Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Why would anyone believe him? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 13 Next >>
Author Message
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1845
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 10 July 2014 at 8:25pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

It reeks of special pleading and the typical excuse-making that I have come to expect from Christian apologists.

Oddly, that's exactly what I've been saying about your defence of Islam.  I mean, of all the millions of people throughout history who have claimed to speak on behalf of God, why would you believe Muhammad in particular, while dismissing virtually all the others?  Maybe special pleading is a necessary component of any belief system.
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Caringheart
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2400
Quote Caringheart Replybullet Posted: 10 July 2014 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Hence the folly of debating

Greetings Abu Loren,

Why do you view everything as debate?  Why not conversation?
Why do you view everyone as adversary, or opponent?
I agree, there is folly in debate... why not converse and try to be friends?

asalaam,
Caringheart
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1176
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 11 July 2014 at 3:32am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Hence the folly of debating

Greetings Abu Loren,

Why do you view everything as debate?  Why not conversation?
Why do you view everyone as adversary, or opponent?
I agree, there is folly in debate... why not converse and try to be friends?

asalaam,
Caringheart


Because a non believing friend will lead a believer away from the truth and then will be a loser. Non believers should be kept at arms length. I mean just look at what you people say about God, Islam and the Prophet (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam).

If I was somebody else then you guys would have been shot already.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 11 July 2014 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I think "why would anyone believe him?" is fairly concise.  You, on the other hand, seem to need an ever-increasing amount of text to answer a question that you consider "absurd".  Honestly, this is getting out of control.


Getting out of control?  Mellow out, Ron.  Don't be a drama queen.

I am merely pointing out that people did and continue to believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Your first reaction to this point was not to say "well, I didn't mean those people".  Rather, you responded by asking a different question ("why" they believed).  Now that you have realized your predicament, you are trying to backtrack and are now claiming that you were pretty "concise".  I heartily disagree, Ron!  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that one can have auditory hallucinations and still be perfectly competent and otherwise rational: "Patients also present with a lack of symptoms commonly found in other mental disorders similar to paraphrenia. There is no significant deterioration of intellect, personality, or habits and patients often remain clean and mostly self-sufficient. Patients also remain oriented well in time and space."


How fitting that you simply pick and choose certain symptoms, while ignoring others.  I already showed why your paraphrenia theory is bogus and does not work.  It is one of your most implausible and laughable crackpot theories. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Yes, perhaps.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  I'm just pointing out that your "crackpot theory" is equally unproven, and quite a bit less likely a priori (i.e, just considering the statistical frequency of occurrences).
 

"Unproven"?  How blind are you?  You have been shown much evidence to show that Muhammad's success cannot be explained by your theories.  You simply cannot acknowledge, that given his situation and if he was an impostor, the probability is extremely low that he would have succeeded and accomplished all that he did.  Your assumption is that there "must" be some "other" explanation, as an alternative to his claim that he was the messenger of God, even if the "other" explanations are utterly ridiculous and illogical.  One would think that since you are trying to offer a simpler explanation (or the more "likely" explanation), you would be able to prove it using simple evidence.  But all you can provide is a whole lot of speculation ("maybe", "perhaps" etc.).

Originally posted by Ron Webb

But Muhammad was just a man.  He had no power to perform miracles, as the Quran makes clear:
"Those who disbelieve say: If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord! Thou art a warner only, and for every folk a guide." (13:7)
So if you're claiming that Muhammad had divine powers, IMHO you are dangerously close to shirk.


LOL Oh, I love it when ignoramuses try to the quote the Quran in a pathetic attempt to teach Muslims what their holy book says.  It just makes them look foolish.

First of all, I never said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had "divine powers", so don't lecture me about committing "shirk".  As any Muslim knows, the prophets were allowed to perform miracles by Allah's permission.  They had no powers themselves.  It was Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) who performed those miracles.  This is clearly stated in the Quran (which you obviously have not read and have no business quoting) in the example of Jesus (peace be upon him):

"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe" (Surah Al-Imran, 3:49).

Second, just because Muhammad (peace be upon him) is referred to as a "warner" does not mean that he could not perform miracles.  Other prophets are referred to as warners as well, and we know that they performed miracles.  An example is Moses (peace be upon him), who was sent to the Pharaoh:

"
To the People of Pharaoh, too, aforetime, came Warners (from Allah).  The (people) rejected all Our Signs; but We seized them with such Penalty (as comes) from One Exalted in Power, able to carry out His Will" (Surah Al-Qamar, 54:41-42).

The "signs" referred to here are the various miracles and plagues that the Egyptians witnessed.

Third, the Quran does indeed refer to Muhammad's miracles as well, and how the unbelievers still refused to believe in him.  They called him a "sorcerer".  Why would they call him a "sorcerer" if they not witnessed certain phenomena that they could not explain?

"
So they wonder that a Warner has come to them from among themselves! and the Unbelievers say, "This is a sorcerer telling lies!" (Surah Saad, 38:4)

The Quran also refers to the miracle of the splitting of the moon, which was shown to the unbelievers at their request, and yet they still refused to believe and dismissed it as "magic":

"
The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.  But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."" (Surah Al-Qamar, 54:1-2)

So as we can see, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Do yourself a favor and don't quote from the Quran or Hadiths to lecture Muslims.  You make a fool of yourself in doing so.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Yes, "less money" would be one way of differentiating yourself.


Yet the product would be the same.  It wouldn't have made sense for Muhammad (peace be upon him) to use religion to appeal to his people in order to gain their favor, and then criticize their religion.  As you well know, religion is a touchy subject and people tend to get riled up quite easily.  So, it would not have made sense to attack the pagan religion and then expect the pagans to give him wealth and power.  Instead, it would be expected that they would react angrily and with violence, which they did. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

You're aware, I assume, that Allah was one of the gods worshipped by the pagans - the chief god in their pantheon, the creator god.  All Muhammad did was to eliminate all the lesser gods, the "partners" to God.
 

First of all, Allah was the title which all Arabs, whether pagans, Jews or Christians, used to refer to the supreme God.  The only difference was that the pagans believe in other gods as well, the "lesser gods" you referred to. 

Second, Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) attempt to eliminate the "lesser gods" was definitely a big deal!  That's the whole point!  People did not want to be told that their "gods" were false.  For you to try to make this seem as if it was not a big deal just goes to show how disingenuous and dishonest you really are.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

I already answered that.  Clearly B, because his followers were in a better position to kill him -- and more likely to do so, having been instructed by Muhammad himself that "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."  And because being God's Prophet has certain privileges that no one else could offer him, as I said.


LOL How confused are you?  In reality, scenario B was clearly the least obvious choice to make.  Rejecting the offer would have meant bringing the wrath of the powerful elites upon Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Whatever alleged danger there would have been in angering his poor and defenseless followers would have been trumped by the overwhelming danger of angering the powerful elites.  Use your common sense, Ron!

And by the way, you continue to expose your ignorance of Islam and making a fool of yourself.  The command to kill apostates was not made while the Prophet was in Mecca.  It was made while he was in Medina and was fighting for the survival of his community.  Apostates would be a dangerous foe since they would obviously switch sides and join the pagans who were on a mission to eliminate Islam through brutal violence.  Even if he had issued the command to kill apostates while he was in Mecca, he wouldn't have had the power to enforce that command as the Muslims were outnumbered and were bearing immense persecution at that time.  It would have been easy for any apostate to be protected by the pagans.  In contrast, since many of Muhammad's followers were poor people with no protection, they were vulnerable to persecution and would not have been in any position to pose a danger to Muhammad (peace be upon him) had he betrayed them and accepted the pagans' offer.  Moreover, after having gained the pagans' favor, he could rely on their protection.  There would have been nothing his followers could have done in that scenario. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

What makes my theories more plausible is that we have many, many real-world examples of people confusing dreams or hallucinations with reality, using claims of divine authority for personal ambition, and so on; whereas how many real-world examples of authentic encounters with God or His angels do we have?  Well, only a handful at best, and none that are verifiable.


Your theories have already been considered and found to be severly lacking in proof and common sense.  Therefore, your argument that they somehow are "plausible" just because there may be "real-world examples of people confusing dreams..." and so on, is simply ridiculous.  There may indeed be many of the "real-world examples" that you refer to.  But the fact is that this does not make your theories more plausible.  The reason is that when stacked up against the evidence, your theories cannot stand. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Besides, even if Muhammad had an authentic supernatural experience, it is at least as likely that he was talking with Satan, or with some false demigod playing a prank.  Why would anyone assume that the message was from God, simply because it said it was from God?


LOL Well, for one thing, I wouldn't expect Satan or a mischievous "false demigod" to tell Muhammad (peace be upon him) that there is only one true God and that all "gods" are false.  If anything, Satan would have tried to make him believe that one of the pagan gods had chosen him.  He would exploit the predominant pagan beliefs. 

Second, I wouldn't expect Satan to tell him to preach social justice, the feeding of the poor, respecting parents, being kind to orphans, and banning female infanticide and cruelty to animals etc.  Instead, I would expect Satan to try to maintain, if not strengthen, the status quo which was essentially the rich dominating the poor (a phenomenon which is still worldwide problem).

Third, I doubt that Satan would have hung on with Muhammad (peace be upon him) throughout his entire struggle (23 years), sticking with him through the most dire circumstances, instead of simply abandoning him to his enemies.  A "prankster" would be even less likely to do so.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Do you really think he would have had that many wives if he had remained simply a successful trader?


LOL Why not?  As I said, polygamy was a common occurrence and it was an accepted practice.  Not only that, but there was no limit as to how many wives one could have.   A successful trader would have more reason to have more wives since he could afford it. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Does it really change anything if she became his wife after she had his son?  And can a slave who has already been impregnated by her master truly be said to freely consent to marriage?  Anyway, how many successful merchants receive gifts of beautiful slave girls from Egyptian rulers?  That was my point.
 

It does change everything because you had claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had more wealth at the time of his death than just a mule, some swords and a plot of land.  Now that you have been refuted, you changed your argument again.  What a fickle individual you are!

As for your other "point", it is irrelevant because, as I said, Arab society at that time fully accepted polygamy and concubinage.  A person did not need to invent a religion in order to get more wives or concubines.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Not his poverty, but his parsimony.  They wouldn't have complained if they knew he couldn't afford to treat them better; but as implied by the verses (33:28-29) you quoted, he apparently could afford to set all of them free "in a handsome manner", so he was not poor.


You are so full of crap, its not even funny!  You make up "facts" and then convince yourself, using your own authority, of their accuracy.

As sister Fatima stated in her post, Muhammad's wives had seen that other Muslims had begun to prosper, while the Prophet himself lived a simple life.  They wanted to get some of the wealth that his followers had acquired for themselves, so they asked him.  That is when the verse was revealed.  It proves two things:

1.  Muhammad lived a life of self-imposed poverty, contrary to your *****ic assertion, and,

2.  He offered to divorce his wives so that they could acquire the material benefits that they wanted. 

The reference to "a handsome manner" refers to divorcing them so that they could be given a share in the spoils that his followers were enjoying, but not himself.  As Maulana Muhammad Ali states:

"Thus they were offered two alternatives.  They might either have world finery, or remain in the Prophet's household.  Should they decide to have the former, they would have plenty of what they wanted, but would forthwith forfeit the honour of being the Prophet's wives."

Originally posted by Ron Webb

ere is a list of the ages of Muhammad (M) and each of his wives (W) at the time they were married, along with the difference (D) in their ages.  The data is obtained from http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp .

(M) (W) (D)   Name

25  40? -15?  Khadijah
50  50? 0?    Sawda
54  9   45    Aisha
55  19  36    Hafsa
55  30  25    Zaynab bint Khuzayma
56  27  29    Hind
57  30  27    Zaynab bint Jahsh
57  20  37    Juwairiyah
58  36  22    Ramla
59  17  42    Safiyah
59  26  33    Maymunah


His first wife, Khadijah, is given as fifteen years older than Muhammad, although other authorities say she was only four years older.
Sawdah, whom you mentioned, is given as the same age as Muhammad.  That is extremely unlikely -- it would mean she was 104 at the time of her death in 674.  She must have been at least a few years younger.

Aside from those first two, the average age is about 24.  The average difference in ages between Muhammad and each wife is about 33 years; and the minimum difference is 22 (Ramla).  Except for Khadijah and Sawda, they were all young enough to be his daughters, and in many instances young enough to be his granddaughters.  Widows they may have been, but elderly?  Not hardly.


True, most were not elderly, but some were.  Why would a man whose motive was sex have married an elderly woman? 

Also, one would think that a man whose main motive was sex would not marry widows but instead virgins.  And as I pointed out already, most of his marriages had political implications for the purpose of forging alliances.   
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Well, he was nearly sixty and had had eleven wives already, plus a number of concubines and female slaves.  One might wonder why he even needed a special revelation in the Quran to tell him the obvious fact that enough was enough.


LOL You must be joking!  You come up with absurd theories, get refuted, and then change your argument to some other insane theory.  Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that you are mistaken?  There would be some dignity in that, don't you think?  Wink

The fact is that you have been making accusations and then failing to back them up.  You have shown your ignorance about Islam and about the Prophet's life.  All of this makes your mindless theorizing a joke.  First you claimed that Muhammad gave himself a pass on how many wives he could marry, not realizing that in fact, a verse was revealed which commanded him to not marry anymore wives.  When you realized your st**idity and ignorance, you simply continued to shamelessly try to satisfy your ego by just making up yet another laughable theory, instead of admitting that you were mistaken.  Why is it that every one of your accusations simply does not stand the weight of scrutiny? 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:19am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Isn't it your qur'an that confirms; 'and allah does what he wills to do'
Are you not familiar with the story of Moses and Pharaoh?  or does Islam have a different telling of the story?


Do you not know how to read?  Yes, it is "my" Quran, so what business do you have quoting it since you have idea what it actually says?  You don't even know "your" own scripture!

As I said, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does what He wills BUT He does not kill children as a punishment for their parents' sins.  He punishes each person for his or her own sins. 

The Quranic story of the Exodus has some differences with the Bible.  You would know that if you had actually read the Quran.  The Quran does mention the various plagues which afflicted the Egyptians (floods, locusts, frogs, blood etc.), but it makes no mention of the final plague (the death of the first born son), which is what I assume you were referring to. 

Originally posted by Caringheart

David had made Bathsheba his wife when Solomon was conceived.

24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.



Yeah, I know that they were "married", but the question still stands.  What had changed?  Bathsheba was not David's legal wife!  Since when are adulterers allowed to marry each other and have more children?  How did their "marriage" change the fact that David had murdered Uriah to get Bathsheba? 

Originally posted by Caringheart

I am simply stating a thing that I have read from qur'an.


Well, do us all a favor and don't "simply state a thing" when you have no idea what you are talking about.  You have no business quoting the Quran.  You don't even know your own scripture! LOL

Originally posted by Caringheart

Yes, sometimes God of the old testament, and Allah, do seem evil.
Isn't it in your own scriptures that it says; that often the Creator will do a thing that is good for you even though you do not understand or like it?
In the Biblical scriptures Job is rebuked by God Himself saying to him... 'Who are you... Do you have the mind of God, to know and understand all that He does.'
Again what is the story of Moses and Pharaoh?


You still don't get it, do you?  You are an ignorant person when it comes to what the Quran says, so stop trying to save face by changing the subject.  So far, you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the absurd Biblical story of David and Bathsheba. 

Don't conflate the absurdities in your books with the Quran.  There is no comparison!  Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does none of the things that your books claim God did.  He does not punish children for the sins of their fathers.  He does not give kings a pass when it comes to the law.  He holds all people responsible for their own deeds.  All praise is due to Him!

Originally posted by Caringheart

If children are 'born pure and not ill-conceived', then why does the Creator require marriage?
  

Confused Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?  Marriage is a prerequisite for a man and woman to procreate.  Having intercourse outside of marriage is forbidden.  Procreation is necessary for the continuation of life.  All life is maintained through procreation.  That has nothing to do with the fact that children are born pure. 

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to refer to the nonsense of "original sin"? LOL 

Originally posted by Caringheart

I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'



Yet a reasonable person would also come to the logical conclusion that the story cannot be true, given its contradictions, inconsistencies and flat-out absurdities.  Therefore, no reasonable person would think that God actually did those things, because God is just and fair.  Period.  Anyone who believes this story believes a lie against God, as well as a lie against the noble Prophet David (peace be upon him).

Originally posted by Caringheart

The lesson is in this:

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David was brought to his knees in repentance before God.  He also accepted God's will in the matter... he did not again turn away from God.

    

LOL No, no, no.  The lesson is this:

All adulterers are to die...unless you are a king.

God does not punish the sons for the sins of their fathers...unless the father is a king who committed adultery, in which case, the son is killed to punish the father. 

Kings must not take many wives...unless you are David and Solomon, who were allowed not just "many" wives, but hundreds.

The Moral of the Story: If you are king, the law does not apply to you in all cases. 

I see you continue to avoid discussing the fact that David and Solomon got a "special dispensation" by being allowed to have many wives, in direct contradiction to Deuteronomy.  Avoiding the truth does not make the truth disappear!
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:24am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by islamispeace

It reeks of special pleading and the typical excuse-making that I have come to expect from Christian apologists.

Oddly, that's exactly what I've been saying about your defence of Islam.  I mean, of all the millions of people throughout history who have claimed to speak on behalf of God, why would you believe Muhammad in particular, while dismissing virtually all the others?  Maybe special pleading is a necessary component of any belief system.


Or maybe special pleading is a necessary component of mindless atheists who have no way of explaining the success of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and who instead resort to *****ic theories with no logical basis in order to satisfy their egos! Big%20smile

Atheism is a religion in itself and atheists can be just as smart (or dumb, as this thread illustrates Wink) as any religious person.  Atheists think that as long there may be another explanation, no matter how nonsensical or unlikely, that is sufficient to deny the main explanation.  So far, in this thread, we have seen you jump from one theory to another, in a vain effort to question Muhammad's claims.  Yet, the evidence falsifies all of these theories, regardless of your...special pleading.  Clap 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:27am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Hence the folly of debating with eediots. Ron Webb has admitted elsewhere that he only read parts of the Qur'an so is it worth debating with a person who has absolutely no knowledge watsoever of Islam or the Qur'an? He gets all of his information from the internet which makes him look like a scholar.

No, I'm certainly not a Quranic scholar.  I have read parts of the Quran, just as I have read parts of many other scriptures.  I see no reason to study it in any greater detail than the others, unless someone can answer my question in the opening post.  Would you care to explain to me why should I believe that this document, which is so self-serving to Muhammad's own interests, is actually the words of Allah?


Wait, you are NOT a Quranic scholar?  I am shocked!  Shocked

But seriously, non-Quranic scholar, your question has been answered already.  You just don't want to admit it because...maybe/perhaps you are afraid of the truth!  And guess what...no one cares if you don't believe and would rather live in your own world where crackpot theories with no logical basis suffice as alternative explanations!
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Caringheart
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2400
Quote Caringheart Replybullet Posted: 12 July 2014 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

Isn't it your qur'an that confirms; 'and allah does what he wills to do'
Are you not familiar with the story of Moses and Pharaoh?  or does Islam have a different telling of the story?

Yes, it is "my" Quran, so what business do you have quoting it since you have idea what it actually says?

Interesting comment.  Have I not seen you making use of the Biblical scriptures during discussion?  Have you read all the Biblical scriptures?

Originally posted by islamispeace


The Quran does mention the various plagues which afflicted the Egyptians (floods, locusts, frogs, blood etc.), but it makes no mention of the final plague (the death of the first born son), which is what I assume you were referring to. 

What explanation does Islam give for Pharaoh finally letting the Hebrews go?

Originally posted by islamispeace


Originally posted by Caringheart

David had made Bathsheba his wife when Solomon was conceived.

24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.


Yeah, I know that they were "married", but the question still stands.  What had changed?  Bathsheba was not David's legal wife!  Since when are adulterers allowed to marry each other and have more children?  How did their "marriage" change the fact that David had murdered Uriah to get Bathsheba? 

How was Bathsheba not his legal wife?  Didn't Muhammad allow taking of captives to make them slaves... and the taking of slaves to make them wives?
and didn't Muhammad also take another man's wife for his own?  Wasn't it his nephew's wife that he took for his own?

Originally posted by islamispeace


Originally posted by Caringheart

Yes, sometimes God of the old testament, and Allah, do seem evil.
Isn't it in your own scriptures that it says; that often the Creator will do a thing that is good for you even though you do not understand or like it?
In the Biblical scriptures Job is rebuked by God Himself saying to him... 'Who are you... Do you have the mind of God, to know and understand all that He does.'
Again what is the story of Moses and Pharaoh?

So far, you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the absurd Biblical story of David and Bathsheba. 

It's not a story... it is history... and history is replete with bad behavior and sinful transgressions.  The Biblical scriptures do not try to polish it up and make it a fable.
Originally posted by islamispeace


Originally posted by Caringheart

If children are 'born pure and not ill-conceived', then why does the Creator require marriage?
  

Confused Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?  Marriage is a prerequisite for a man and woman to procreate.  Having intercourse outside of marriage is forbidden.  Procreation is necessary for the continuation of life.  All life is maintained through procreation.  That has nothing to do with the fact that children are born pure. 
 
Why does the Creator make marriage a 'prerequisite for procreation'?

Originally posted by islamispeace


Originally posted by Caringheart

I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'


Yet a reasonable person would also come to the logical conclusion that the story cannot be true, given its contradictions, inconsistencies and flat-out absurdities. 

Here are my refutations;
http://livingontheedge.org/broadcasts/player?bid=5f7a6747-3a8a-4276-a839-2217392650b1#.U8GYYrEuPms

specifically, listen from the 12 minute mark.

Originally posted by islamispeace


I see you continue to avoid discussing the fact that David and Solomon got a "special dispensation" by being allowed to have many wives, in direct contradiction to Deuteronomy.  Avoiding the truth does not make the truth disappear!

Greetings islamispeace,

I have not avoided discussion.  I have said;
"I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'  "

asalaam,
Caringheart


Edited by Caringheart - 12 July 2014 at 2:41pm
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 13 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

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

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com