are you seriously suggesting Jacob should have consulted his Torah when Esau came in from the field? But how could he, when there was no Torah........
Tell me, Andalus, do you believe that people have moments of weakness? (Let us hope you reply in the affirmative, otherwise your true home is on planet Zog IV) ....then why couldn't Esau have had a moment of weakness? I mean, we know that he did, according to the text of the Holy Word. Sounds true enough to life to me..... And the Holy Word makes clear that Esau respected the sad deal he did with Jacob. And I think he would know a lot more about it than you......
"The story has not outcome on the thesis that Jesus condoned theft" --I am unable to detect any meaning whatsoever in this sentence. Perhaps you could help me out...
"Keep tot he topic."  . Yes, why not? Or have you forgotten what the topic of the thread is?Edited by Doo-bop - 17 May 2008 at 11:23am |
|
|
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" - John the Baptizer (John 1:29)
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
| << Prev Page of 21 Next >> |
| |
||
Forum Jump |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com
Advertisement:
