Who are your favorite christian and muslim apologists that you like to listen to while having breakfast?
>>18587480He looks evil.
>>18587480But I lack belief in breakfast...
>>18587573He's nice, I sometimes listen to him, as a muslim. He's known for popularizing the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). You may have heard of it, simply it's the assertion that a contingent existence must have a beginning, and through a deductive (and inductive) syllogism it would follow that a necessary entity is the ontological necessity for it.It's a 'strong' if you combine it with the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) for the epistomology side. But these are just memorized insightful arguments people use.Fun to think about though.
>>18587613Un-insightful, i meant.>>18587599But breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It's empirically and anecdotally proven. It makes a man grow tall, broad and wise. Your mother said as much, but you didn't listen. Now look at you.
James White
>>18587624Ah he's that calvinist guy, right? Interesting. I've been looking into John Calvin's actual positions, and how they contrast with armenianists and molinists. I think superficially, they're similar to our schools of theology; ashari, mutazili and maturidi (and athari)
>>18587624I find him really lackluster. He can never really nail his opponent and land a knockout blow. His arguments feel like sock 'em boppers where they never land with any real force against whoever he is talking toI prefer people like GodLogic who are out for blood
>>18587646>I think superficially, they're similar to our schools of theology; ashari, mutazili and maturidi (and athari)In the same sense a nine year old is superficially similar to a grown woman but Muhammad plunged his peen anyway
>>18587674Would Jesus disapprove?
>>18587696Yes, it isn't even possible for Muhammad to have had natural sex with her without pain, nine years olds physically cannot fit a grown man's genitals
>>18588038No, he agrees wholeheartedly. Within your framework, Jesus Christ is a moral exemplar, an omniscient God and the source of all Good.Yet in the Hebrew Bible he commands abject immorality, e.g, Numbers 31 has commands involving the killing of all captives including young boys, but peculiarly about preserving young virgin girls, who would be mere kids as war booty. What could you do with these child war-captives? You can rape them according to Deuteronomy 21 after you shave their heads. (affirmed by rabbinic sources like Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud). Likewise, another example is Hosea 13 and Psalms 137 which depict extreme gruesome violence against children. You could appeal to historical circumstances, or cry presentism. But that would be conceding that moral understanding is not timeless. In the 1st century, child-marriages occurred at puberty/menses, it was normative across both Jewish and Roman societies. This is not a controversial claim. Ezekiel 16 was the foundational verse for these types of child-marriages. Even in the New Testament, Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 (guided by the holy spirit) ties marriage to puberty. This is later inherited by the Christian Church set-up by Apostle Peter, which sets the canon-law age at 12 years old for girls. This is deeply unsettling.Now, here's the problem. In the Gospel of Matthew 19, Jesus discusses marriage, divorce, and other trivial normative moral stuff. Yet he says nothing, even implicitly, that challenges or prohibits child marriages (he's not a stranger to it). Even though other lesser moral issues are explicitly addressed. If he was truly God, morally perfect, with omniscience and foreknowledge he could say one statement to expunge this imminent evil practice. His silence is therefore an issue, seeing that he had established jewish child-marriage laws himself. Either these practices were not morally wrong in an absolute sense, which is contradictory to what you're claiming.
>>18588051>>18588038Or they were wrong, but not addressed. Which i would pressure, why? Why is this imminent threat to children never articulated, if less severe issues are addressed directly by him (trivial shit like "don't gossip" in the epistle of James). Why is Jesus so nonchalant and indifferent over this urgent harm to children? His foreknowledge as God informs him the church canon-law would carry forth for a long time.Or the most interesting implication, that the Moral teaching in your scripture is partly conditioned on historical context.Then through what principle do you decide which biblical norms are timeless and which merely cultural? Because you already do this when grappling with difficult passages like Numbers 31 or Hosea 13. The question is whether you can consistently apply this across all moral issues?>matthew 19:14children refers to the believers/christians, not children, but I'll grant your texual hermeneutics anyway. People didn't see it as exploitation of children. That's the whole point. It's presentism to feel this way. It was normative custom that post-pubescent girls were just women, and the institution of child-marriage was just called..marriage. Jesus didn't fix this, despite living amongst Hebrews. This is very problematic. If your moral authority knowingly operates within a system that includes practices you consider deplorable, and he does not challenge them. Then we have to ask, does this silence reflect his moral approval, his lack of prioritization, or an implicit admission of a LIMITATION?All of which suggests, he isn't God who is good or if he is, he's the Jeffery Epstein of Bethelham.
>>18588055>>18588051wanted to try this argument, giddy for the christian response.
>>18588051You're attempting to change the subject and bring in some whataboutism, but in so doing, you've actually conceded my primary point that Muhammad was immoral. >Yet in the Hebrew Bible he commands abject immorality, e.g, Numbers 31 has commands involving the killing of all captives including young boysYou, yourself, with your own words, call killing captive young boys "abject immorality". My goal here has been to prove that Muhammad's morality was deficient. You've just given a definitive example of what you consider to be deficient morality.And it is something that Muhammad practiced.At https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4404 "I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair."At https://sunnah.com/nasai:3429 "The sons of Quraizah told me that they were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Quraizah, and whoever (among them) had reached puberty, or had grown pubic hair, was killed, and whoever had not reached puberty and had not grown pubic hair was left (alive)."At https://sunnah.com/nasai:3430 "On the day that Sa'd passed judgment on Banu Quraizah I was a young boy and they were not sure about me, but they did not find any pubic hair, so they let me live, and here I am among you."You may not agree that pedophilia is immoral, but you've called killing youngsters immoral. Yet we see Muhammad ordering exactly this. He ordered boys killed who had just begun to grow pubic hair.At https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/30-33 you can find multiple hadith where Muhammad approves killing children: "he said (to the Holy Prophet):Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them."So by your given standard, Muhammad is immoral.
>>18587480I don't really go for apologetics. I prefer Baptist preaching and podcasts.
>>18587620
>>18588216Sweet theotokos mother Mary of heavens. In my mind, I was thinking about the appropriate responses a christian could give, and my rebuttal. But I didn't account for the room temperature IQ, apparently. Isn't english supposed to be your first language?Btw, my Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a moral exemplar. Don't compare him with your whatever God, or even my Prophet Isa (pbuh)
>>18587624I lost all respect for him after watching his three hour conversation with Anderson.
Now that we've moved from the poltergeist posessed anon (mistaking it for the holy spirit), we can make this a good vibes thread again.>>18588218Any examples in particular you listen to?
>>18588223My skin is beautiful, so is my face. It's because I'm happy, you see. not possessed. But i'll still brutally mog you in a mog-off.
>>18587480The big fat British guy
>>18588225Yes, Steven Anderson preaching and Baptist Bias podcasts with Jonathan Shelley, although he doesn't release episodes often. I listen to Rod of Iron with Bruce Meijia if nothing else; He is doctrinally sound but he's a spic with a spic personality so it's hard to listen as a white man at times.
>>18588252Ricky Gervais?
>>18588271Muhammad Hijab
>>18588221I didn't post >>18588223, and I condemn that anon's language. Do you notice that I replied by pointing out something very reasonable: under the standard given, my conclusion still very much stands. You merely gave me criteria by which it could be proven.Your response was nothing but insults. That seems to essentially settle the issue. By the argument you laid out, my conclusion about Muhammad's immorality is vindicated, since he is guilty repeatedly of something that you yourself labeled "abject immorality".
>>18587664You evaluate debate like a child
>>18588221>>18588223You’re both pathetic and embarrassing.
>>18588384>You merely gave me criteriabrother, it wasn't a criticism of your morals, but your epistomological framework.an analogy, if you said, "inbreeding is bad". I would ask you to establish it from the Bible. There's nothing you can use, so you'd appeal to your scientific-knowledge, "first-cousin unions lead to higher incidence of birth-defects". This would make the atheist giggle, he'd bring up Leviticus 18, where God exchaustively lists who you're not-allowed to marry, but leaves out first-cousins specifically. He would say your morality seems contingent upon contemporary scientific-knowledge. Was your God an idiot, because he did not know about birth-defects, when he sanctioned it? Isn't he God? This is a theological trap, you could avoid it if you knew how to leverage epistomology. same way, I was doing a critiq within your paradigm, a reductio ad-absurdum, into a concession commensurate with my position. Oh, banu qurayza story isn't univocal and the punishment is administered based on the law of Moses (Deutronomy 20) using (their) criteria for adulthood/maturity; wasn't a problem from my framework.and the other Hadith "they are off them" describes the brutal reality of collateral. This is why the chapter is called "(9) Permissibility... as long as it is not done DELIBERATELY"and the previous chapter is called "(8) prohibition of killing women and children in war">narrated, a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of God. He then prophibited the killing of women and children.I could go on whimsical adventures about biblical 'harem' wars, in Samuels, he tells you to kill everything, not spare even the animals. or St Augustine's Just War theory, requiring scriptural gymnastics that would make olympians blush; only in 11-13th century, with Aquinas did they codify the limitation on killing women and children.Why can't we have normal thread? I respect christianity, you should respect me as well.
>>18588488How so mom? not an ioto of disrespect came to anyone's faith from my lips, before his unneeded and unwanted remarks. You could see here >>18587646 i was merely suggesting our schools of theology share similar positions on certain issues.
>>18587613>a contingent existence must have a beginningWhy?
>>18588587Biggy bang. I think i somewhat know the pressure points of the argument, that's why I tied it to TAG, which on its own is an epistemic circle. I'm still trying to read and understand them, before arguing with a learned anon who knows more than me.>>18588384>and I condemn that anon's language.Hey I'll apologize if i was dismissive. now i regret it.
>>18588585You keep attempting to shift the subject to the Bible, but the question is Muhammad. Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, anon.>story isn't univocalIt's hard to tell how this serves as some sort of defense. Once again anon: your previous reply essentially said that you don't consider sex with young children to be immoral, so no discussion of it will demonstrate Muhammad's immorality to you. What you consider to be "abject immorality" is killing young boys. Muhammad ordered this to be done. As such, by your stated criteria for "abject immorality", my conclusion stands: Muhammad was guilty of abject immorality.>describes the brutal reality of collateralMuhammad knew, for a fact, that his actions were killing children. He was directly informed of this and asked to please advise. He dismissed it the concern and instructed them to continue.Once you know something is a result of your actions, and you order it to continue, it becomes deliberate, whether it is a goal in of itself or not. He deliberately killed children, as recorded.
>>18588848I think this is a fruitless conversation for me, cause we're seemingly talking on 2 different frequencies. You've erroneously misinterpreted my arguments twice now, but it seems like you didn't even understand the premise. They're not built on a tu quoque (whataboutism) fallacy. But yeah... to you yours, to me mine. Cheer up babygirl, stand tall and strike a pose. You won, because i concede.
>>18587599kek>>18588055>children refers to the believers/christians, not childrenLet's check one sentence before:>13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them."Why make an argument in such a disingenuous manor?
>>18588877Yeah honestly I do notice being on a different wavelength from a lot of Muslims. It can feel somewhat similar to talking to, say, someone really into religious mysticism since it feels like you're really coming from very different places; somewhat like you're both using screwdrivers on stripped screws: there's no *grip* either side can get to cause changes, even though both feel their tools are in working order.>You won, because i concede.nah no winning or losing, just discussion, thanks for talking anon
>>18588921misquoted brother sorry, meant matthew 18, the millstone one. But doesn't matter, cause I granted the interpretation. I don't split-hairs, like a nerd.In simple words, I wanted him to implicitly concede that morals are created through God's nature (ontologically), but their understanding and application is filterd through on our epistemic frameworks; partially contingent on societal context and our faculties. This is how christainity (most i think) and Islam understand them. but he doesn't want to, so he'd rather go with the absurd position that Jesus isn't God, or if he is, he's immoral.
>>18588955Thanks for the time luv
>>18588586It’s embarrassing because you took to insults and mockery (which was also laughably off the mark if your assumption that you were talking to a Calvinist was correct) in response to serious argument that you yourself apparently perceived as refutation given you didn’t even pretend to rejoin it.
>>18588996we'll live and learn. I'm still not used to debating on this website, and I'm still learning about theology and metaphysis.
>>18588996>if your assumption that you were talking to a Calvinist was correctCan you elaborate this point a little bit. I don't understand this
>>18587573He's just confident in his delusion. It's not really evil. The people who most forcefully push their confident delusions impress people. There's no reason for thoughtful people to be taken in by their performances.
>>18588599>Biggy bang.The Big Bang is an outdated theory and does not match present evidence. "Evidence" for Cosmic Inflation can and is quite strongly challenged. But even if you accept it, most mainstream physicists will agree that the Big Bang was not a beginning ex nihilo.
>>18589581>the Big Bang was not a beginning ex nihiloWhat if I told you that is was creation ex nihilo, because nothing is simply the possibility of anything. Being is the ground of becoming. Everythingness emerges from nothingness ("possibility"), and returns to it in an infinite cycle. Actuality crystalizes out of potentiality, and the actual cycles back into the potential.Eternally, the ring of being remains faithful to itself.
>>18587664Sockem boppers! Sockem boppers! More fun than a pillow fight! :D I remember those. I might have to buy a couple pairs now.
>>18589646If you did I would call it meaningless schizobabbel
>>18589692>schizobabbelYou learned a word on the interbutt. In any case, the seed is planted. Water it at your leisure, and become free.
>>18589727It is genuinely meaningless. The words are no even used coherently. You say for example:"nothing is simply the possibility of anything"But this doesn't make sense at the grammatical level. "Nothing" does no have a referent. It does not refer to something that possesses properties such as possibilities.
>>18589581>eternal universe You subscribe to the the Oscillating universe model?
>>18589902No, I don't subscribe to there being ANY Big Bang whatsoever. It is unknown in age and extent, and for all intents and purposes can be understood to be infinite in both respects.>>18589646That has nothing to do with a hypothetical cosmogony.
>>18587480William Lane Craig DESTROYS Sam Harrishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YKkYU5W-IM
>>18589804>this doesn't make sense at the grammatical level.Consider the possibility that grammar isn't what measures or conditions truth. Language only conditions truth when it comes into existence: "the Word" Logos, before god manifests as world it is indeterminate, "unvoiced" "unrealized"
>>18588485David Wood is like this. I don't believe he even cares about Christianity, just winning debates against Muslims. Almost like someone pays him
>>18589989So do James White, he's just bad at it
