- This topic has 136 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why do people try to make fun of Islamic Heaven? It’s literally a reward for following the religion so of course it’s going to be full of stuff you enjoy. It’s literally called paradise.
It’s definitely better then Christianity’s heaven where you become a robot. -
>Christianity’s heaven where you become a robot.
wait what-
don’t christians in their heaven only worship God and do nothing else?
I’ve been told that they literally just stand there and pray forever-
So I heard.
-
Eye has not seen and ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him
-
>I’ve been told that they literally just stand there and pray forever
Uhh, by who?
The Bible literally describes people living in mansions and a huge garden in heaven.-
Can you tell me what part of the bible this is? I wanna read it
-
>The Bible literally describes people living in mansions and a huge garden in heaven.
Im still waiting for this anon to tell me what book and verse this is
-
-
I thought of it more as your soul experiencing eternal bliss from communion with god, who (according to christians) is the ultimate source of all goodness. Looking at it as physically standing in a location is far too literal. If there is a heavenly afterlife it should be better than just replicating or even amplifying pleasures we already know about, no?
I’m not christian and I don’t believe in god, just my intepretation.
sounds stupid tbh
-
Until you crusade out, covered in glory, to do battle with the dark forces on the last day.
-
-
There can be no greater joy, no greater ecstasy, than to kneel and worship in the presence of the LORD.
-
>Islamoturd isnt even familiar with other religions because hes so freaking sheltered
Shouldnt you not be on the internet and instead throwing acid into the faces of young girls for trying to read? -
The alternative is eternal suffering in a burning pit of fire so not much of a choice.
Thats what the virgins are for anon.
Checked and this
>He’s not into incest
NGMI tbh :/
-
-
-
Oh I don’t poke fun at it at all, it’s the most effective loosh harvesting scheme ever created on Earth, you have to respect it. Those that believe it, on the other hand, are worthy of ridicule.
-
In loosh-theory, what’s the reason for the existence of depression? For a few years I was incapable of feeling strong emotion (and thus producing loosh)
-
Egregores and spirits of the cosmos can’t do all the work. Your thoughts and emotions are your own, they just occasionally tweak vulnerable men to their advantage. An anhedonic state doesn’t benefit any of them directly but on a mass scale it can make us more foolish and entrenched in matter.
-
-
-
Heaven is not some physical place in the sky, women from heaven are symbolic
-
hello munafiq/kafir
-
hello wahhabi dog
-
muhammad would agree with me
what does that make you?-
a filthy kaffir
-
-
>A physical heaven is an exclusively Wahhabi doctrine
-
"wahhabi" is the go-to word of the libcuck
-
-
-
-
-
Anybody who has spent time as a neet getting "everything you enjoy" whenever you want will know why doing that for eternity sounds like absolute hell
-
>Hedonism equals depression
Tell me something I don’t know -
Allah created humans with needs and desires and it will remain so for the dwellers of Paradise. There is nothing wrong with having your needs and desires fulfilled, so long one recognizes all of it is from his Lord and expresses gratitude for the abundant gifts.
-
Neets aren’t getting everything they enjoy, they usually lack exercise, social contact, ability to move about, a large home, sex, achievments, etc. All they really have is free time and entertainment media, and maybe drugs.
-
-
what do women in the islamic afterlife get? Do they become one of the 72 virgins even though they’ve had sex on earth?
-
who gives a shit?
-
Their hymen will regenerate every day, so they will be forever pure virgins.
-
how would the male to female ratio work
-
-
>what do women in the islamic afterlife get?
Beatings, I hope -
>what do women in the islamic afterlife get
>It was narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”-
That fucks up the ratio even more
-
what ratio you dumb libcuck
houris aren’t human
-
-
He is probably just describing whores/prostitutes
-
-
Wherever the animals are sent
-
Their hymen will regenerate every day, so they will be forever pure virgins.
Wait, if your mother or sister respawns on paradise, will they turn to virgins too? Will they join a harem of virgins? Seems disturbing
-
I imagine the "virgins" are actually supposed to be angels or phantasms of some sort rather than actual human souls.
-
that is true, they are called Hour Al Ayn and are basically stunningly beautiful women created in heaven, not actual women that had lived a mortal life
-
-
-
>pimp house
repent -
Because Islamic heaven is hedonistic in nature, it’s like a parody of what heaven was traditionally conceived as. Heaven is not worldly pleasures, it’s union with God.
-
there will be union with god in paradise you dumbass christcuck
-
Having endless sex with virgins and drinking wine from a river all day is union with God? Sounds Satanic to me, that’s because it is, it’s eternal hedonism. Ultimately, the Islamic heaven would lead to eternal boredom, that is true hell. Meanwhile, Christian heaven is the Communion of Saints forever experiencing the bliss of the beatific vision and union with God’s energies. Christian heaven is eternity, it is not limited in time like Islamic heaven.
"God became man so that men might become God." – Clement of Alexandria
-
>God became man so that men might become God
that doesn’t even make sense lol-
Yes it does you’re just a lost Muhammadean.
-
don’t worry christshit you won’t be bored in the lake of fire 🙂
-
Why are Muslims so obtuse and shallow?
-
-
-
It means you partake of God’s energies and become deified. Not in the sense that you assume the divine nature or become a part of God’s essence, but rather, that your entire being is suffused by God’s grace and your entire existence becomes re-aligned around His will.
-
>It means you [buzzphrase] and [buzzphrase]. Not in the sense that you [cope], but rather, that [schizophrenic headcanon]
-
It’s not my fault that you haven’t studied Christian theology and therefore do not know what these terms mean.
-
>muzzies debate religion like they do with shitty shounens
Sasuga islam…
-
-
-
-
The greatest blessing Allah can bestow onto the believers is for them to see His Face, not the women or the mansions.
>"God became man so that men might become God." – Clement of Alexandria
And the Christian wonders why he is scorned as a polytheist. There is no god but Allah.
>Christian heaven is eternity, it is not limited in time like Islamic heaven.
Who told you Paradise is limited in time?-
>The greatest blessing Allah can bestow onto the believers is for them to see His Face, not the women or the mansions.
That’s certainly now how I see Islamic heaven being described by other Muslims or by the Qur’an. All of the promises of paradise in the Qur’an are hedonistic promises.
>And the Christian wonders why he is scorned as a polytheist. There is no god but Allah.
You Muslims don’t know what true monotheism is, your conception of it is again like a silly parody or caricature, this isn’t uncommon in Islam, you do the same with the idea of prophethood as well like considering Adam a prophet. Your illiterate prophet was too stupid to understand these concepts.
>Who told you Paradise is limited in time?
The descriptions of it in your holy book.-
>That’s certainly now how I see Islamic heaven being described by other Muslims or by the Qur’an. All of the promises of paradise in the Qur’an are hedonistic promises.
Give me the definition of hedonist.
>You Muslims don’t know what true monotheism is
I suppose then the ancient Israelites did not know monotheism either and they were in ignorance of God, because they had no concept of a trinitarian polytheist conception of Him.Give me this description, because it is described as the opposite, an eternal dwelling.
-
>trinitarian polytheist
The patriarchs of the Church prayed before the Arc of the Covenant, and before the Angel of the Lord.
Islam has no answers to these discrepancies in their theology, except to say
>The Torah and Bible are corrupted texts!
Why should we take your word for it? Who are you? What authority do you possess? You cannot even verify that your "prophet", Muhammed, truly was a divinely inspired prophet.
Muslims have nothing but bluster and threats of physical violence. You’re just a bunch of stupid thugs.-
>hendonism – noun – the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
It is on you to prove why this is necessarily bad, otherwise it is only an emotional platitude. And why would not the label of hedonist apply to Christians who seek the pleasurable experience of the "Communion of Saints" and the "bliss of the beatific vision"? This is a double standard.
>That is far from true.
Tell me why I ought to take apocryphal works as authoritative, especially as these works were penned centuries after. None of the scriptures you cite are explicit in affirming a trinitarian formula, and a sect could break off right now affirming two Gods or four and their interpretation would make as much sense as yours. If I am to honestly believe this is from God, then God ought to have explicitly communicated how we are to know Him.There is nothing to suggest a limited time.
>Holy crap Muslims are idiotic.
Is it any surprise the Christians hold to a trinity when they attribute holiness to feces? Maybe not, as the trinity and feces are not much different.-
>It is on you to prove why this is necessarily bad, otherwise it is only an emotional platitude.
Already did here:"God became man so that men might become God." – Clement of Alexandria
>And why would not the label of hedonist apply to Christians who seek the pleasurable experience of the "Communion of Saints" and the "bliss of the beatific vision"? This is a double standard.
Hedonism is the pursuit of worldly physical pleasures, eternal spiritual union with God is the exact opposite of that.
>Tell me why I ought to take apocryphal works as authoritative, especially as these works were penned centuries after. None of the scriptures you cite are explicit in affirming a trinitarian formula, and a sect could break off right now affirming two Gods or four and their interpretation would make as much sense as yours. If I am to honestly believe this is from God, then God ought to have explicitly communicated how we are to know Him.
Guess you should throw our your Qur’an then which draws from a variety of apocryphal works including the 2nd century B.C. work the Life of Adam and Eve concerning how Satan would not bow to Adam, as well as the Syriac Infancy Gospel written in the 6th century A.D. which tells the same birth narrative of Jesus as found in the Qur’an as opposed to the one found in the canonical gospels. Also, the point of me citing apocryphal literature was merely to show you that in fact the ancient garden gnomes did not believe in strict Unitarianism, I also gave you examples of passages from the canonical literature in the Old Testament as well and also modern form of gnomish spirituality which continue to ascribe hypostases to God just as the Christian Trinity does. Your understanding of what monotheism is is shallow and far removed from the context of ancient Judaism and Christianity.
>There is nothing to suggest a limited time.
Physical things are limited to time, the Qur’an describes heaven as a physical place.-
>Hedonism is the pursuit of worldly physical pleasures
You realised the definition you gave at first was a double standard against you, then you go on to make one up on the spot to weasel out of it. And you did not prove why pursuing pleasure is necessarily bad (though it is bad if it is expressed through forbidden means, means by which Allah did not legislate, rather Allah rewards us when we engage in the permissible to avoid the impermissible), you only restated your beliefs. "Sounds Satanic to me" is not a proof at all. Did David engage in Satanic pleasures as he had sex with his seven wives, not to speak of the concubines he possessed?
>Guess you should throw our your Qur’an then which draws from a variety of apocryphal works
No, I should not, because the Qur’an is the criterion by which we judge the former scriptures. "Indeed, this Qur’ān relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they disagree." – 27:76. It does not mean we take them as authoritative, but we say they drew from a divine source that was later added to, subtracted, modified, i.e corrupted.
>show you that in fact the ancient garden gnomes did not believe in strict Unitarianism
I’m aware there were later currents of Judaism that did not hold to proper monotheism, but appealing to mysticism and vague scripture is not a strong case for a trinity by which you confidently declare other Christians with just as sensible of an interpretation as apostates and disbelievers.
>Physical things are limited to time, the Qur’an describes heaven as a physical place.
If Allah wills to maintain creation as it is, then it is easy for Allah. And how is the description of New Jerusalem as told in your scripture anything but physical? It has a literal defined geometry, so no spiritual interpretation for you to flee to. Why is it described to be constructed of valuable materials as if the author was appealing to the physical senses that man finds pleasurable? Is this not according to you hedonism? -
>You realised the definition you gave at first was a double standard against you, then you go on to make one up on the spot to weasel out of it. And you did not prove why pursuing pleasure is necessarily bad (though it is bad if it is expressed through forbidden means, means by which Allah did not legislate, rather Allah rewards us when we engage in the permissible to avoid the impermissible), you only restated your beliefs. "Sounds Satanic to me" is not a proof at all. Did David engage in Satanic pleasures as he had sex with his seven wives, not to speak of the concubines he possessed?
No, you’re completely misunderstanding my point. Engaging in sexual intercourse is a natural duty, it is not necessarily hedonistic obviously. But it can certainly become hedonistic when you indulge in it or use it in a way that is disordered, for example, adultery, homosexuality, fornication, etc. When one engages in sexual activity with pleasure only in mind, instead of the natural duty, then one i s engaging in hedonism. This is why the Islamic conception of heaven is hedonistic, because it posits that men in heaven will be able to have endless sex with virgins for the sake of pleasure and not for the natural duty. This contradicts the fact that in the resurrection, our bodies will be spiritual since they will be fully united to God’s grace, Christ says that there will be no marriage in heaven (Matthew 22:30) which means that you cannot preform the natural duty, instead Christ says that our bodies will be like the angels in heaven. If heaven were just endless hedonistic pleasure, like sex or drinking wine or whatever, it would ultimately become a hell in the long run because people would eventually become so bored they would desire to stop existing. -
>When one engages in sexual activity with pleasure only in mind, instead of the natural duty, then one is engaging in hedonism.
What is this natural duty and why are you projecting it onto us? There is no natural proof that sex is exclusively reserved for reproduction, nor has Allah ordained it to be. As stated before, Allah created man needy and with desires, and it will remain so for the dwellers of Paradise. The bliss of Paradise is eternal as Allah stated clearly in His Book, there is nothing to suggest it will wane off over time.If you were to study the biography of our Prophet and testify to his truthfulness, consequently you would recognize the Qur’an to have only been revealed by Allah and to be the only means of reconciling what you differ over and the blatant blemishes throughout your scriptures penned by men saying this is from God.
>Again, you’re misunderstanding my point. First of all, it wasn’t just later currents,
>the idea
>seems to portray Yahweh
This is the problem with your religion, it relies too much on scattered, out of context, and vague texts with dubious authorship, so it has lead you to irreconcilable doctrines all against any sense of reason that force you to appeal to mysticism. How in God’s name do you reconcile that the Son and the Spirit, who are both identified as God, are ignorant of the Hour? And who exactly died on the cross, was it God who you say sacrificed Himself to save mankind from His own judgement? Do you attribute ignorance and mortality to God? And you expect that I am to be held accountable for disbelieving in this, when clearly God has failed to communicate the reality of His existence in your scripture if I am to believe this is all from God?Obviously a text can both describe the physical, spiritual and the symbolic, but there is no room for a spiritual or symbolic interpretation when the text literally defines a geometry, geometry that only belongs to physical things.
-
>What is this natural duty and why are you projecting it onto us? There is no natural proof that sex is exclusively reserved for reproduction,
This is by far the stupidest thing you’ve said. There’s no natural proof? What? That’s like saying there’s no proof that the purpose of cars is that they’re supposed to be driven. -
>What is this natural duty and why are you projecting it onto us? There is no natural proof that sex is exclusively reserved for reproduction,
This is by far the stupidest thing you’ve said. There’s no natural proof? What? That’s like saying there’s no proof that the purpose of cars is that they’re supposed to be driven. -
>If you were to study the biography of our Prophet and testify to his truthfulness, consequently you would recognize the Qur’an to have only been revealed by Allah and to be the only means of reconciling what you differ over and the blatant blemishes throughout your scriptures penned by men saying this is from God.
Ah, continuing to move the goalposts I see, "b-b-b-ut just read this and then you’ll see!" I have read the biographies of your prophet and I have also examined many of his sayings in the Hadiths, I find nothing remarkable about him, neither do the countless Christian writers and theologians who have studied Islam closely. -
>This is the problem with your religion, it relies too much on scattered, out of context, and vague texts with dubious authorship
Really? This is coming from you? The one whose religion wants to make Muhammad Jesus’s paraclete when anyone who understands even the most basic exegesis can tell you that it’s really obvious that it’s the Holy Spirit. You have no understanding of our texts, you can’t even do the most basic simple exegesis on them. We don’t rely on "scattered" or "out of context" or "vague" texts, no it’s pretty firmly established what these texts are saying, it’s pretty clear that the Old Testament presents God as existing in multiple hypostases, the Old Testament is nothing, absolutely not even close to the Qur’an, but the fact that you and so many Muslims seem to think that it is just goes to show that you’ve never read it. Well guess what, I’ve read it, I read it every single day of my life, and so have many of the other great Christian (and for that matter, gnomish) theologians who have come to pretty standard conclusions and interpretations about it as actual readers of the text as opposed to Muslims and Muhammad WHO NEVER READ THE TEXT. -
>so it has lead you to irreconcilable doctrines all against any sense of reason that force you to appeal to mysticism.
Once again you continue to side step everything I’ve presented you with and you’ve failed to actually address anything I’ve presented you with so far because you don’t have an argument. I’m not "appealing" to mysticism, I gave you a variety of texts both canonical and non-canonical in order to thoroughly and completely dismantles your claim that Judaism had no precursor to the Trinity, it very clearly did and it’s very easily demonstrable as I just did in the above posts. -
>How in God’s name do you reconcile that the Son and the Spirit, who are both identified as God, are ignorant of the Hour? And who exactly died on the cross, was it God who you say sacrificed Himself to save mankind from His own judgement? Do you attribute ignorance and mortality to God? And you expect that I am to be held accountable for disbelieving in this, when clearly God has failed to communicate the reality of His existence in your scripture if I am to believe this is all from God?
My Goodness, how obtuse can you be? Guess what Abdullah, we can explain these, and we do all of the time. You just don’t want to hear it I suspect either because it gives you cognitive dissonance, or maybe you really are just too stupid to understand what we’re saying. But I actually kinda doubt that because it’s pretty easy to understand. The fact that you’re saying this shows to me that either you just don’t want to listen to what we have to say, or you’re completely ignorant of Christian theology, or both. Probably both. Your questions are so full of ignorance it’d be like asking an evolutionary biologist "W-well how do you reconcile human evolution with the fact that chimpanzees still exist? Why haven’t they become humans yet? Huh!? HUH!?" An evolutionary biologist would immediately face palm at that, as did I when I read your obviously loaded question, because of how ignorant it is in regards to how evolution actually works.
Continued below… -
>No, I should not, because the Qur’an is the criterion by which we judge the former scriptures. "Indeed, this Qur’ān relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they disagree." – 27:76. It does not mean we take them as authoritative, but we say they drew from a divine source that was later added to, subtracted, modified, i.e corrupted.
Now you’re just moving the goal post, either that or it’s because you’re assuming the Qur’an is divine, which as a Christian I do not believe it to be so and it’s pretty obvious from an objective stance that Muhammad just plagiarized the stories he heard around him. Your own scripture seems to refute your very argument: "And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." (Qur’an 5:47). Welp as a person of the gospel, I have judged your book to be a complete fabrication and a fraud that obviously plagiarized the literature around it. -
>and it’s pretty obvious from an objective stance that Muhammad just plagiarized the stories he heard around him.
Dumbass, you know you degrade your own scriptures when you say shit like this, right? The Bible is literally history. How the fuck do you plagiarize history? Allah put those stories in the Qur’an to show that the advent of Muhammad (pbuh) is no different from that of the other prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Lot, and Moses especially, which is why he is mentioned the most in the book. -
Because it also draws upon various other things outside the canonical gospel including various Christian apocryphal works and from gnomish Midrash and the Talmud.
-
Those "things" were true.
>b-b-b-but they’re not canonerinooooooo!!!!!!
Why should we care? Allah spoke, it’s best we keep quiet. -
>I’m aware there were later currents of Judaism that did not hold to proper monotheism, but appealing to mysticism and vague scripture is not a strong case for a trinity by which you confidently declare other Christians with just as sensible of an interpretation as apostates and disbelievers.
Again, you’re misunderstanding my point. First of all, it wasn’t just later currents, historians know for a fact that Judaism in the first century had a quite hierarchical and dynamic view of God, the Christian idea of the Trinity came directly out of this, it didn’t start to become a problem until after the destruction of the Second Temple and the rise of Rabbinic polemic against Christianity, and yet even in the Talmud and Rabbinic literature the idea of there being distinct hypostases and persons within God persisted. These beliefs were common among all basically ancient garden gnomes, and it’s because of their exegesis of the canonical Old Testament, which on numerous occasions seems to portray Yahweh as existing in different hypostases, I provided you a few examples above. Daniel 7 was the one that had the biggest impact, and it’s pretty clear that Jesus’s Son of Man sayings are an apocalyptic exegesis on Daniel 7, Jesus considers himself to be the Son of Man and he clearly portrays the Son of Man as a divine figure equal to God as in his parables he has the Son of Man sitting on God’s throne judging the righteous and wicked in the final days as well as having the Son of Man descend from heaven to bring about the final apocalypse (Matthew 25:31-46). I have thoroughly refuted your assertion that ancient Judaism had no precursor concept to the Trinity, it clearly did and Jesus as well as the other NT authors drew upon it. -
>If Allah wills to maintain creation as it is, then it is easy for Allah. And how is the description of New Jerusalem as told in your scripture anything but physical? It has a literal defined geometry, so no spiritual interpretation for you to flee to. Why is it described to be constructed of valuable materials as if the author was appealing to the physical senses that man finds pleasurable? Is this not according to you hedonism?
You do realize these passages are highly symbolic, right? The Book of Revelation is chalk full of symbolism, it describes physical dragons and beasts with multiple heads, yet no one actually takes that literally because it’s not meant to be, it’s symbolic. The New Jerusalem is symbolic for the Church Triumphant, if you had actually read Revelation 19-22 you’d know that these chapters are symbolically depicting an apocalyptic wedding between Christ and his Church who is metaphorically called his bride throughout the NT, and the New Jerusalem is called God’s bride (Revelation 21:2) -
>chalk full
-
It’s called a typo, ever hear of it?
-
That’s not a typo. Theres no way you wanted to type chock full and you finger accidentally slipped 3 times to write chalk.
Not the muslim youre talking to i just thought that was funny -
I’m typing really fast here though and not paying attention to everything I’m writing down, I made a bunch of other mistakes above too.
-
-
>Is it any surprise the Christians hold to a trinity when they attribute holiness to feces? Maybe not, as the trinity and feces are not much different.
Lol you sound mad Abdullah.
-
-
>You cannot even verify that your "prophet", Muhammed, truly was a divinely inspired prophet.
how did you verify the prophethood of the prophets who came before Jesus? you went off of testimony of those people by others, who said their message was sound, and that their miracles were numerous, and that their faith was iron-clad. read the biography of Muhammad (pbuh) and you will see a man who truly believed in God from his first day as a prophet to his last.
-
-
>Give me the definition of hedonist.
hendonism – noun – the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.>I suppose then the ancient Israelites did not know monotheism either and they were in ignorance of God, because they had no concept of a trinitarian polytheist conception of Him.
That is far from true. You’ve clearly never read the Old Testament which ascribes various hypostases to God (wisdom, word, spirit, etc.) I highly encourage you to read Genesis 1, Psalms 110, Daniel 7, Proverbs 8, etc. etc. You are also clearly not familiar with the dead sea scrolls and their contents, like the Book of Enoch, or 11QMelchizedek, both of which ascribe the existence of different persons with God and are probably exegetical texts on Daniel 7. Nor do you seem to be familiar with any apocryphal literature, like the gnomish Apocalypse of Abraham written in the early 2nd century which describes an angelic being named Yahoel who is considered as second Yahweh. Nor are you familiar with what is taught in modern day Judaism concerning Kabbalah and Merkava mysticism and its doctrines about the Sefirot and there being a second Yahweh (Metatron). Christian beliefs about the Trinity didn’t arise out of a vacuum, they are woke af on careful exegesis of both the Old and New Testaments and it is firmly steeped in ancient gnomish ideas of monotheism. -
>I suppose then the ancient Israelites did not know monotheism either and they were in ignorance of God, because they had no concept of a trinitarian polytheist conception of Him.
That is far from true. You’ve clearly never read the Old Testament which ascribes various hypostases to God (wisdom, word, spirit, etc.) I highly encourage you to read Genesis 1, Psalms 110, Daniel 7, Proverbs 8, etc. etc. You are also clearly not familiar with the dead sea scrolls and their contents, like the Book of Enoch, or 11QMelchizedek, both of which ascribe the existence of different persons with God and are probably exegetical texts on Daniel 7. Nor do you seem to be familiar with any apocryphal literature, like the gnomish Apocalypse of Abraham written in the early 2nd century which describes an angelic being named Yahoel who is considered as second Yahweh. Nor are you familiar with what is taught in modern day Judaism concerning Kabbalah and Merkava mysticism and its doctrines about the Sefirot and there being a second Yahweh (Metatron). Christian beliefs about the Trinity didn’t arise out of a vacuum, they are woke af on careful exegesis of both the Old and New Testaments and it is firmly steeped in ancient gnomish ideas of monotheism.>Give me this description, because it is described as the opposite, an eternal dwelling.
Ok.
>Day, will be busy in joyful things. They and their wives will be in pleasant shade, reclining on thrones. They will have therein fruits (of all kinds) and all that they ask for. (It will be said to them): Salamun (peace be on you), a Word from the Lord (Allah), Most Merciful. (Quran 36: 55-58)
>Indeed, We have produced the women of Paradise in a [new] creation; And made them virgins, Devoted [to their husbands] and of equal age,} (Quran 56:35-37)
>There will circulate among them young boys made eternal With vessels, pitchers and a cup [of wine] from a flowing spring – No headache will they have therefrom, nor will they be intoxicated – And fruit of what they select And the meat of fowl, from whatever they desire. (Qur’an 56:17-21) -
Why are you Muslims so stupid?
-
>I suppose then the ancient Israelites did not know monotheism either and they were in ignorance of God, because they had no concept of a trinitarian polytheist conception of Him.
You’ve never read Philo of Alexandria, have you? Holy crap Muslims are idiotic.-
Are you scrotebrained? Are we going to go to Philo or the garden gnomes to know who God is, or are we going to go to the prophets? The prophets were all of one religion, and Muhammad is within their family both physically (was a descendant of Abraham) and spiritually (his message is identical to theirs).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Because Islam’s concept of Heaven is a place where your temporal addictions are abetted rather than cured.
>Christianity’s heaven where you become a robot
Not true at all. Christianity (Orthodox Christianity, not the western heretical nonsense) teaches that your will is purified when you enter Heaven. You are free to choose whatever you want, but by that point you will no longer desire evil, and therefore will not do anything that is evil. -
Muslims claim that God is absolutely simple and then list distinctions within Him, attributes, such as wisdom and love.
Distinction does not entail division. This is an erroneous idea borrowed from Hellenic pagan theology.-
>Muslims claim that God is absolutely simple
Might want to inform the Wahabis on that one, they think Allah has a literal body.
-
-
Why is your muslima white? She should be brown, scrote-tier brown to be precise.
-
Maybe she’s Caucasian.
-
-
Honestly, Islam is pretty woke af but they’re totally wrong about the New Testament. Paul did not deify Christ, just look at Jesus’ own words. If not for that inconsistency, I’d probably have converted. Salam all the same, siss.
-
>just look at Jesus’ own words.
Allah proved by His own testimony in the Qur’an that Jesus never said to worship him. The gospel writers misrepresented him. I’ll take God’s word over theirs, thank you very much.-
> But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
>And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 14:61-62>I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
>And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Daniel 7:13-14>For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
>But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Matthew 9:5-6>And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
>And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.
Matthew 17:22-23How do you explain this?
-
Now show us the quote from Mark or Matthew where Jesus says "I am the son of man"
-
>For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
Luke 11:30>Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
>I am that bread of life.
>…
>I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
>…
>Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
>Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:47-54>where Jesus says "I am the son of man"
If you don’t count Mark 14:62 then I can’t give you one. He only refers to this label, but he does it so many times, and in the context of many different things that he does. As soon as he says it more directly, they sentence him so…What makes the Qur’an a more credible source? It’s from one man compared to many. All of the gospels are corrupted? And they just coincidentally line up with hundreds of Old Testament references and prophecies?
Apologies for intruding in your thread. I want to understand the reasoning. Thank you.
-
Jesus never says he’s the Son of Man in Mark because Jesus himself did not think he was the Son of Man as described in Daniel, and at the time of the authorship of Mark nobody else thought so either. Dont forget this is a history board
-
>What makes the Qur’an a more credible source? It’s from one man compared to many.
I understand the confusion, but you hold the opinions of a plethora of individuals over the word of God Himself? I’ll just tell you that if the entire world said Jesus said he was God, and God said that wasn’t true, you should believe God.
>All of the gospels are corrupted?
Yes. That doesn’t mean every single line is a falsehood though, some quotations may genuinely be from Jesus; but this is largely irrelevant, as we have quotations from God, which you should use to judge from what you have in the gospels. I find these arguments to be akin to those atheists who go only by what they see and hear. They don’t have the spirit to put their faith in God, who has revealed excellent books; the most excellent being the glorious Qur’an.-
We have many rejected gospels from antiquity such as Gnostic writings condemned by the church. Are there alternative documents from the period which are "uncorrupted" as you put it. Surely there would be some that are in accordance with the Qur’an’s teaching of Jesus?
-
For me that would give a lot of credibility to the Qur’an being an authentic interpretation, and not something created after the fact. It’s irrelevant if the church rejected those documents, as they have their own agenda of course.
-
>Surely there would be some that are in accordance with the Qur’an’s teaching of Jesus?
Allah’s testimony is enough. We don’t need "alternative documents" or anything like that to confirm the personality of Jesus Christ. You should actually be wary if I were to attempt to give you anything other than the bare word of God, which we have full confidence in. God doesn’t give us faith through the flesh, but through the spirit.-
Perhaps I have too much faith in documents, from a Protestant upbringing. That is my burden to deal with. Thank you for explaining, much appreciated. Peace be with you friend.
-
Peace as well be with you.
-
-
-
-
You have quotations from men who wrote for a man who told you all God told him thusly.
A nobody at the beginning of his life. A worshipped man of means and the master of two cities by his life’s end. Claim: God spoke to him saying he’s the only one who speaks for God. How nice.
-
>A nobody at the beginning of his life
He was the grandson of the leader of the ruling tribe and was known for his honesty to the point that he was enlisted for diplomacy between rival tribes. He was a shepherd, like the other prophets, and Allah thundered him higher than a throne and gave him a seat in his pantheon of prophets. I promise you that if you read his story in the Old Testament you would’ve believed his prophethood and would not be able to distinguish it from the others-
>He was the grandson of the leader of the ruling tribe and was known for his honesty to the point that he was enlisted for diplomacy between rival tribes.
He was an orphan, a merchant’s clerk, indebted and a man with everything to gain by Islam.The false faiths are easy to spot their founder. God speaks and it’s always…….. to the founder’s benefit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The gospel writers misrepresented him. I explain this with the testimony of God Himself, who said in His scripture that He does not beget, nor is He begotten. The Qur’an is our judge over your corrupted scriptures.
-
-
-
-
>whataboutism: the thread
-
so basically turbohedonism perpetuated ad infinitum
i’m not into that
-
> "the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh." -Sahih Bukhari
Here’s your transparent hairless virgin, as described in the hadith.
You will get 72 of them -
OH YA
OH YA I SLIDE MY DICK IN THE KORAN
I HAVE HOT SEX WITH THE KORAN I CUM ON IT
OH YA I LIKE TO WIPE MY SHIT ON THE KORAN OH YA
OH YA MUHAMMAD BABY OH YA
OH YA MUHAMMAD FUCK AISHAS 9 YEAR OLD BODY OH YA MUHAMMAD
OH YA OH YA MUHAMMAD THE GOAT FUCKER OH YA -
because it’s just arabian coomer fantasies
-
> this is what peak female performance looks like gentlemen:
> the chubby mommy Levantine fertility/love archetype, a robust product of haplogroup T1bhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4fS0BXFRQ
https://youtu.be/C8XbOcSmV-c
https://youtu.be/gxYap7YGgJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpoOvN2HN-8> descended from the consorts of Palmyra (mothers of Roman emperors) and the muses for Ishtar herself
> hardy, well tempered for nomadic and desert environments
> her genome’s generations of exposure to steppe invasions and the Silk Road render her immune to any chink virus
> very fertile (goes without saying), wants a large family
> born knowing her family’s age-old recipe for goat and biryani, keeps you well fed; the Arab mommy in her makes sure you eat EVERYTHING she cooks you
> the mediterranean nature of much of her diet allows her to live longer than even her first-world counterparts
> thicc stature bears hardier sons, she is a lioness over her children and her household, makes sure they achieve honorable places in society
> proud of her tribe and lineage, sings the odes of her ancestors as she does chores (in an Arabic far more sublime than any Latin)
> takes everything you give her in bed, well
> when you’re locked in embrace, you feel surrounded and secure by her womanly essence
> your favorite thing to do is resting your head on her supple bosom after your passion is spent, and she strokes your head while whispering a lullaby to youانتصري يا بنت عنتر، تحيا الابطال الهاشميين
احبچ يا سميرة ملكة الاناقة سلطانتي خانمي
-
-
In the Islamic heaven people would be boasting how they got there by their own works. So the Islamic heaven would be full of prideful people. I’d rather be in the company of humble people.
Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
-
We don’t get there by our own works. We get there only by the forgiveness and mercy of God. There is a hadith in one of the sahih books about a man that tried to get into heaven by his works only, but was sent to hell because he did not ask for God’s mercy, until he asked for it and was saved.
-
If you read the Quran, in many places it teaches that you need to do works to get into heaven.
-
-
Exactly, here’s another one too. Even Muhammad pbuh plainly admitted this fact.
-
-
Cause it’s an orgy lmao
-
Kudos to the Muslim and Christian who are posting those walls of text itt. Not often I find quality discussions on LULZ, good on you for posting compelling evidence on both sides. I’m learning more about the Trinity from it than the Hijab-Wood debate
-
Honestly, both Wood and Hijab are kinda hacks, I wouldn’t listen to either of them. They’re both examples of your standard apologist and don’t really take the time to do legitimate scholarly work on any of the issues they talk about, they just throw out the typical apologetic talking points and that’s it really.
-
True in a way, I came from watching Hijab’s videos actually. Muslims do a good job of critiquing modernity, and I learned some babby’s first Mills and Aristotle from Hijab. Problem with him is he does chase clout more than I thought before, he tried that Afro and Rasta sweater thing to woo Africans before he returned to the polos, and he tries to come off as some boxer who defends his people, filming fights in Speakers Corner and challenging critics to matches. And now he’s trying to be a Muslim Joe Rogan and makes more clickbait titles, doing all those reaction videos and pretending they give a shit about him. Regardless, he can hold his own on certain things, I wish he’d debate Jay Dyer.
-
Have you tried searching after more scholarly inclined Muslims?
-
Aside from YouTubers, certain attempts to read Ghazali and Suhrawardi, and some of the academics, not too much. Care to suggest any?
-
-
-
-
-
How do I get a hijabi GF?
-
They don’t look like that anon
-
Are you attracted to the hijab itself, or are you assuming that women who wear it exemplify traditional female virtues? Because "hoejabis" are absolutely a thing at least in the West.
-
Please stay far far away from hijabis
-
W-why? Pray tell
-
-
-
Who cares we’re all going to Sheol anyway.
-
if there is AIM-9B, how was AIM-9A like?
-
>Why do people try to make fun of Islamic Heaven?
Any religious movement that seriously and unironically takes an otherworldly eternal afterlife after Plato’s world of forms, the Myth of Er and Aristotle’s eternity of the soul are accounted for took the Neoplatonic bait. The further problem is that Islam further influenced the Sola Scriptura of Protestant Christianity, feeding eternal conscious torment back into it and now we’ve got American Judeo-Christianity, so it was a return-to-sender for you Sunnis. Heaven and Hell exists, but not in the way you think it does.
Read Hegel, read Feuerbach and read Nietzsche. Then read the Qur’an again and the Sahih al-Bukhari. The entire Ummah fell for Neoplatonism.
-
I like this explanation: https://youtu.be/PMHnkQwb3ZQ
Salafi wannabes can fuck off
-
It sounds lame. From what I understand, it’s just normal stuff you enjoy on Earth, except better or more intense. Like all finite, earthly things it would become increasingly boring and unsatisfying, which isn’t a good thing of you are going to be alive through all eternity.
-
Pretty sure al-Ghazali made a case for the whole 72 virgins thing being just an esoteric allegory in terms of how joyous Jannah is. Otherwise there has to be an explanation as to why literal rivers of wine are appropriate rewards for faithful Muslims.
-
It’s not even wine tbh since it doesn’t intoxicate.
Basically grape juice.
-
-
Islamic Heaven: Fornication is fine now
Christian Heaven: True unity and closeness with God, out of Satan’s reach, sinful desires gone, pure eternal bliss -
Cuz it’s scrotebrained man-made shit.
-
Take a religious studies coarse, you moron.
-
Killing women and children with a suicide bomb to get 72 /r9k/ virgins is quite funny.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.