The Islamic belief in djinn is so silly to me. Like think about it for a second; they decided that Arab pagans were wrong about everything EXCEPT the desert spirits that are allegedly a parallel sentient species with humanity, but obviously nonexistent now that we have cameras.The equivalent of this would be if the New Testament randomly said that nymphs from Greco-Roman mythology were real and every Christian took this as fact for 2000 years even when it became increasingly clear that nymphs do not exist.
>>18357001aren’t jinn just demons though? it could make sense “oh those spirits we used to commune with are demons”
>>18357015No they're just spirits and are literally parallel to humans i.e they can be good or evil, they can even be muslims or kafir lol
>>18357021Islamic scholars among history have even pondered humans marrying jinn, by what I recall some even thought it is acceptable as long as the jinn is a Muslim.
>>18357021Yes, jinn can be good or bad, and have any variety of religious beliefs.>>18357001I don't see why it's that crazy. All religions believe in supernatural beings. Islam simplifies it to just being angels and jinn.
>>18357053>I don't see why it's that crazyJinn absolutely permeate the world according to Islam. It's sunnah for all Muslims to perform nightly rituals to keep Jinn from taking their utensils, water, or children: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3316Jinn are the reason there are shooting stars, it's Allah keeping them from listening to what's going on in heaven: https://quran.com/al-jinn/8/tafsirsWhen your donkey brays it's because of a Jinn: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3303And much, much more. Muhammad was EXTREMELY superstitious and believed Jinn were everywhere doing everything. Modern Muslims try their hardest to ignore the fact that this is obviously not true. In my opinion it is the strongest argument against Islam since it's simply observationally undeniable to a reasonable person that all of this is incorrect.
>>18357074>When your donkey brays it's because of a Jinn: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3303This is ripe for a wojack adaptation.
>>18357083it already exists
>>18357116How is this different from the Christian story of the rooster crowing three times to signify betrayal?
>>18357118You seem to be misremembering somewhat. It doesn't say that roosters crowing is some general betrayal omen. Here is the exchange in Luke 22:33-34:"But he replied, 'Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.' "
>>18357001>1: Muslims are low IQ, inbred, lunatics. They literally cannot understand why any of that would be a problem. I know, I've tried to explain it to them. >2: The rare Muslim in possession of more brain-cells than eye-balls knows that if he ever asks even innocent questions about the more retarded shit preached in his faith that the best thing he could look forwards to is complete social exclusion/exile - or death, if he's living in a Muslim country. That strongly disincentivizes any attempt at internal reform.>>18357139>Bible uses 'rooster crows' as a sign for sunrise, in a specific story about Jesus telling Peter that he knows that Peter will lie about knowing him>Muslim believes that all Christians think that a rooster crowing three times (not what's talked about in that story) is some kind of divine omen of betrayal. Yup, that tracks. It's also about the best understanding of Christianity I've seen from a Mohammedan.
>>18357001No offense, but I'm not a Muzrat and even I know there's a difference between the Quran, the Sunnah and the Hadiths. It took me reading the very first fucking scroll of their Quran to realize the problem was that you couldn't trust Arabs from the get-go. As soon as Muhammad starts complaining about lying scribes, I closed the book and assume whatever he was trying to convey was immediately lost in both translation and because of scribes that most likely didn't actually trust nor like him.
>The equivalent of this would be if the New Testament randomly said that nymphs from Greco-Roman mythology were real and every Christian took this as fact for 2000 years even when it became increasingly clear that nymphs do not exist.Most liberal Muslims ignore the shit about djinn the way most (liberal) Christians ignore the fact that a certain horseman is literally accompanied by Hades (from Greco-Roman mythology) in Revelation.
>>18357214>Mohammed worshipper tries 'whataboutism'>It's not very effective
Which religion has the most silliness and autism, and which one the least? Big three Abrahamic + Zoroastrianism
>>18357001>they decided that Arab pagans were wrong about everything EXCEPT the desert spiritsyou're forgetting about the BIG BLACK STONE
>>18357229I guess Hindus are the silliest butthat might be because tit is not unified belief system.Silliness in semitic religons comes from bthe fact that everyone is saying: "we are entirely different from them and we are the only one who reads the holy pippeli correctly."
>>18357214A) The Book of Revelation directly says in the text that John's vision isn't literal. No Christian denomination believes that it is literalB) This is like saying it talks about the god Helios because it uses the word "helios", which is just the normal word for "sun". Greek gods often have the same name as the thing they are god of: Helios (sun), Oranos (sky), Hades (the place of the dead) are all examples. Hades is what in the Hebrew Bible would be Sheol.
>>18357214>a certain horseman is literally accompanied by HadesThe NT was written in Greek. Do you know the Greek translation of the OT also has plenty of mentions of 'Hades'? I wonder why that would be? If you weren't a sperg you'd understand easily.
>>18357229Least to most silly:Christianity > POWER GAP > Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Islam
>>18357225>>18357371>>18357385Holy cope. The closest comparandom for Revelation is the Acts of Pilate in which Hades literally speaks like he is the blue guy from Hercules. Turns out Christians are just as embarrassed about their scriptures are Muslims lmao
>>18357153i know from experience that the only thing Muslims understand and respect is brute strength. show any weakness and they will take advantage of it.
>>18357455>The closest comparandom for RevelationOther than the many literal mentions of 'Hades' in the Greek OT?
The Old Testament has Leviathan and Behemoth and Cherubim and the New Testament has daimones. The all come from prior superstitious paganism, and every Christian I have ever met believes all those are really existing supernatural creatures.
>>18357464So your perspective is that in the revelatory image a horseman was followed by a realm of torment, NOT its traditional mythological personification?
>>18357229Tbh this is just going to be a matter of taste and culture. Most people are going to be answering eithe rIslam or Zoroastrianism, though. Because they aren't middle eastern.
>>18357499>the rider is named Death and the underworld follows behind to receive the deadPretty simple. Do you believe the literal Greek god is the one mentioned here? If so you'll have to be consistent and apply that to the OT where 'Hades' is mentioned plenty of times.
>>18357523What does it mean for an underworld to follow someone?I believe in Greek Christian texts "Hades" exhibits the same semantic range as in prior pagan writings - the underworld and its personification. There is nothing in Revelation that militates against that, and that both Revelation and the Gospel of Nicodemus speak of Hades as an agent in a way unparalleled for e.g. Sheol suffices for argument. That this disturbs your sensibilities and that you practice a religion that has rationalized your scriptures is irrelevant for interpretation.
>>18357543I don't really mind the underworld being personified given that this underworld is thrown into Gehenna along with Death at the end of that very same book. You implied that it was literally Hades from the Greek pantheon, which is obvious nonsense.
>>18357565It's really cute you think the early readership of Revelation wouldn't associate Hades with Hades because that violates your own preconceptions. Grow up.
>>18357577Again, do you apply this same principle to the Septuagint?
The silliest part is Muslims HAVE to believe in magic kek. Little kids are beheaded for playing Roblox games with magic wands in them.
>>18357581The Tanakh wasn't composed in a Hellenistic context, the Christian scriptures were. It's okay, the author doesn't have to think the same things you do. Mutatis mutandis for hadith and djinn :)
>>18357455Do you have an actual response to what I said or can you just reply with an empty meme?
>>18357214Except you can’t ignore or say Jinns don’t exist.
>>18357591So the Christian scriptures just so happened to reference the one greek god which also "appears" in the greek OT and didn't reference any other greek god?
>>18357588>Muslims HAVE to believe in magicIt's not a pillar>Little kids are beheaded for playing RobloxBoldfaced lie
>>18357592He'd need to be human to have more than an empty meme. Always remember that AI is more of a person than a Muslim.>>18357462Crusaders should have finished the job. Fucking lazy bastards left it for us to deal with.
>>18357229consult the guide
>>18357588>Little kids are beheaded for playing Robloxbased
>>18357602>It’s not a pillarNo but rejecting it means the Quran is a load of horse shit
>>18357600Early Christian traditions include a few other pagan gods if you include apocrypha and reports. Acts also shows specific knowledge of pagan gods. That the Septuagint "mentions" Hades could have given the revelator license. Hades was an Olympian, not some obscure personage coincidentally homonymous with the common Greek gloss for Sheol.Not sure why this specifically should be a rub when as >>18357493 pointed out lots of pagan mythemes appear in the Bible, which Christians see the same way as Canaanites saw them. If it's just that Hades was a "god" to the Greeks, recall Paul juxtaposes God with the "god" of this world.
>>18357588>The silliest part is Muslims HAVE to believe in magic kekChristians have to believe in magic too to be fundamentalists. The Moses sorcery battle, Witch of Endor episode, legal prohibitions on magic, and early Christian writings on Simon Magus blatantly attest to the fact early Christians presupposed the existence of real effective magic. If it was the Quran and not the Bible which contained the ordeal of the bitter water and a certain holy man touching handkerchiefs or aprons to turn them into apotropaic amulets with spiritual and medical efficacy, you would call that the height of superstition.
>>18357493>Leviathan and BehemothThose are just animals, like every other creature described in Job. You say "every Christian I have ever met believes all those are really existing supernatural creatures" but I have never heard a Christian call leviathans or behemoths supernatural.>CherubimThat's just a word for what we call angels in English>and the New Testament has daimonesThis is a very broad word that basically just means "non-god spiritual being". Essentially any spirit without a body that you posit would be one of these>The all come from prior superstitious paganismAnd how do you gather that?
>>18357743>Those are just animalsWhat animal can "can restrain the river from its rushing"? What animal out of the nostrils of which comes smoke?More importantly, the Canaanite origin and mythological status of Leviathan and Behemoth are beyond consensus in serious scholarship. Read a book.What is foreign to Christianity is leviathan"s", plural. That comes from Game of Thrones. Job speaks of it as a singular unique beast.>That's just a word for what we call angels in EnglishNo, it isn't. You are clearly completely ignorant of all modern scholarship on cherubim. Christians supposed whatever Jews were talking about was really existing, even if they didn't have the contextual information to identify it correctly. The Jews ostensibly got cherubim straight from Babylonians during the captivity.>This is a very broad word that basically just means "non-god spiritual being". Essentially any spirit without a body that you posit would be one of theseIndeed, nonsense that Christians swallowed whole from their pagan forebears. If there is any difference between the demons/spirits that the evangelist blamed epilepsy symptoms on and the most rank superstition from a mystery cultist, it's Judeo-Mesopatamian acculturation. Nothing transcendent here, in fact the distinction between demon and djinn seems quite scanty.>And how do you gather that?They all predate even Judaism as such, obviously.
>>18357743>That's just a word for what we call angels in EnglishBut YHWH rides cherubim in the Bible all the time. Does this have the potential to be the Zutt hadith of Christianity?
>>18357021The bible explicitly states that demons are monotheists James 2:19 and spirits of all kinds exist, good and bad 1 Timothy 4:1 In fact we are told to test them 1 John 4:1-3 and that they can be distinguished 1 Corinthians 12:10
>>18357001Everything exists in the spirit world.
>>18357021I'm have met a Christian spirit and he wears a cross earring in one ear.
>>18357520That said the Lactation of Saint bernard isn't exactly conventional. Neither is the once upon a time current european belief in Witches.A religion being 'weird' or 'silly' is not an argument against it, neither.
See this is why I dislike neochristians. Genuine belief in supernatural will appear to an atheist as insanity or stupid superstition. Neochristian intellectualizes himself from atheism to christian theology and just endlessly fails to get how religiosity actually works, remaining a functional atheist. >B-b-butThink about something like the Fatima sightings of Mary. Honestly ask yourself do you believe it was real.Christians, actual Christians believed pagans knew magic. This is evident from characters Christians immortalised in their own texts. Simon the Magus or the pagan priest who fought magical duel against Saint Patrick. It was extremely superstitious and I doubt theologians sincerely believe any of these has happened.The same very genuinely religious people believed in whole assortment of supernatural beings that were often quite regional, often designated as demons, but regional nonetheless.When it comes to scripture, it's very evident what kind of religious person wrote it. The Old Testament was written by people who would probably have been atheists today. It had quite the scholarly redaction and the genuine faith is only present insofar the original oral passages that must have existed once upon a time had carried some of that over. The New Testament is a work of people who had good grasp on the old one, but at the same time because of proximity to the religious events they've retained some of that childlike religious spirit, even if it's curated by some scholarly tradition. The Quaran was composed or written by a man who had genuine faith only. He was superstitious, he didn't strive for consistency, but he was real. This is something Thomas Carlyle for instance noticed, he didn't find it particularly finessed or intellectual but he applauded genuine faith coming out of every single verse. For a neochristian this doesn't cut it but that's because he's effectively non-religious.
>>18357777>What animal can "can restrain the river from its rushing"? What animal out of the nostrils of which comes smoke?They're extinct today, but leviathans and behemoths. The past had megafauna that are now extinct, including those two kinds of animals.>the Canaanite origin and mythological status of Leviathan and Behemoth are beyond consensusCare to present some actual evidence for this point?>Read a book.What evidence will I find for your assertion in said book?>What is foreign to Christianity is leviathan"s", plural. That comes from Game of Thrones. Job speaks of it as a singular unique beast.Job talks about the animals in the singular. Are you going to say that because Job 39:13 "The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully" is in the singular that it's saying there's only one ostrich?>No, it isn't. They're beings from heaven who God sends to do things. "Angel" specifically means "messenger" so it's more of a job description and "cherubim" is the proper noun for this type of being.>The Jews ostensibly got cherubim straight from Babylonians during the captivity.Would you care to provide some evidence for this?>that the evangelist blamed epilepsy symptoms on Not all seizures are from epilepsy anon. Seizures are caused by sudden and excessive brain activity. What do you suppose some other mind trying to run your brain at the same time as you might cause?>They all predate even Judaism as suchWell obviously, they are all real things that have always existed. Plenty of people talked about them like plenty of people talk about lions or eclipses: they're part of our world so they get discussed.
>>18357795Isn't every mention of this in a song or poem?
>>18358102Ever since Darwin its been cognitive dissonance. Catholics are the worst. I was in Catholic circles all my life until last year when I left the Church and I don't think I ever met someone who sincerely believed every dogma the Church taught except for priests. Laymen are either so poorly catechized they don't even know what the Church teaches in the first place or they do know but disagree because they know it's retarded superstition
>>18358150nta but you are legitimately stupid>retard thinks smoke breathing dragons that block and swallow rivers as the rabbis say actually existed>no evidence of their existence outside his book of middle eastern fairytalesBoth the name and the mythological figure are a direct continuation of the Ugaritic sea monster Lôtān, one of the servants of the sea god Yammu defeated by Hadad in the Baal Cycle.[12][13] The Ugaritic account has gaps, making it unclear whether some phrases describe him or other monsters at Yammu's disposal such as Tunannu (the biblical Tannin).[14] Most scholars agree on describing Lôtān as "the fugitive serpent" (bṯn brḥ)[13] but he may or may not be "the wriggling serpent" (bṯn ʿqltn) or "the mighty one with seven heads" (šlyṭ d.šbʿt rašm).[15] His role seems to have been prefigured by the earlier serpent Têmtum whose death at the hands of Hadad is depicted in Syrian seals of the 18th–16th century BC.[15]Sea serpents feature prominently in the mythology of the ancient Near East.[16] They are attested by the 3rd millennium BC in Sumerian iconography depicting the god Ninurta overcoming a seven-headed serpent. It was common for Near Eastern religions to include a Chaoskampf: a cosmic battle between a sea monster representing the forces of chaos and a creator god or culture hero who imposes order by force.[17] The Babylonian creation myth describes Marduk's defeat of the serpent goddess Tiamat, whose body was used to create the heavens and the earth.[18] Recent scholarship has explored these sea-serpent traditions within the broader serpent symbolism of the ancient Mediterranean.[19]
>>18358150>Job talks about the animals in the singular.Because he is talking about one animal? Psalm 74:13-14 was your best bet and it makes it painfully clear this multiheaded monster is one>"cherubim" is the proper noun for this type of being.The book of enoch says "He shall call to every power of the heavens, to all the holy above, and to the power of God. The Cherubim, the Seraphim, and the Ophanin, all the angels of power, and all the angels of the Lords, namely, of the Elect One, and of the other Power, who was upon earth over the water on that day," They are a subset of angels and it is clear early Jews understood it like that.>some other mind trying to run your brain at the same time as youScientific evidence this causes seizures? stop reading comics there are no mind controlling body snatchers>they are all real things that have always existedso are spirits like the jinn then lol
>>18357053>Islam simplifies it to just being angels and jinn.What christcuck OP doesn't know is that this distinction was not even universal. Many of the early exegetes of the salaf beleived Jinn are simply another tribe of Angels. Ibn Kathir and the other later scholars reject this understanding because their sources cannot be trusted>A lot of these reports were transmitted from the salaf (pious predecessors), and most of them come from the Israiliyyat, which may have been transmitted in order to be examined [i.e., as opposed to being accepted as is]. Allah knows best about the veracity or otherwise of many of them. Some of them are definitely to be rejected, because they go against the truth which we hold in our hands. In the Quran we have what is sufficient so that we have no need for previous reports, because hardly any of them are free of distortions, with things added or taken away. Many things have been fabricated in them, for they did not have people who had memorized things precisely by heart (huffaz) who could eliminate the distortions created by extremists and fabricators, unlike this ummah (nation) which has its imams (religious leaders), scholars, masters, pious and righteous people, brilliant critics and men of excellent memory who recorded the hadiths (reports) and classified them, stating whether they were sahih (sound), hasan (good), da’if (weak), mawdu’ (fabricated) or matruk (to be ignored). They identified the fabricators and liars, and those about whom nothing was known, and other kinds of men (i.e., narrators). All of this afforded protection to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the seal of the Messengers and the leader of Mankind, so that nothing would be attributed to him falsely and nothing would be transmitted from him that he did not say or do. May Allah be pleased with them and make them pleased [by rewarding them], and make the Paradise of al-Firdaws their eternal abode.” (Tafsir al-Quran il-‘Azim).
>>18358318We don't even need the understanding of Jews. The faulty Christian tradition this guy holds to be authoritative says it too. Aquinas himself references this tradition here https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1108.htm Cherubs are simply a rank of angels amongst 9 others
>>18358288It's a fact that there are tons of megafauna from ancient times that are now extinct. Behemoths were just one kind of these land megafauna and leviathans were just one kind of these sea megafauna. A huge problem is you're taking Job, where everyone including God are essentially reciting poems, and taking them woodenly literally. For example Job 39:5-7 - "Who let the wild donkey go free?...It laughs at the commotion in the town". If, say, behemoths were still alive and donkeys were extinct instead you would be talking about a mythological being named The Donkey (one single one, it's singular here in Job) that laughed at human towns and who humans worshipped with donkey-headed idols. I'm sure we'd hear a big spiel about how it's taken specifically from Set in Egypt, even down to being a being of the wilderness like Set was god of the wilderness.Do you have something more solid than that to present here?
>>18358318>>18358318>Because he is talking about one animal? Do you think the Book of Job is attempting to argue that there is one single wild donkey and one single ostrich in the world? It speaks of them in the same way.>Psalm 74:13-14 Do you notice how your entire argument always hinges on arguing that poems are woodenly literal? This Psalm is using animals to talk about people. Unless you think Psalm 74:2 is literal: "Why does your anger smolder against the sheep of your pasture?" and this poem is about God being literally angry with sheep.>The book of enochIs nothing, it's fanfiction. You might as well talk about the angels that appear on stage in Act 4 of Shakespeare's Henry VIII.>Scientific evidence this causes seizures? Didn't we just discuss it? A seizure is caused by sudden and extremely amplified brain activity. If drugs can do it, would some other mind trying to wield your brain at the same as you be surprising if it had this effect as well and overloaded your brain?>so are spirits like the jinn then lolThe huge difference here is what they do, not what kind of thing they are. In the Bible angels and demons are very rare: angels show up only when God directly instructs them to, and demons show up only maybe enough times in the Old Testament that you can count them on one hand. In the New Testament there's a flurry of their activity when the Messiah comes but then in Revelation they're bound and not able to do anything.Contrast this with Islam where they are an extremely active part of our world. Look at >>18357074. It's sunnah to perform nightly and daily rituals to protect against them since they steal items and snatch children ("body snatchers" as you derisively termed it) at night, they are the reason your animals make sounds for reasons you can't see, shooting stars are things shot at them. All of this today, in the modern world, unlike where the Bible tells us demons have been gone since the first century AD and were rare.
>>18357118>You see, clearly GAWD made those roosters crow>It's clearly not used as a general signal for the timeframe in which Peter denies JesusI'm not even a christian, but I think the Ahmed here might have some terminal retardation.
>>18358343Glad to see you again. Maybe in this thread we'll be able to nail this down.You've talked about Ibn Kathir's comments on Jinn. In his tafsir he agrees with what I have been saying from the Koran and hadith about how they say that shooting stars are missiles shot at Jinn: https://quran.com/al-jinn/8/tafsirs.Do you believe he and I are wrong on this point, and that you can interpret the texts better than him? There's a reason that I agree with Ibn Kathir here but you must disagree: it's because this is what Muhammad actually believed and taught, but it is wrong.
>>18357116>If your commonplace domestic animals make noise, they have seen some spooky shit and you need to prayCome on, man.
>>18358351I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Protestant, I don't take anything Aquinas said as being of anything more than historical interest. He's simply writing his own thoughts and positions based on the same texts that we all have. He doesn't have access to a unique source of information on the subject.
>>18358743Have you forgotten when we already talked about all that? My position has not changed. Now why are you running bro? You already refuse to answer the questions I asked of you last time so there is no reason for me to do anything else except extend the same courtesy to you. If we take the position of the salaf and the early exegetes then you're denying the existence of angels, simple as. The bible makes it very clear that stars can be shot Revelation 12:4 and can be used in warfare Judges 5:20 but let me guess it's all symbolism again lmao>>18358841And? Your tradition which you were desperately trying to defend last we talked is just as authoritative. In any case it's your interpretation vs the rest of Christendom. We know that you can barely read so why would I expect you to make a better point than them
>>18358909>Have you forgotten when we already talked about all that?I think bringing up Ibn Kathir is useful here, since he says the same thing that I do. Doesn't that show this isn't just me looking to interpret texts uncharitably? >My position has not changed.It should. We can look at the world and see that Muhammad is wrong about it. If he is right, we would see Jinn taking utensils, water, and children. Especially among non-believers who don't perform the requisite protection rituals or invoke Allah for protection. But we know today for as much an absolute fact as almost anything can be that this does not happen. You have to see that Muhammad was wrong here. And if he's wrong about spirits on something we can examine, he can't be trusted on what he says about the king of spirits that we can't examine.In the end, Muhammad's promises about what Allah will do will prove to be as empty as what he says Jinn do. Let the one we can prove guide you on how you evaluate the one we can't directly prove.>You already refuse to answer the questions I asked of you last timeI believe the thread died before I had a chance to reply. In general the answer to all of them was: "Because I cite an article by somebody does not mean I agree with everything they say as if they were my prophet". And I think you know that. It would be like if I cited an article in CNN and you started quoting Anderson Cooper like I must agree with all of his thoughts. >If we take the position of the salaf and the early exegetes then you're denying the existence of angels, simple as.Positing Jinn as angels changes nothing here. It's not about the type of being that Jinn are, it's about the activities they engage in and Jinn being commonplace to the point you need to perform protection rituals against them since they are frequently in your bathroom: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:6>it's all symbolism againYes? You quoted Revelation and then a poem>trying to defendWhen did I endorse Aquinas?
>>18359016Next to nothing in his interpretation is foreign to judeochristian tradition and I already delved into all the rest before.>In general the answer to all of them wasNope! Do I really have to start posting the same thing here? You clearly left my questions unanswered and you had plenty of time to do so https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18320954>It's not about the type of being that Jinn areThe OP literally complains about them being desert spirits that only pagan Arabians believed in. Making them angels is a direct refutaton of that criticism. You now have to reject that angels are capable of these things in the first place.>You quoted Revelation and then a poemahahahaha, of course everything you don't like in the bible is symbolism. Not the part where Satan gets locked up though because you need that. Tell me was John also symbolically a pagan who worships angels too?>endorse AquinasYou endorsed the authenticity and veracity of Christian tradition, specifically the ones coming from a guy who believed only 4 gospels exist because the world has 4 corners iirc. Now when it goes against you suddenly it's all bullshit.
>>18357001Like those al-Zutt studs whomsoever mounted and rode (seeded n feeded) the prophet Muhammad??
>>18359086>Next to nothing in his interpretation is foreign to judeochristian traditionErm...alright? Again I'm not a Catholic so I don't believe in some sort of divine Tradition handed down. The only writings of special interest are those that come from the Apostolic Circle since the only ones with a special source of information are the Apostles.>You clearly left my questions unansweredThings like "The guy you believed to be authoritative enough on interpreting scripture in other parts" are as I said: citing an article doesn't mean someone is elevating the author to prophethood. You will basically never find two people who agree on absolutely everything; nobody who cites an article is thereby saying "I agree with this person on all their perspectives". So when you say something like "Why is there no camera footage from specters" you're talking about something that's simply not relevant to me and my position. I don't believe in NDEs or ghosts. >The OPI'm not the OP, my first comment in this thread was >>18357074. I even put my "talking about Jinn" name on. The entire point of that response was to explain why belief in Jinn is different from belief in, say, angels like the anon in >>18357053 had brought up. As I said there, it's because "Jinn absolutely permeate the world according to Islam" and examples were provided.
>>18359086>>18359148Hate to double-post but this is more just clarification on the methodologies here:>of course everything you don't like in the bible is symbolismLet's look at what you quoted. Judges 5 is a song that Deborah and Barack are singing. It explicitly says this in Judges 5:1 - "And Deborah singeth - also Barak son of Abinoam - on that day, saying".So it's a song, a poem. Poems are poetic and contain poetic imagery.This isn't arbitrarily deciding something is poetic or not, the text explicitly identifies it as such.Same for Revelation. We're told in the text itself that John's vision is symbolic. For example Revelation 17:15 which says "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples" or Revelation 19:8 where John sees a bride given white linen and then it says that the "fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people".>Not the part where Satan gets locked up thoughThat is symbolic too, a literal chain isn't holding Satan. The message is that he is bound, restrained in this age.>You endorsed the authenticity and veracity of Christian traditionAgain: I am not a Catholic, I don't believe in a Tradition like they do. My position is that writings from the Apostolic Circle are useful since they received information from the Apostles, who in turn received information from God. I use them as historical sources, not as Tradition in the Catholic sense.
>>18359177>Again I'm not a Catholic so I don't believe in some sort of divine Tradition handed down.Who cares if it's divine or not? You believe it's authoritative enough that it determines truth from falsehood.>This isn't arbitrarily deciding something is symbolic or notYes it is because you are the one deciding what is symbolic or not. It's literally just your unjustified subjective reasoning. You take Satan to be locked up but not the parts where it says only for 1000 years and how he exactly was locked up. Furthermore you even add your own interpretation when you admit that the rest of the demons are not said to be locked up but you assume they are anyway.>My position is that writings from the Apostolic Circle are useful since they received information from the Apostles, who in turn received information from God.Great and all other traditions become valid using that same reasoning. Including the preislamic judeochristian sources that says the exact same things these hadiths are saying.
>>18359189>Who cares if it's divine or not? You believe it's authoritative enough that it determines truth from falsehood.I don't. Aquinas is something completely different from writings by the Apostolic Circle. Aquinas had no access to the Apostles. He heard nothing from them, or anyone who knew them, that they did not write down. He had access to the exact same sources of information that we do - perhaps less. He is not a unique source of information on these subjects.It's like listening to someone who was at an event and their account, vs. someone who read the same newspaper article as you. The first is a source of information about the event, the second is not a source of information about the event.>Yes it isTrue or false: Judges 5 says that this is a song.>You take Satan to be locked upNot literally. He is bound, restrained. Not with a literal chain. >Great and all other traditions become valid using that same reasoning.They really don't. Aquinas never says something like "James the Lesser taught..." or "Peter said..." that aren't from the same texts that we have. And certainly not here about angels. >Including the preislamic judeochristian sources that says the exact same things these hadiths are saying.This is at best just making the point that this sort of superstition was common in the past, so it isn't surprising we see Muhammad have it too. And this really is universal: virtually every culture has believed in very active sprites which haunted the world. It seems they remembered the times of demons but didn't realize that this had ended, and kept chalking things up to them. Even today you find tons of people believing in ghosts and haunted houses.So it's just not surprising that Muhammad had this same worldview. It's also extremely clear today, in an era of professional investigators and ubiquitous camera coverage, that this worldview is incorrect.Hence Muhammad was incorrect.
>>18359211>. It's also extremely clear today, in an era of professional investigators and ubiquitous camera coverage, that this worldview is incorrect.You're just proving his point about being an atheist in Christian skin. You believe in God? Angels? Care to share any video evidence for them?
>>18359258This sort of perspective is older than even Christianity is. The Sadducees said these same things. They were only really incorrect about there being no resurrection. So this sort of divide goes back even before Atheism as we know it today, the Pharisees and Sadducees were having this same debate back when the religion was still Judaism. On this subject the Sadducees were closer to being correct than Pharisees appear to have been.So the comparison here would be to a Sadducee, not an Atheist.
>>18359211>I don't. Aquinas is something completely different from writings by the Apostolic Circle.He literally appeals to church tradition, I even posted from where he got it from. Why does nearly every denomination of Christian and the Jews agree with my interpretation (Cherubim are a type of angel amongst many others) but not yours? It's because these ideas are very old traditions with a lot backing them. Where Irenaeus talks about his theory regarding the logical necessity of 4 gospels he specifically says that they are the 4 faced type. Are all angels like this? I highly doubt it because he makes distinctions between them like in pic rel. And also talks about the rest of the types here "Angels, Archangels, Thrones (ophanim), Dominions, and Powers" - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103230.htm This is very much in line to what Aquinas was saying.>Judges 5 says that this is a song.True. Now your turn. True or False, songs and poems can be literal.>They really don't.Jews (the sect Jesus and Paul were nearest to, the Pharisees) believe in the oral and written Torah and both have divine authority using similar reasoning, wut?>He is bound, restrained.Why isn't he symbolically bound and restrained?>It seems they remembered the times of demons but didn't realize that this had endedProve it. You yourself have admitted that just like in the past the independent reports keep pouring in. Have you never heard of the theory that ufo sightings are demons? I don't hold to it for the record but many people reading your book do. Anyway I remember back when you were larping as an atheist you specifically said that Judaism was free from this problem. How when their sources are perfectly mirroring what we say.
>>18359322>He literally appeals to church traditionI don't believe in "Tradition" in the Catholic sense of reliable teachings handed down from the Apostles. >Why does nearly every denomination of Christian and the Jews agree with my interpretation (Cherubim are a type of angel amongst many others) but not yours?Where did I say that I disagree with that? My position is, as I said in>>18357743, that cherbum is "just a word for what we call angels in English". My point is that they're angels, you're not positing something here that's different from what I am saying.>True or False, songs and poems can be literal.To my knowledge there actually isn't a single example in the entire Bible of a literal song or poem. Metaphor was a universal feature of Hebrew poetry so far as all the examples in the Bible go. >Jews (the sect Jesus and Paul were nearest to, the Pharisees) believe in the oral and written Torah and both have divine authority using similar reasoningI think we're having a disconnect here. Can you explain what exactly you mean by "similar reasoning" and "that same reasoning"? My position is that it's good historical practice to use writings from individuals close to a man as historical sources for that man. Or men - hence the Apostolic Circle and what they say about the Apostles.>Why isn't he symbolically bound and restrained?He is - there's no binding or restraint literally on him like chains or harnesses or such.>Prove it.Let's propose World B. In World B, there are no active sprites. How does World B look different from our world?It doesn't. In our world we do not observe sprites taking any sort of action. Observationally our world is identical to World B.We have historical sources from the time that explicitly note that spiritual activity has stopped or been reduced. The first-century writer Plutarch for example has an entire book on this at https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/De_defectu_oraculorum*.html.
>>18359284>They were only really incorrect about there being no resurrection.Just saw that you said this. Are you sure you want to hold onto that position?
>>18359417By "really" I mean "in general". They were incorrect that there are none at all, though accurate in that they are very rare. Just not _SO_ rare as to be nonexistent.More accurate than, say, Muhammad, who has you perform a ritual every time you enter a latrine to protect yourself from them and every night to keep them from taking your possessions or children. And I ask again: what is a theft or a kidnapping a Jinn has performed? Especially among nonbelievers this should be prevalent since they don't perform Muhammad's protection rituals against Jinn. But we see no sign whatsoever of this leading to any issues.
>>18359415>in the Catholic sense Then in what sense because what you said is pretty much "reliable teachings handed down from the Apostles">just a word for what we call angels in EnglishThey are a type of angel not just a word that means angel. You do realize those are not the same positons right?>To my knowledgeWhich is based on subjective presupposition? How do you know that every song and poem is not literal. Also you didn't answer with True or False like I did.>My position is that it's good historical practice to use writings from individuals close to a man as historical sources for that man.Great and they do that too. But only you are magically right of course.>there's no literal binding or restraintThen he's free to do literally anything he wants. What is the nature of this binding and restraint?>Let's propose World B.We already went over this. You can tweak this faulty reasoning in many ways. Satan doesn't exist at all because a world without him will look no different than one where he exists and he is locked up using your logic. >By "really" I mean "in general". They were incorrect that there are none at all, though accurate in that they are very rare. Just not _SO_ rare as to be nonexistent.No, see pic. If you're going to complain about Hebrews then Job 25:3 asks rhetorically, "Is there any number of his armies?" implying they cannot be counted since they are that numerous
>>18359529>what you said is pretty much "reliable teachings handed down from the Apostles"Yes, where there's strong historical evidence for such a thing, I take it into account. Strong historical evidence for this is essentially exclusively found in the writings of the Apostolic Circle.>They are a type of angel not just a word that means angel...So it's like I said: it's just an angel.>Which is based on subjective presupposition? How do you know that every song and poem is not literal. I've read the Bible, I can't recall a single instance of a literal poem or song. I can't find any instances of one believed to be either, looking for one. Do you know of any?>Great and they do that too. They really, really don't. There's nothing like a "Circle of Moses" which are non-Biblical writings from Moses' disciples and their own disciples talking about Moses and what he said. >Then he's free to do literally anything he wants.You've cut off my quote. There's no physical object on him which keeps him from action, like a binding or restraint. >We already went over this.Yes, it's already been demonstrated that this is an unanswerable problem. Our world looks exactly like a world where Muhammad is wrong. If Jinn were stealing objects or children, our universal theft and kidnapping investigations and ubiquitous camera coverage would have detected this. Shooting stars turned out to be miniscule particles barely above earth's surface on a cosmic scale or predictable comets going around in an orbit, not missiles shot at Jinn to keep them from hearing what's going on in heaven. Donkeys and roosters have no senses that allow them to detect something we can't. No snake ever collected has ever turned out to be a Jinn. No bones or dung show signs of being eaten by a Jinn. No tracks from Jinn are ever seen.The more information we get the more we see Muhammad is dead wrong about Jinn. You are reduced to tu quoque instead of even attempting to mount a defense on this point.
>>18359529>>18359570>Satan doesn't exist at all because a world without him will look no different than one where he exists and he is locked up using your logic.Not so, we can look at historical evidence and demonstrate Satan's existence. Take a look at https://books.google.com/books?id=4SsMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false.The Karen tribe in Burma appear to be the people group who best remembered Genesis and the true God, besides the Hebrews. They were thousands of miles away and had no contact. Yet, they too told of how the entire world and everything in it was originally made by a single perfect creator, who they called Y'wa (or Ya-pe according to National Geographic at https://books.google.com/books?id=G3VIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301#v=onepage&q&f=false). Including the first humans were were placed in a garden and told not to eat of one tree. But the king of evil spirits (who they call Mu Kaw Li) in the form of a serpent tempted them into eating of it, bringing death, sickness, and aging into the world.Two independent accounts like this, thousands of miles away by the Karen and the Hebrews, provide evidence for Satan's existence.>No, see pic. By rare I mean rare on Earth. These conversations would go much better if you attempted to actually converse and interpreted words in good-faith rather than trying to find any nuance that might possibly be incorrect.I also reject the book of Hebrews as canon since no one in the Apostolic Circle vouches for it btw
>>18359570> exclusively found No evidence of this. And again you aren't saying pretty much anything different from them.>So it's like I said: it's just an angel.Oh my not again. When you're being dishonest you immediately try to pull off this bullshit. "Apple being a type of fruit" is not the same as saying "Apple is just a word that means fruit">I've read the BibleSo have I. Everything I have posted is literal even according to sources you trust.> "Circle of Moses"There's Moses' seat and it's held by the Pharisees/Rabbinical Jews. That authority is accepted by Jesus so why not you? >There's no physical object on him which keeps him from action, like a binding or restraint.You said these bindings and restraints are not literal. Even if they were made of magical spirit stuff they are still not literal and thus he is only symbolically bound and restrained.>Yes, it's already been demonstrated that this is an unanswerable problem.Funny how I have refuted your fallacious nonsense from multiple angles then.>tu quoqueAs I have said multiple times this is how your mangod argues in the bible. If it's enough to get you to worship him then it's enough to make my point.
>>18359591>Two independent accounts like this, thousands of miles away by the Karen and the Hebrews, provide evidence for Satan's existence.We can make these kind of connections between every tradition, pagans for example have very similar ideas about their gods. Guess according to your logic they must exist too lol. Your argument also literally rests on the idea that he has absolutely zero effect on reality as if he doesn't exist. Not that he never existed at all. It's also possible that he never existed but these fake ideas were spread by an angel for the greater good or whatever. Literally infinite amount of possibilities that can explain the same data.>By rare I mean rare on Earth. At this point you're just moving the goalpost. First it was the Saducees being correct in all but one thing, then it was just generally correct once you found out they believed angels did not exist. And now this. Prove to me that angels are rare on Earth. Many fell with Satan did they not? Also people using both tradition and your scripture from the largest denomination of Christianity believe in this.>"From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession.202 "Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life."203 Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God." - https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM>202 Cf. Mt 18:10; Lk 16:22; Pss 34:7; 91:10-13; Job 33:23-24; Zech 1:12; Tob 12:12.>203 St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium III, I: PG 29, 656B.Cameras all over the place but no proof of this? How bro?>I also reject the book of Hebrews as canonI know that's why I gave you Job as a backup. Doesn't change the fact that Hebrews exists in your bible and reflects ideas found elsewhere in your canon.
>>18359669>No evidence of this.If you know of some sort of strong evidence for what the Apostles taught that isn't in the writings of the Apostolic Circle, I'm all ears.>"Apple being a type of fruit" is not the same as saying "Apple is just a word that means fruit"You're becoming pointlessly pedantic now. Look at back at the first post that led to that line of discussion: >>18357493. The argument was that "Leviathan and Behemoth and Cherubim and...daimones" "all come from prior superstitious paganism". I replied pointing out that leviathans and behemoths are just animals, daimones are just spirits, and cherubs are just angels. All organic parts of Abrahamic religion. >Everything I have posted is literal You're simply re-asserting your position without furthering the argument for it. Revelation *itself* says that the visions are symbolic and describes what some are symbolic specifically of. >There's Moses' seatThat's a position of authority, not a source of information.>thus he is only symbolically bound and restrainedIn the literal sense those are physical objects and physical actions one would do to another. Revelation 20:3 interprets this for us, as Revelation often does: "to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore". Satan is currently kept from deceiving the nations, bindings or restraints, physical objects, are symbolic of that. Visions are, as their name suggests, visions: picture Satan as a great dragon that's chained up as in this passage and you have a mental picture of what's going on with him.>I have refuted your fallacious nonsense from multiple anglesYou have not in the slightest. You barely even talk about it. If:-Shooting stars = missiles at jinn-Jinn steal stuff and snatch kids-Animals scream because they see them-Jinn are constantly around bathrooms to make mischief-Etc.Then the modern world should look different than a world where none of that happens. It doesn’t.
>>18359669>it's enough to make my pointSo you're not denying that this is tu quoque. Do you know why tu quoque doesn't work? Because it has no bearing on the truth of your position. You are at absolute best arguing that I am just as wrong as you are. That has nothing to do with you being correct. You're forced into this line of reasoning because Muhammad's teachings are fundamentally indefensible: these do not happen. Jinn do nothing he said they do. The protection prayers do nothing. Someone who knows the protection prayers do nothing and the spirits Muhammad warned about aren't actually harming anybody can only be described as a fool if he then turns around and prays to a spirit Muhammad said to pray to in order to keep that spirit from burning them forever.Allah's burning you forever if you stop following Muhammad's instructions is as much a concern as Jinn snatching your children if you don't follow Muhammad's instructions. This is obvious, but you refuse to speak about it and have to pull out tu quoque after tu quoque, which amounts to attempting to change the subject.>pagans for example have very similar ideas about their godsThey really don't. This would be like if in the Amazon they had a deity called Thor who wielded a short-hafted hammer and battled a great serpent in a fishing boat. Same name, same events, same details, but geographically zero connection. You simply do not see this.>Your argument also literally rests on the idea that he has absolutely zero effect on reality...In the present. He's effectively like any other historical figure from the past: had effects in their day, but no longer. Same with Mark Antony or Abraham Lincoln. Satan will just come back and resume having effects a bit sooner than either of them.>but these fake ideas were spread by an angelUndefeatable deceivers like this, or we're in the Matrix, or brains in vats, or dreaming, or Boltzmann brains etc. are universal defeaters for all observational data.
>>18359673>you're just moving the goalpostOnly if you interpret my words in bad-faith with the least charitable interpretations conceivable. Word-twisting like you always do of the "it's an inclusive 'or', look at this Substack" level. I know, and knew loooong before this thread, what the Sadducees taught anon. >Prove to me that angels are rare on Earth.I would simply present the World B scenario once again.And historically, the fact that there was a major group of well-informed individuals arguing seriously that they did not exist is strong evidence that they were not common. One cannot argue that the commonly observed is not observed.>Cameras all over the place but no proof of this? How bro?Because they're wrong? Once again: I'm not a Catholic. I'm a Protestant, I think the Vatican is wrong about many, many things. This is like me quoting the Nahj Al-Balagha to you. Would this be a strong argument to you or would you just roll your eyes?>I know that's why I gave you Job as a backupFrom Bildad's poem - Bildad wasn't a prophet, it's merely recording his words. But that's neither here nor there since the population of angels isn't of relevance, the issue is how frequently they are active on Earth. When I said they are rare, I was referring to here on Earth.
>>18359715> I'm all earsno lmao you simply reject all strong evidence as evil liberal conspiracies, remember?>The argument was that "Leviathan and Behemoth and Cherubim and...daimones" "all come from prior superstitious paganism"And he's right, all of these things are found in other middle eastern cultures much older than the bible. Someone operating under a purely naturalistic paradigm will logically conclude this. We have a way to explain this historical fact and you don't because for you don't believe in universal revelation to all people groups, just the super special Israelites + a few prophets here and there like Balaam. The only reason I even engaged on this point is because of how blatantly wrong you are there about Cherubim. I could pick up the rest of his points too but I can already foresee how you'll cope with convenient symbolism, historical denial, etc like you've been doing all along. Not interested in more of the same lmao> furthering the argument for itwut? I gave the reasoning from your source previously why it must be literal and you refused to refute him>not a source of informationThey are a source of information because Jesus says to follow everything they teach you.> Satan is currently kept from deceiving the nationsYes only symbolically with absolutely not physical spiritual voodoo chains made of purely divine Christian love, not literally. Furthermore that just restricts him (and only him) from one thing at best, not his movements on Earth in general.>should lookNo argument for your opinion.>you're not denyingOf course I am but there's no reason to go in all that. I am showing you your hypocrisy just like Jesus did. There's no way to convince someone as stubborn as you with reasoning, already did that but you'll just cover your eyes and stick to your guns anyway. Best thing to do with such a person is turn it their way.
>>18360146>Same nameYou literally admitted that they don't call him by the same name Mu Kaw Li is not Satan bro... As usual insonsistent standards for your faith vs the rest. But you are also wrong here because a lot of the times they do actually share in these things. Take for example PIE religions, see pic.>In the present. Great so Satan not existing at all currently is just as much of a valid conclusion to your falacious "argument", meaning it "proves" both X AND NOT X at the same time. Do you remember what we call this?>UndefeatableThat's because the foundations of your worldview are weak. Anyone with a sane epistemology can easily refute them. >the least charitable interpretations conceivableIf I were trying to do that believe me I would not be giving you these mainstream positons from both secular and judeochristian sources. And as for your words specifically I am just holding you to them. It's okay if you make a mistake and have to later retract because nobody is perfect beside God. What isn't okay is how whenever you're caught suddenly words have different meanings and you change your own standards and statements midway. Just admit you were wrong and I will forget about it. I am not that cruel promise.
>>18360151>Because they're wrong? You haven't explained why. You're making a strawman of their position, as if they are just pulling all of this out of their ass and not directly referencing scripture and Christian tradition. Many of which you also accept so it's not even analogous in the slightest. I also think they are wrong on many things but that doesn't mean here they have no justification for their position here.>it's merely recording his words. So you're saying he is wrong? because if so then Job doesn't agree with you "What advice you have offered to one without wisdom! And what great insight you have displayed! Who has helped you utter these words? And whose spirit spoke from your mouth?" This is directly his reply in Job 26. We can see that he was so amazed at his insight he basically assumed him to have been a prophet with greater wisdom than himself.>When I said they are rare, I was referring to hereAnd that's another goalpost move. Now they are numerous but only in the heavens and nowhere else. Despite in your belief Satan taking a bunch of them with him. Which is fine because now you have to accept that the final prophet was truthful when he said pic rel. 2 Kings 6:16-17 shows us that they are numerous on Earth when supporting believers. Psalm 68:17 specifically talks about the chariots and it says there "are tens of thousands and thousands of thousands". Prove to me that these invisible beings are now restricted from interracting with the Earth. Satan being locked up or not has nothing to do with it so don't cope with that. The fact is they are all over the place and constantly interfere despite being invisible regularly
>>18360146>Yes only symbolically with absolutely not physical spiritual voodoo chains made of purely divine Christian love, not literally. Furthermore that just restricts him (and only him) from one thing at best, not his movements on Earth in general.To further support this point the bible says Satan deceives through miracles. So if we assume these purely symbolic and intangible magical chains only stop him from doing that, it still doesn't explain why he and the rest of the demons and angels cannot roam Earth anymore in the vast quantities the bible describes. It only stops the lies (the bible teaches God himself will pick up the slack anyway) he can perform. One such lie would be when he and his servants shapeshift 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 Since he cannot do that anymore we should be seeing demons in their full daemonic form all over the place with all the available cameras we have. They would still be allowed to do Luke 8:2 where 7 of them enter someone to cause disease. And when these spirits wander the deserts after they leave their host Luke 11:24–26 they come back in even greater numbers to the same person. We don't even need satellite footage of demons in the desert, we should be expecting them whenever we find a sick person so home and hospital cameras should be enough. 1 Peter 5:8 says the devil "prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" no deception necessary. It's also not only him doing it, later on it says "the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings" so we can safely assume this behavior is present in all the other daemons. It requires no displays of signs and wonders at all. The only types that are possibly affected are like the python spirits (read the Greek it says pneuma Pythona) predicting the future in Acts 16:16-18 which are pagan Greek legends stolen from tales of Delphi oracles anyway https://www.britannica.com/topic/Python-Greek-mythology
>>18360210Christian commentaries also speak about this idea, pic rel for example has has no problem in saying that the Apollo deity associated python spirit was ravaging the classical world until Paul stopped it. I know he's not your pope but he's a weird heretic like you and he has beliefs that line up with yours way better than the guy you referenced a while ago. He is the type that believes "the 1000 years does not begin in AD 30 or way off in our future. It begins in AD 70 right after the events at the end of chapter 19." and "this is an actual imprisonment of Satan (though not all his angels) in a maximum security prison in the heart of the earth", also doesn't think the 1000 years is literal just like you despite saying "I tend to take most things in this book fairly literally". So we can take two things from this, he still had to admit that Satan's angels are free to do whatever anyway. And also you all are literally just interpreting things out of your ass with no rhyme nor reason. The default even for him is a literal understanding as I am saying. Later on says>My view is that Satan was vigorously at work on earth all the way up to AD 70. He was probably even training replacements for himself so that his work would continue. So it is still appropriate to speak of Satan's kingdom since his officers continue to be at work. They represent Satan. So I still speak of Satan when referring to his demons.- https://biblicalblueprints.com/Sermons/New%20Testament/Revelation/Revelation%2020/Revelation%2020_1-3And that raises a fair point, even if he was locked up why didn't Satan plan for all this? Nothing in the bible says the other demons are locked up with him in any sense of the word. But even if they were I would expect using your logic that there would be satanic documents or artifacts for the human beings that are supposed to continue his work. He had to be extremely thorough to make sure his plan would work in the long run, otherwise it would make zero sense
>>18360146>>18360151>>18360155>>18360210>>18360243Look at what's going on here. Five full-length posts. But not a single one of them even attempts to answer the question this thread is actually about: Jinn. My post put it bluntly. You even replied to this post but deliberately skipped this:"You barely even talk about it. If:-Shooting stars = missiles at jinn-Jinn steal stuff and snatch kids-Animals scream because they see them-Jinn are constantly around bathrooms to make mischief-Etc.Then the modern world should look different than a world where none of that happens. It doesn’t."Can you respond to this with something besides tu quoque, or can you not? Clearly it's not because you worry about running out of space.The response, I'm certain, is just going to be more tu quoque. But that only serves to prove exactly what OP is saying: the belief in these things is indefensible. That is why you want to spend five posts on tu quoque but avoid this direct point like the plague.
>>18360422>nooo please don't show how much of a hypocrite I am using Jesus' own methodology!Yes 5 full posts you can never refute. Why would I talk about the same things I already directly addressed the way you like in the past? Back when you were larping as an atheist and could successfully run away from all these issues. Now you can't and there's no way out for you. The funniest thing is whenever the OP was something completely unrelated you would still change the topic numerous times so you have no right to complain. Eye for an eye, remember? I am also being extremely generous to you, I asked you to give me evidence of your central claim about world B right now despite the obvious flaws in your fallacious argument. As usual whenever backed into a corner you have to run to Islam and pretend nothing happened, classic christcuck apologist. I have already proven judeochrstians like you believe in everything said there numerous times. And that your particular cope solution doesn't help you in the slightest, especially when considering that many of the salaf believe they are a tribe of angels and now you have to denounce their existence too. It is sufficient for me to make you shoot yourself in the foot. It's so bad now you have to call yourself a Sadducee who is embarrassed by the fact his texts speak of magic pagan Greek spirits ahahaha. One step closer to complete disbelief now that you're abandoning the idea of angels too. What's next on the chopping block, the afterlife? If you want me to directly address it again then concede the "argument" destroys your heretical religion and not just general Christianity like you did in the past. Do that and I won't mention any bible or church tradition in my replies. Don't and well nothing changes from my approach. It's your choice. Until then...
>>18360726> 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” - Mark 16Why no camera evidence of Christians driving out demons and being immune to snake bites and all other poison?? where's the magical healing and new languages bro? One particular demon out of an uncountable amount being locked by incorporeal mystical Christian energy chains doesn't stop any of this. It says these signs will accompany believers and there are billions of believers. As Paul says this is a sign for you, because everyone else looking inside will think you're a bunch of lunatics lmao. But he also says there are signs for us so go ahead and show me an example of a real Christian prophecy beside nonsensical stuff like Rabbis walking on clouds in 66AD. Matthew 7:22 says many will do this until the end of time and for that to make sense then it must be speaking about the people of today too.
>>18360726>>18360729>Why would IBecause that is the topic of the thread. You joined a thread about Jinn and responded to me talking about Jinn. Hence a conversation about Jinn.My claim, repeated several times now, is simple:If what Muhammad says about Jinn is true, then the world we live in should look noticeably different from a world in which Jinn do none of those things.Muhammad says:-Jinn steal things from your house unless you do certain rituals-Jinn snatch children at night-Jinn haunt bathrooms-The noises of ordinary animals are explained by them seeing jinn-Some animals are Jinn, kill them-Shooting stars are projectiles fired at spying JinnGiven that picture, with security cameras, satellites, forensics, 24/7 surveillance in cities, hospitals, nurseries, etc., we would see this. Cameras and increased information flow should have been Islam's ultimate vindication as the existence of Jinn becomes undeniable.Instead, we have a world we see none of that happen. Ever.So I keep asking you one question: if Muhammad's Jinn teachings are true, why does our world look exactly like a world where they don’t exist or don’t do any of that?And every single time, you swerve into "well, I think you'd be wrong too". That is textbook tu quoque.Your deal offer is essentially open admission that Jinn cannot be defended. You said: >If you want me to directly address it again then concede the "argument" destroys your heretical religion This all but admits that this argument defeats Muhammad's teachings with the force of a nuclear bomb, since the only counterplay is to try to go for mutually assured destruction. That only happens against unstoppable weaponry. Theological positions like Preterism vs. Futurism or Protestantism vs. Catholicism are things that we can't directly probe with observational data in the here and now. Muhammad's claims about Jinn are. And we see directly: they are false.
>>18360974>So I keep asking you one question: if Muhammad's Jinn teachings are true, why does our world look exactly like a world where they don’t exist or don’t do any of that?His teachings are true, you just lack insight.
>>18360726>>18360729And look, this is just me talking to you, not even using my Jinn arguing name. This isn't some sort of you vs. me thing. This man, Muhammad, has put you on the wrong spiritual path. It's not your fault, I'm sure others told you he should be trusted long before you were able to question it. But its got you imprisoned.Look at the world. You can see that he's just not right about this. His claim that we can most clearly test, that should have been powerful vindication for Islam, and the more we see the less it fits with the world, to the point of embarrassment.At the very least, don't go down hardcore Islam's path. Don't wait until the next world to see that just as all his warnings about Jinn and what they'll do to you if you don't follow his instructions are nothing in this world, all his warnings about what would happen to you in the next world if you don't follow his instructions are nothing.You don't have to keep following his map - at the next fork in the road, explore on your own. Keep growing spiritually, but not the way he wants you to. You've reached a place where you can see that he wasn't always as right as he wanted to think he was. Keep the growth you got, but branch out. You can be more free. Even if that only means something like rejecting the hadith and going Koran-only, it will be a freer spiritual path.I genuinely want to see that for you man. If I ever seem passionate in these discussions it's because I hate to see anyone restrained like the hadiths' grip restrains you on your path. There must be some key that opens the lock to set you free to explore. And I think - I hope...this is it.
>>18360974NTA but the fact that you seriously think your belief in angels and spirits is so much more credible and worthy of serious consideration than the Islamic belief in djinn that it goes without saying is hilarious. You are literally more superstitious than rural Persians were 200 years ago. You are far more childish and fantastical in your sincere beliefs than the average Comanche before Columbus.
>>18361023Can you summarize my position on angels and spirits? Steelman it when you do so, please.
>>18360974>Because that is the topic of the thread.And I have already pointed out that you never respected this when I told you to stick on point in the past. I am extending the same courtesy to you as I have always done. If you want me to engage on your terms then it's simple. Admit your faulty reasoning destroys your particular interpretation of Christianity. You already did that with the other flavors of your faith so you're really close. I am not going to address you as an atheist when I know you hold onto these teachings and you think they can withstand the same type of scrutiny. Either drop the teachings and become any type of non-Christian or admit you're shooting yourself in the foot.>the only counterplay is to try to go for mutually assured destruction.Nope I addressed it in other ways prior to me knowing that you were a Christian and even after so clearly that doesn't follow. Just do that one thing and then I'll engage your way. Do that and then I will leave your faith alone. And for a smooth experience do try and steelman my position as you've requested from the other guy. Don't try to insert your interpretation as you did when we were talking about the creation days.>things that we can't directly probe with observational data in the here and nowYes we absolutely can. The wine and bread you consume every Sunday doesn't become actual human blood and flesh as the bible describes. Christians can't perform miracles involving angels/demons or otherwise. And so on. There's nothing exceptional about Christian doctrines that make the immune from the same kind of empirical testing you're proposing. Also don't forget the Sadducee rejected demons despite Jesus casting them out in front of their very eyes and being surrounded by angels Matthew 4:11
>>18361448>This isn't some sort of you vs. me thing.No you're right, it's you vs mainstream religions in general lol. And I am not even talking about the "Abrahamic" ones here. But you have a particular hatred for Islam for some reason. It's a very weird thing to see from online Christians, especially when considering atheism is by far the biggest ideological challenge you face when looking at the statistics.>Even if that only means something like rejecting the hadith and going Koran-only, it will be a freer spiritual path."Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you, until you follow their faith. Say, “Allah’s guidance is the only ˹true˺ guidance.” And if you were to follow their desires after ˹all˺ the knowledge that has come to you, there would be none to protect or help you against Allah." - Quran 2:120>There must be some key that opens the lock to set you free to explore. And I think - I hope...this is it.Well you're wrong. Challenges like these affect at best tertiary teachings of both religions at the same time. It does nothing for me but strengthen my convictions when I see cognitive dissonance in your replies. If you want me to become like you then attack the fundamental doctrines of the religion like the conception of monotheism we have, salvation mechanism, etc. I do the same when challenging your religion because that's what matters
>>18361448>>18361459You're making it increasingly explicitly now made it explicit you won't answer the Jinn question, the subject this thread is about. This thread is about Muhammad's testable claims claims about Jinn behaving like an everyday physical hazard: stealing household items, snatching kids at night, lurking in bathrooms, explaining routine animal noises, meteors as anti-Jinn measures. If that model were true, the modern world would look different in ways we could actually catch: theft/kidnapping investigations, nursery cams, home security, wildlife cams, hospital monitoring, animal ocular and neurological studies.Instead the world looks exactly like the world where none of that happens. No objects taken by Jinn. No special Jinn-receptive senses in animals. No kidnappings on nannycams where a Jinn takes a child. Nothing.You keep dodging: pick ONE observable thing Muhammad says Jinn do: utensil theft, child snatching, bathroom harassment, meteors as missiles, animals reacting because they see them, leaving tracks, eating dung and bones, coming in physical form and needing to be killed - anything - and give a specific, checkable example from the modern era.If you can't do that, if your only move is "well...you're wrong too", then you’re admitting the point: Muhammad's teachings about Jinn are in every way indistinguishable from false Medieval folklore. And if Muhammad's teachings are indistinguishable from fiction in the one area we can actually test, then trusting him about the untestable afterlife is the absolute height of foolishness. Notice where you want to take the conversation:>attack the fundamental doctrines of the religion like the conception of monotheism we have, salvation mechanismYou want to change the subject to something untestable, because ultimately such things are unfalsifiable. You can go back and forth on doctrines and philosophy forever and no one can definitively prove someone else wrong. But Jinn? Proven wrong daily.
>>18361448>>18361459>>18361515And here, let me offer an illustration of the differences here.I say that Preterist Christianity, which I believe in, doesn't have this issue. You respond by arguing that Preterism isn't a valid doctrine. Is there any observable, empirical data that could actually tell us who is correct on this point of text interpretation or doctrine? No. There isn't. We could debate the interpretation of texts for an eternity since words are infinitely malleable for someone who wants them to be. Even when I bring up historical evidence for Satan the prince of demons acting in the past, as you point out: that too can be debated endlessly and without a firm test we can't definitively establish who is correct.What we can test, and falsify, and examine is the present. And in the present, see no Jinn. We see no demons. In my opinion, that leaves no religion standing but mine: Preterist Christianity. Can we *directly* test if this is true, *observationally* and *experimentally*, in the present? No. Because it's a claim about history. But we can with Muhammad's claims about Jinn, which are claims about modern beings in the present.That's the difference here. You want to drag this into a bottomless pit of unfalsifiability, I want to focus on what we can actually definitively prove one way or the other.
>>18361572Doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. As I said I will continue answering it as if you are an atheist with no scripture to defend (like I used to when you didn't reveal your position) once you renounce your faith or admit that your silly argument is self-defeating.>ultimately such things are unfalsifiableOf course a Christian says this lmao, that's because deep down you too know your foundations are baseless and that they easily crumble once you poke them. This is why when pressed you people just repeat creedal statements without addressing anything. But all of this is beside the point, you can falsify your venom immunity right now. Just grab a particularly deadly snake and take no anti-venom. Survive that and then you have a case to make. In reality though this doesn't work, proving your scriptures to be full of falsehood. Imagine trusting your afterlife on such empty promises from people that likely never even met the man you call God>You respond by arguing that Preterism isn't a valid doctrineI do think it's pure ad hoc bullshit designed to save your religion from the obvious false prophecies in the new testament but that's not what I have been arguing for at all here. You have failed to steelman me for the question you're so obsessed about and you have failed again here. Even if 100% true Preterism does not save you from the other issues I have raised regarding Christian magical abilities and even the existence of angels and demons on Earth as the bible describes. No matter what form of it you take.
>>18361764>Is there any observable, empirical data that could actually tell us who is correct on this point of text interpretation or doctrine?Yes! You're saying a bunch of things predicted to happen in the end times already happened. Provide evidence for those and then you can prove that indeed. You just don't like it that your evidence is extremely flimsy.>words are infinitely malleableNo that only happens to people who redefine words mid sentence and believe actual logical contradictions can exist in the real world. But if that's how you feel, then there is nothing stopping someone from slapping on the convenient symbolism excuse to anything they don't like. Qadianis do that with Jesus' miracles in the Quran for example> that leaves no religion standing but mineGlad you finally dropped the part where you were defending Judaism. One more step and you're out of Christianity entirely too Sadducee bro. But here is the exact problem you still believe you are an exception, and you have absolutely no justification for that. At the very least you can prove me wrong by actually answering the objections brought forth and not just running away. Even the other people ITT can see how ridiculous you're being for having such different standards when it comes to angels/demons in Islam vs your extremely niche form of Christianity. And you just know that like you they have no love for muslims
>>18361764>>18361780And the answer is no. Nothing to defend Jinn. I think the fact you can only attempt to talk about the Bible is the ultimate vindication of OP's point.>you can falsify your venom immunity right nowI'm a Cessationist>and even the existence of angels and demons on Earth as the bible describesAngels only come when sent directly by God, and demons are gone. Most of the time an angel shows up in the Old Testament, it is God - that's most likely how the Sadducees rejected the existence of angels, despite their presence in the Torah, since they're more often than not God himself.Like arguable demon appearances, true angels show up in the Old Testament enough times to count on your hands. And that's across 5500 years of history in the Old Testament. So angels are extremely rare and come only when God directly commands, and demons are gone. >Provide evidence for those and then you can prove that indeed.In order to avoid bad-faith twisting that you always do (to the point that you've argued here I don't even know what the Sadducees are based on a single sentence), lay out a very clear, objective, & well-defined standard for meeting this and I am extremely confident that I can meet it. >No that only happens to people who redefine wordsAnon you spent dozens of posts trying to argue that an "or" is inclusive and were dredging up articles about "or" in symbolic logic. Here you've tried to mangle my words into me not knowing who the Sadducees are. I really mean this: out of all the people I've spoken to at any length, you are genuinely the #1 worst at word-twisting and bad-faith conversation.>Glad you finally dropped the part where you were defending JudaismI actually don't think this argument does refute Judaism, since a Jew could always adopt a Sadducee position. >you still believe you are an exception, and you have absolutely no justification for thatPreterist Christianity = no demons. Not complicated.
>>18361926I won't talk about your bible or your religion once you do what I have asked of you. >I'm a CessationistWhich type? In any case you affirm Jesus lied. Now the question is why did Irenaeus do so as well? He still believed people can speak in tongues, heal people, utter prophetic expressions, in his very day see pic. Also notice how he didn't say it was impossible to perform these things by "means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art" but only that Christians do it through the power of Jesus. It seems like he no longer was a student of John through Polycarp if he believed in these obviously false things right?>Angels only come when sent directly by God, and demons are gone. Most of the time an angel shows up in the Old Testament, it is God - that's most likely how the Sadducees rejected the existence of angels, despite their presence in the Torah, since they're more often than not God himself.Prove that demons are gone, prove that most of the time angels are God. And please do not try the angel of the Lord stuff or just claiming that demons are gone because satan (one demon) is symbolically locked up. All you did was just reassert your position. I want scripture and/or scholarly works not your opinion. Them being sent by him is irrelevant because as proven a while back they are tasked to protect believers like you.
>>18362369As for the Sadducees they rejected Jesus in his face as he was casting out demons and being surrounded by angels. The reason they rejected them is because they were materialists like you.>"2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, and in Providence: Their Materialism:The most prominent doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believed that Moses had delivered these doctrines to the elders, and that they had in turn handed them on to their successors. The Sadducees rejected all these traditions. From Acts (23:8) we learn that they believed in neither "angel or spirit." As appearances of angels are mentioned in the Law, it is difficult to harmonize their reverence for the Law with this denial. They may have regarded these angelophanies as theophanies. Josephus distinctly asserts (Ant., XVIII, i, 4) that the Sadducees believe that the soul dies with the body. They deny, he says, divine providence (BJ, II, viii, 14). Their theology might be called "religion within the limits of mere sensation." -https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/sadducees.html>lay out a very clear, objective, & well-defined standard Sure, but first lay out a very clear, objective, & well-defined creed that you hold to. You're being extremely deceptive with your position. I want to know exactly what you believe that is so different from them. In this very thread I asked you for satanic documents and artifacts so it would be in the same category. Something you can put under a microscope and say yep this is in agreement with what my religion teaches at the expense of all others.
>>18362373The problem is way worse for you because you have the NT to defend as well and we can clearly see that it couldn't have been your mangod because he was already incarnate when the angel of the Lord appeared. And you cannot invoke the other persons in the godhead without a lot of problems>are genuinely the #1 worst at word-twisting and bad-faith conversation.It's not my fault that I have to educate you on simple grammar and common word usage. You were the one asking me to prove it that way iirc so why are you complaining? And despite all that evidence presented you still didn't change your mind because you're that stubborn. This is how all interactions with you go. I demolish your claims then you ignore everything and jump to another topic.>a Jew could always adopt a Sadducee positionAnd a Muslim could always adopt the heretic Quranist cult you endorsed ITT. Guess your argument doesn't even claim to falsify Islam as a whole then too huh? That being said you affirmed their position was wrong in mutliple ways in this very thread too. You're making them switch from one bunch of serious errors to others far more dangerous to their faith. Congrats! it perfectly matches what you have done to your religion now that you almost completely deny angels and demons, miracles, etc>Preterist Christianity = no demonsahahahaha, this guy doesn't even know his own position. I have shown you multiple Preterist Christians who believe that demons are still active. Those that believe Satan was literally locked up till the end of time and his armies free to do anything to poor humans. And also those that believe in a literal 1000 years which is now over and the goes on to affirm everything else I have mentioned that is problematic for you.
>>18362369>>18362373Still nothing about Jinn. Still an insistence on tu quoque. Still insisting on trying to make the discussion about interpreting words rather than things we can actually prove wrong or right.Especially telling is this line of discussion:You:>you can prove that indeedMe:> lay out a very clear, objective, & well-defined standard for meeting this and I am extremely confident that I can meet it.You:>first lay out a very clear, objective, & well-defined creedNever an answer on anything for your perspective. Always trying to talk about the other person's position.Whenever it comes to something we can actually evaluate, even simply laying out criteria for something *you*, *yourself*, asked me to provide, it never comes. You refuse to talk about Jinn. You refuse to answer "OK, set out what will allow me to meet this, and I will meet it". Because the moment you try to engage in something where it isn't possible to go back and forth infinitely, where there's something that's actually objectively true or false that we can clearly determine - even just meeting some criteria I asked you to provide me for the challenge you issued - there won't be any way to stand.Anon, give me one of two things. Both if you can:1. An explanation on the Djinn Dilemma.2. "a very clear, objective, & well-defined standard for meeting" "Provide evidence for" "a bunch of things predicted to happen in the end times already happened". This is simply me asking you to lay out objective, well-defined criteria that I can meet. Defined them sufficiently that you can give a concrete example of something hypothetically meeting them, so that we can avoid "it's an inclusive 'or" or "you don't know what Sadducees are" word-twisting. Something that will make it objective, or close enough for the purposes of discussion.And stop saging your replies. You did this last time, and then - showing your constant bad-faith - ask "why didn't you reply?".
>>18362393>I demolish your claimsI claim Jinn do nothing that Muhammad said they do. Demolish that claim, please. That's what this thread is about.
>>18362393As for the possible implied an/the distinction this does not matter. It's just Christian hair splitting because this is their most important proof against Jews. Both are used for the same being here in the NT.
>>18362394Yep not doing it your way until you do one of the two things I have said. >asked me to provideThese are your standards that I am applying to you so obviously I need to know what you consider to be truth. Why can't you provide your beliefs for everyone to examine? We already know you're not an atheist so please spare me this bullshit tactic. You believe a Rabbi walked on clouds in 66AD you are not like them>why didn't you reply?Because you did have multiple hours to reply in every instance. Not like you would have since everything I ask you is ignored. Earlier you couldn't even answer a simple true or false question like I did for you. That shows dishonesty.>>18362398I have shown you throughout this thread that demons and angels in your book and your tradition do these things. Renounce your religion or admit your nonsense claim "refutes" your own faith
>>18362436>not doing it your way By this you mean "no, I will not attempt to mount a defense of Muhammad's teachings on Jinn". The absolute refusal to do so shows, more than I ever could, how indefensible they are.>so obviously I need to know what you consider to be truth. Why can't you provide your beliefs Alright. Here's one: the destruction of the Temple predicted in Luke 21 is that which took place in 70 AD.>Because you did have multiple hours to reply in every instanceWe're in different timezones, and I work full-time. Saging threads and then saying "haha you couldn't reply!" is the height of bad-faith practice.> demons and angels in your book and your tradition do these things.A) Tu quoque.B) Muhammad sees Jinn as a regular presence in life. Your donkeys are making noise because of them. You need to invoke protection from them since they frequent your latrines. Shooting stars are projectiles shot at them. They take objects and children and you must perform a nightly ritual to protect yourself from them. And much, much more. Whereas demons almost never show up in the entire 5500 year history of the Bible, only having an explosion of activity during the big events of the first century. You only see demons maybe - maybe - three or four times in the Old Testament. Less than once for every thousand years recorded.C) Under Preterism, they are gone now and have been since the first century. Whereas Muhammad portrays them very much as part of the modern world. It's like the difference between saying dinosaurs once lived, and that they live today.The cases are completely different.
>>18362436>>18362450And let me ask it this way anon. Given what Muhammad says about Jinn, the clear (even to you, I am sure) contradiction between that and what we actually see in the world, and your refusal to even try to defend him on this - even if you don't agree, do you see why this would, in my eyes, disprove Islam?
>>18357118I love this one so much like why did bro feel the need to write this down
And real quick note on >>18362393You speak of "Preterist Christians who believe that demons are still active". In my opinion, the greatest Preterist theologian is James Patrick Holding. And like he says at https://www.tektonics.org/af/fantasy.php, "my views as a preterist that Satan is bound (as are his 'diabolical hordes')". This is simply part of mainstream Preterist thought. Saying it isn't doesn't work. If someone disagrees, that's fine. But the position I hold is the one written there. This isn't just me saying this.
No by this I mean "do one of the two things I have said" and then I'll answer your way where your religion will not get the same scrutiny.> the destruction of the Temple predicted in Luke 21 is that which took place in 70 AD.Why would I ever deny this lol? You're aware it's one of the proof texts against your religion right? And that's because the grafting of the gentiles must have happened after 70AD and not when Paul was teachings as the parable of the wedding banquet and the parable of the tenants tell us. Someone else perfectly matches though, corner stone and all... Furthermore I am not even aware of another Christian group explicitly denying this. Anyone can take a trip to the Holy Land and see that it happened.>We're in different timezones, and I work full-time. Even if all that is true, you still could at least attempt to continue where we left off. This is what you have tried to do multiple times with me when things got too difficult for you. In this very thread you just drop conversations mid way and repeat yourself. So please stop lying it only make you look worse. Also why can't you ever be in a thread that is not so outright hostile? Imagine I forced you to bump a thread where your idea of the Holy Spirit was insulted left and right in the OP. Would you be okay with the unforgivable blasphemy you're promoting?
>>18362547>>18362477>A)No, it's the way Jesus argues in the bible. Are you saying his arguments suck?>B)So does Jesus, his disciples and parents, christian saints and church fathers, etc. You still didn't prove your claims about demons and angels. I showed you how your own apostolic tradition goes against you. It's not even just random Christians saying this, it's a guy you explicitly defended because the authenticity of your book rests on him receiving teachings directly from John. Are you saying even the disciples were blind to the revelation of James Patrick Holding?>C) Under Preterism, they are gone now Preterism isn't just you and your pastor Billy Bob from the bible belt's opinion. I need to know why your niche out of a very small niche is the right opinion. Even when it goes against extremely early reports from people you trust after Christian magic is supposed to have ended. >in my eyesObviously...But that's not the point of the argument nor why I am defending against it. I told you before that this is not for you. However you said you want me to "open the lock" so you have to convince me. Failing to address my arguments does not help with this in the slightest. I critiqued your line of reasoning from so many angles already and I just don't understand why you could ever think this helps me against the "hadiths' grip restrains you on your path"
>>18362556It can't be stressed enough I want to know how the author of John is worse of an interpreter of his own scripture Revelation than some guy 2000 years in the future who is seemingly a desperate materialist looking to keep people from leaving the religion
>>18362475This one's better
>>18362547You keep, in post after post, refusing to engage with the thread topic. You've been shown clearly many things Muhammad says Jinn do. And they fundamentally contradict our observations of the world.Canyou explainthis?You show, with every post, that the answer is "no".>Why would I ever deny this lol?Erm...alright, then what are you asking for exactly? I asked you to clarify and you just said "you first", then when I do so you say "I know". This is losing basic coherence at this point.>you still could at least attempt to continue where we left offNot if the thread dies because you're saging it. >In this very thread you just drop conversations mid wayI am refusing to go down rabbit holes to unfalsifiable questions of doctrine. I am insisting on sticking to things we can actually test and verify and cannot go around and around in circles forever on.That being Muhammad's most testable teaching in the here and now: Jinn. And it does not stack up. This beats Islam and you're showing it with every post. All that's left for you is to try and argue it beats other religions too. Which, in the case of Preterist Christianity, it cannot, because demons are effectively extinct according to it.The Djinn Dilemma definitively refutes Islam.Preterist Christianity has no equivalent Demon Dilemma.Ergo, Preterist Christianity wins here.
>>18362556>it's the way Jesus argues in the bibleYou're even going tu quoque when it's pointed out that this is just tu quoque. >So does Jesus, his disciplesThis is an unfalsifiable question of doctrine. We cannot observationally test this claim. Preterist Christianity posits that no, they do not. I will no go down rabbit holes on what is not observationally falsifiable or provable with you. This thread is about Jinn. We can observationally evaluate Muhammad's claims about Jinn today, right now, in the here and the now.>I need to know why your niche out of a very small niche is the right opinionCan you lay me out a clear, well-defined, objective standard for what would demonstrate this to you, and provide a concreate example of something which would hypothetically do so?>Obviously...this is not for youThen this is pretty much a done deal. You're agreeing here that unless someone starts off from the assumption that Islam is true, the Djinn Dilemma "obviously" makes it false in their eyes.>I just don't understand why you could ever think this helps meHonestly if this doesn't then I cannot conceive of something that could. This is direct observational contradiction of Muhammad's testable statements. No one who doesn't approach this from the perspective "Islam must be true, I must bend whatever information I learn towards that conclusion" would come away seeing it as anything else. And you're all but agreeing with me here on that.
>>18362565Nope! The answer is yes when you do one of the two things I asked of you.>Erm...alright, then what are you asking for exactly? I asked you to clarify and you just said "you first", then when I do so you say "I know".This is like implying that I am denying the existence of God as a muslim and then you point to me a part of the bible that says God exists... Like what? There's no reason for me to deny that at all lmao. How are you genuinely so slow? I want something that proves your position as opposed to the others within your religion.>Not if the thread diesArchives exist and you have shown the ability to use them. No excuses.>I am refusing to go downNo you're refusing to challenge your ideas and just repeating yourself like a broken radio.>Preterist Christianity has no equivalent Demon Dilemma.Except it does as I have shown all over the place. Not only does one demon being locked up do nothing for all the others, every other claim the bible makes about things beyond the material like talking donkeys when meeting angels "suffers" just as much
>>18362573>We cannot observation ally test this claim. We can if we read the bible. When Jesus was falsely accused to have claimed godhood for himself, did he point out that in the scripture the Pharisees believed in, they are called gods and so they are hypocrites just like you? It's an observable fact because it's written that way>Can you lay me out a clear, well-defined, objective standard for what would demonstrate this to you, and provide a concreate example of something which would hypothetically do so?Yes, show me where Irenaeus says there were no demons, angels and miracles on earth possible in his time. He was a student who according to you has a valid isnad to the author of John and Revelation so his opinion actually matters more than yours. And if you magically come up with something then he's contradicting himself and thus your authority is not reliable and your gospels fake news.>from the assumptionNope! You're the one presupposing your interpretation is authoritative lol>Honestly if this doesn't then I cannot conceive of something that couldOh well then lost cause for you I suppose if this is the best you've got against Islam. And it destroys your own religion if we stoop to your level of dishonesty. So then tough bro, luck I could never join your pagan faith
>>18362573>I want something that proves your position as opposed to the others within your religion.Here's one: the absence of demonic activity demonstrates that Revelation 20:2 has been fulfilled.>Except it doesThis is a matter of doctrinal opinion that we cannot directly and observationally examine. I will not go down rabbit holes to what cannot be observationally evaluated here.Note the difference. You are not saying "your position does not align with observations". You are saying "your position does not align with my preferred interpretation of religious texts". These are two extremely different claims. One we can evaluated with observations in the here and now and definitively show what is correct or incorrect, and the other we cannot: on interpreting texts infinite twisting is always possible. This is why you must go there. The unfalsifiable is the only retreat for falsehood.>>18362575>We can if we read the bible. That is not an observational test. That is an interpretation. We cannot, in the here and now, devise a test to see if your preferred interpretation or my preferred interpretation is the correct interpretation. >Yes, show me where Irenaeus saysDo you see? All along, this line of reasoning was a shell game. It comes back to wanting to interpret texts.>if this is the best you've got against IslamYou cannot even respond to it with anything besides a known, named logical fallacy. And you not only admit that but double and triple down on it.Since I found it works with you, I've been employing it more as a counter, and it does well. If a Muslim wants to go into an unfalsifiable abyss of interpretation vs. interpretation, I've learned this is the argument to use, and so far it works every time. >it destroys your own religionPreterist Christianity features no present sprites and so pointing out there are not present sprites cannot 'destroy' Preterist Christianity.
>>18362595>Here's one: the absence of demonic activity demonstrates that Revelation 20:2 has been fulfilled.The website you just linked says the bible isn't speaking about trivial demons being bound. So there are "present sprites"and thus even when you don't consider everything else that is an issue with your argument it is self-defeating.>"your position does not align with my preferred interpretation of religious texts". The observation is the plain reading of the text. With your logic we can no longer read anything because your "preferred interpretation" always obscures reality. If our sight is no longer to be trusted then what sense to you trust to convey the actual state of things?>That is not an observational test. That is an interpretationEvery test result is interpreted, it's literally part of the scientific method>comes back to wanting to interpret textsWhich is exactly what you're doing when posting hadith you do not like.>a known, named logical fallacyThose are your arguments bro, we went over this. Multiple ones too. I argue like biblical Jesus it's a fact
>>18362609What's the latrine in history most clearly haunted by Jinn, anon?>The website you just linked says the bible isn't speaking about trivial demons being bound.Do you see your constant, incessant word-twisting? He says there "this leaves us with the possibility of demonic powers of an exceptionally minor variety still being loose". This is the weakest possible statement on the position. He says elsewhere his own opinion is that they are not, as we saw, and at http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.php that "The "end times" in fact took place in the first century, and we await only resurrection and final judgment. Satan is bound and not tempting anyone or doing anything else. Theroetically, there may still be minor demons loose, but I'd ask for proof of that. (That there's evil in the world isn't good enough reason: Humans are quite competent at that.)">The observation is the plain reading of the text. You and I radically disagree on this issue, so by definition there is no "plain reading" in this context. It's interpretation, not observation.>Every test result is interpretedThere's a large difference between a test result that shows us definitively "X is seen", and saying what X being seen *means*. The former isn't up for interpretation: an observation is an observation. This is the sense in which I speak.And on this subject, what test result can we interpret as supporting Jinn stealing objects at night?>Which is exactly what you're doing when posting hadith you do not like.Quite the contrary: I love these hadith, they are my favorites.>I argue like biblical JesusCan you point me to a single time in the Bible where someone is denying that something exists, as we are with Jinn, and Jesus responds with a tu quoque?
>>18362573I have to leave soon but look. Your only move for 20+ posts has been “well you believe in angels/demons too!!”, even when the differences here have been explained in detail.If your prophet is this catastrophically, observationally, embarrassingly wrong about something we can check with cameras and crime stats… why on earth would you trust him about things we can't check?Every day you’re betting your eternal soul on a guy who thought your donkeys were panicking at the invisible sprites out to snatch your kids at night and that meteors are Allah shooting them.And you have nothing to say except “but the Bible tho.”That is surrender to OP's point. Muhammad made repeated, falsifiable, everyday claims about an entire parallel species that is allegedly more active than houseflies. The 21st century looked at those claims and said “lol no.” And you, despite having genuinely several dozen posts to do so, have not even attempted to begin to defend this idea.Islam lost to Ring cameras and baby monitors. Not one nanny-cam kidnapping by a Jinn by a foolish kafir who didn't heed Muhammad's warning. Not one stolen wallet at night by someone who didn't say their du'a. Not one latrine haunting. Zero. If you want to continue believing him despite *knowing* that Muhammad's warnings are proven to have virtually no correspondence with reality whatsoever, that's on you.
>>18362627He admits that minor demons can exist in your worldview and are free to roam around to be detected by "ring cameras and baby monitors". But he doesn't even use that as a standard of evidence, he explicitly says that accounts of reputed events are good enough. Earlier you admitted that there is plenty of that going on in all the world's religions except yours. This was when you said they "remembered the times of demons". And we know that it has not ceased at all because "Even today" they hold these beliefs and report their existence. The Christian standard of evidence is so low that now you have no choice but to accept them. What's the most damning thing though is that he says explicitly that the bible doesn't even speak against what I am saying and that on the contrary their existence has scriptural support in the two points he listed in that pic. Therefore your version of Christianity also teaches the existence of active sprites and your religion is deboonked using your flimsy logic.>by definition there is no "plain reading"Okay then, there is no plain reading here too. What you're actually saying is that you agree with me 100%. It's symbolic you see, and yes there are many layers of christian-tier mental gymnastics proving my point. So just like you I am free to change the meaning of words and insert my own head canon. >There's a large difference between a test result that shows us definitively "X is seen", and saying what X being seen *means*. Yep, we see the same reality and interpret it differently. My meaning is in the plain sense because it is the universal one found in all cultures across all times. Only you are the exception. Not even the "greatest Preterist theologian" agrees with you. If he did then you too would say that it is possible for all these minor entities to roam around freely to be caught on camera.
>>18362747>Can you point me to a single time in the Bible where someone is denying that something exists and Jesus responds with a tu quoque?Matthew 7:3-5 The accusers do not notice their own flaws (effectively denying they exist) then Jesus says that their victim's flaws are nothing when compared to their own. He's calling them hypocrites for failing to meet their own standard and in such a pathetically bad way too. Exactly as I am doing to you bro. So Jesus has shit argumentation skills according to your reasoning because he didn't immediately start defending the speck in their neighbors eyes.>virtually no correspondence with reality whatsoeverHowever flying Rabbis walking on clouds, talking donkeys in the bible, young earth creationism, christian healing powers and language skills as reported By Irenaeus (the guy who supposedly has a direct line to the author of Revelation so he is an authority on interpretation) Absolutely correspond to reality, the only problem is that reality only exists in your head. Your esteemed theologian believes it is very possible for the roaming active sprites to do the same things pagan Delphi oracles were doing. Just on a smaller scale because they weren't major demons like the ones larping as Apollo
