Apostates of Islam

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Heresson


You do not have proof for your theories. I at least have hungreds of years of tradition.

[Last Conformist]

They, OTOH, have the word of the Bible.

[Ramo]

A pretty dramatic line of defense
Well, by saying this, You actually admit that the massacre took place, You just question who's done it.
And who else could?

You understand the concept of an ANALOGY?

The point is, only one source mentions it, no other source does. That doesn't bode well for its veracity.

Enlighten me

Sometimes history is written in the interests of the elite, so inconvenient details are ignored are written over. It's up to contemporary historians to dig **** up and to see exactly what went down.

Do we have any other source but hadith and Al-Qur'an?

Of course we do. The very source that cites the attack on Medinan Jews, for instance. Countless others.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heresson
You do not have proof for your theories. I at least have hungreds of years of tradition.

Have you rread the bible? Jesus had several earthly brothers created by the union of Mary and Joseph. That's just established fact which every single denomination agrees with.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
But why don't you continue to "enlighten" us with your shallow opinion of Islam based on nothing more than your own biases?

Because I have never done that. Instead I have quoted the Koran and because I have done so you have called me a bigot. How can quoting a religion's holy book be the same as defaming a religion? All I have done is repeat what the religion tells its followers. Your silly attacks are unworthy even of Fez.

[Heresson]

You understand the concept of an ANALOGY?

Yeah, but it was a pretty poor one.

The point is, only one source mentions it, no other source does. That doesn't bode well for its veracity.

There are other facts we know only of one source...
And why be suprised that Muslims didn't want to repeat stories that weren't showing what they wanted to see?

Sometimes history is written in the interests of the elite, so inconvenient details are ignored are written over. It's up to contemporary historians to dig **** up and to see exactly what went down.

Exactly that's why You can not dismiss Ibn Ishaaq because He was the only one to have written about it.
Also, it I recall, it's the oldest chronicle...
And yet You have to find some proof that the story is not true.

Of course we do. The very source that cites the attack on Medinan Jews, for instance. Countless others

Name a few with dates of creation. There's Sirat Muhammad, but I think it's a bit older.
And the very source that tells us about the attacks You dismiss

Have you rread the bible? Jesus had several earthly brothers created by the union of Mary and Joseph. That's just established fact which every single denomination agrees with.

perhaps some tiny protestant sect.
Nestorian, Monophysite, orthodox and catholic churches surely do not agree with this, and I doubt mainline protestant churches do.

As I've mentioned, "brother" does not necessarily mean a sibling.

Anyway, quote a Bible if You like.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let me correct you there. The Mughal rulers of India were not really a Muslim state - the vast majority of the population remained Hindu.

The state and population aren't the same thing. The Moghul state was Muslim. The Moghul peoples were mostly Hindu. The Ottoman state was overwhelmingly Slav, Albanian, and Greek (except in the military), but most of the people in the empire were Turks. Keep the two concepts seperate.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
St. Peter is part of the Bible?

For god damned sure he is. The New testament is composed of "The Gosipol according to..." name the saint. In which each tells his testamony of what Jesus said and what he believes that means for Christians.

When you have a history of a certain action under the name of the religion, it becomes the basic teaching of religion. And, of course, there is a debate on the actual existance of Jesus. Nevertheless, Paul started Christianity.

There is no debate about the existance of a historical Jesus. Everyone ackwongledges there was aperson anmed Jesus and Roman, Jesish, Christian, and other sources have all agreed the man existed and that his basically said what the bible said he said. That's one of the strong points of the Christian faith. At least their mesiah was a peaceful person and he historically was quoted as calling for peace on Earth. That is very different from Mohammed's message.

As Heresson said, Sharia and Hadith is far different than from the Koran. It is more like the Jewish Talmud, where rabbis wrote to each other and came up with a distillation on the law. The Koran is very sparce on detailed punishments for crimes.

That is simply not true. The Sharia expands upon what Mohammed says in the Koran but there are many, many very specific laws which mohammed spells out in the Koran. How much is a woman's word worth compared to a man? How much should a girl child recieve from her parent's compared to a brother? How should a wife be treated if she doesn't scrape and beg to her husband's every wish? How should an apostate be punished (anwser: Stoned to death), how should a couple which is not married but who has sex be punished (anwser: buried to the knees so they cannot move then stoned to death), how should nonbelievers be treated (anwser: They should be killed). I could go on and on. The Koran spells out huge numbers of thing and if a muslim believes the Koran is thw world of god, as Mohammed say it is, then they must accept all of these barbaric things.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


For god damned sure he is. The New testament is composed of "The Gosipol according to..." name the saint. In which each tells his testamony of what Jesus said and what he believes that means for Christians.

There is no Gospel according to Saint Peter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
In that-time Palestine (also Egypt and other places) people were referring to themselves as "brothers" when they were cousins or even friends.

Please substantiate that in the context of the Bible, this is the case. Why would Mary be hanging out with Jesus' cousins and friends?

Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mothers and brothers came to see him. Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had sisters but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother prayed for Him. Later in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings. There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are not the actual children of Mary and Joseph.

Cite for me any Biblical passage that asserts Mary remained a virgin. It's a preposterous notion that would be the case in those days. Why wouldn't Joseph and his wife consummate their marriage?

Of course, this is all in spite of the fact that the whole virgin birth myth was cooked up by people who were (erroneously) trying to fulfill OT prophecy retroactively.

[Az]

Enlighten me

Funny you say that. I am still waiting for your answer.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There is no Gospel according to Saint Peter.

True, but there are his letters. Well, letter, since the second one is often regarded by theologians as a forgery.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Have you rread the bible? Jesus had several earthly brothers created by the union of Mary and Joseph. That's just established fact which every single denomination agrees with.

Not the Catholics, which is where Herreson is coming from. Catholic dogma is that Mary was perpetually a virgin, so they have to go through logical contortions galore to explain away relatively straight-forward passages alluding to Jesus' siblings.

After all, if they don't have their sexless porcelain idol of virtuous womanhood as an example, all of the women will get uppity and start doing crazy things like enjoying sex or something.

[Heresson]

There is no Gospel according to Saint Peter.

Isn't there a letter of Peter?
I may be wrong.

Please substantiate that in the context of the Bible, this is the case. Why would Mary be hanging out with Jesus' cousins and friends?

Why not?

Even today, in Poland, You call cousins brothers with "stryjeczni" addition, but I've heard it without it as well.
There's no proof that these were Mary's actual children.
Just possibility.

[Heresson]

Funny you say that. I am still waiting for your answer.

What was it about, can You remind me?