No regard...for the desire of women

[Lisa]

No, Lisa, I think you are the one that is confused. You have a martydom *complex* because you like to play victim that people pick on you because you are oh-so-Christian but you *play* saviour with your judgements. Pretty sure only Jesus was supposed to judge.

Exactly. But of course they can't just believe, they have to believe YOUR version of the gospel.

Well, I don’t know that they pick on me because I am a Christian, but many people in the years I’ve been here have liked to argue with me, how do you think I became a superstar? No one was as surprised as I was over that, honestly. Thought I’d say what I thought and would be ignored, but no.

I play savior with my judgements? Idk what that is supposed to mean. I thought Jesus came to save not judge.

John‬ ‭3:17‬ ‭
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.​

‭‭

 

[Lisa]

I don't think constantly belittling others' beliefs is very Christian.

What is Christian to you?

 

[Lisa]

I guess the question I have to ask is that how you’re so sure that one, the alleged lake of fire actually exists, and two, that you know how to avoid it.

I do believe that it will exist because the Bible tells me so. Some people think it’s just a book and it’s faulty, but I have read that book and I think its the absolute truth without any errors. In it we are told that there is a punishment for sin and that those who don’t believe will be thrown in the lake of fire. The Bible also tells us how to avoid the lake of fire, by believing in Jesus, I have believed in Him.

Every religion claims they know how to avoid the lake of fire, and that ONLY they know how to avoid it

Now that I didn’t know but if they are all talking you need to be a good person to avoid it, they are wrong, no one is good enough or can be good enough to avoid the lake of fire.

Obviously you can’t all be right

Very true.

What makes you so convinced that you and not the Muslims, or the guy who’s a gnostic, are right? I’m pretty sure your response is going to be “the Bible,” but what about the Bible inherently makes it more trustworthy than other thousand year old religious texts?

What makes anyone right? We could all be wrong, but there is only one truth and everything else is then wrong. There aren’t multiple truths so then you must find out what is right. Everyone thinks that their religion is the truth but I believe that the Bible is the truth. That there is a God and He inspired certain men to write the truth down in the Bible. In fact there is a verse that says that the Bible is inspired by God.
I can’t prove all of it, but yet I can, as God works in my heart and my mind and changes me. Though people seem to be convinced I’m changed for the worst, but I am actually changed for the better. That’s what God does, He changes people for the better, for themselves and for the plans He has for them. His word isn’t just words on a page, as you read those words and ponder them, praying to God you will find that His words speak to you, to your heart.

I don’t believe that all religions think that or that all religions think that people are sinners needing saving, that their god sent a son who actually is also God to be the sacrifice for sins. Yet, if you think about all the things wrong in the world much of it does come from sinners sinning. Not people who are mostly good.

It seems unbelievably arrogant to claim that you and you alone know the unknowable.

I’m not the only Christian in the world to claim that Christianity is the only way...though more and more, Christians seem to be confused to that fact. Yet Jesus also told us that He was the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him..he was the first one to say that there is only one way.

 

[justjess]

“You can never be a good enough person” = “might as well be as much of a dick as possible”

I guess that’s the danger in believing a world view which says as long as you believe a book to be true and infallible nothing else - literally nothing else - matters.

 

[Chara]

I guess one of the things that throws me off is that Christians believe people suck so much that they/we all deserve to die badly and suffer forever, but that the supreme being that dictated all of that thought it necessary to torture the perfect human to death, and that that makes the supreme being perfectly acceptable. That’s not a reasonable reaction to ANYTHING, but Christians see it as evidence of God being the best, well, being? I don’t understand it, and I don’t see that as acceptable in any form.

Granted, I was raised Shinto/Tenrikyo so I’m coming at this from a very different perspective, but my perspective of the Supreme Being is that they’re more like your parent than a violent dictator. Yeah, they want you to behave, but they’re not going to torture you forever for being human.

 

[Lisa]

“You can never be a good enough person” = “might as well be as much of a dick as possible”

I guess that’s the danger in believing a world view which says as long as you believe a boom to be true and infallible nothing else - literally nothing else - matters.

You can never be a good enough person = you need a savior, Jesus.

 

[Chara]

With that said as well, if I was the Supreme Being, I would have squished ISIS before they got any kind of a foothold and I’d prefer that the humans not kill anyone over me, but who knows, maybe deities have different rules of engagement than we do.

Thank you for attempting to answer my questions despite my combativeness though.

 

[Lisa]

I guess one of the things that throws me off is that Christians believe people suck so much that they/we all deserve to die badly and suffer forever, but that the supreme being that dictated all of that thought it necessary to torture the perfect human to death, and that that makes the supreme being perfectly acceptable. That’s not a reasonable reaction to ANYTHING, but Christians see it as evidence of God being the best, well, being? I don’t understand it, and I don’t see that as acceptable in any form.

Granted, I was raised Shinto/Tenrikyo so I’m coming at this from a very different perspective, but my perspective of the Supreme Being is that they’re more like your parent than a violent dictator. Yeah, they want you to behave, but they’re not going to torture you forever for being human.

Christians are just telling people what God has told them.

God hates sin and there is a punishment for sin, that punishment is the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. However, God sent His Son, Jesus to take the punishment for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to go to the lake of fire. So, yes there is a punishment but God also providing the way out of it and He took the punishment on Himself.
We don’t deserve to be saved, but God decided to save us and that’s what’s called grace.

 

[Lisa]

With that said as well, if I was the Supreme Being, I would have squished ISIS before they got any kind of a foothold and I’d prefer that the humans not kill anyone over me, but who knows, maybe deities have different rules of engagement than we do.

Thank you for attempting to answer my questions despite my combativeness though.

God allows people to have free will but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be judged for what they do in this life.

I didn’t find you to be combative, so no worries.

 

[justjess]

You can never be a good enough person = you need a savior, Jesus.

Yeah AND it’s a justification and a clutch to excuse being a dick to people. It isn’t either/or here.

 

[Chara]

Christians are just telling people what God has told them.

God hates sin and there is a punishment for sin, that punishment is the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. However, God sent His Son, Jesus to take the punishment for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to go to the lake of fire. So, yes there is a punishment but God also providing the way out of it and He took the punishment on Himself.
We don’t deserve to be saved, but God decided to save us and that’s what’s called grace.

But that makes god seem like Kim Jong Un to an exponential level, with some extra rules lawyering to avoid seeming like it. Humans lie, cheat, and steal, everyone’s done it once or twice.

Imagine you’re ten years old and hanging out with your friends. Your friends egg you on into stealing some candy from 7/11, which you do, and then your dad finds out. The way Christians describe the way they view god is like your dad finding out you stole that candy bar and immediately putting you on a plane to North Korea, where you’ll have to live in a work camp until you die, unless you let your brother take the punishment of going to North Korea for you. No sane person would be cool with that, it’s ridiculous and an incredibly extreme punishment for a dollar’s worth of stolen snack.

In the traditions I was raised in, to use the same metaphor, your dad catches you with the stolen candy, so he makes you go back to the 7/11, apologize to the clerk, and pay the cost of the stolen candy. 7/11 still gets the cost of the candy. You probably know not to steal candy next time, and you apologized for your actions. No harm done in the end, your pride might be damaged. But nobody has to go to Eternal North Korea. Obviously it’s not a one to one comparison, not everything a person does wrong is the moral equivalent of snatching a Reese’s cup, but to me, unless you’re literally Hitler or something nobody deserves torture forever. How do you square that with believing the Supreme Being is a good being?

 

[JoChris]

Also, JoChris is Austrailan from what I remember so her views on Islam and women don't surprise me.

Water off a duck's back

Must be so strenuous, copy and pasting hadith excerpts and taking them out of context. But it's what you do with the bible so, I guess it's a skill in which you are well-versed.

Australians are a mixed bunch temperament wise, but overall we are half-way between the Yanks and the Poms.
Overall we try to peace loving and tactful like the English but what we do care about we will leave no uncertainties about our position. We conveniently blame the Irish and Scots in our country's temperament for that. I have South America in my family tree too so I am extra stubborn.

I haven't got RSI from quoting your religious texts but thank you for your concern.

Your comment is intriguing though: why do Christians happily quote the bible, but Muslims won't quote their Quran?
Is it can't (because you are taught nothing) or won't (out of shame)?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

But that makes god seem like Kim Jong Un to an exponential level, with some extra rules lawyering to avoid seeming like it. Humans lie, cheat, and steal, everyone’s done it once or twice.

Imagine you’re ten years old and hanging out with your friends. Your friends egg you on into stealing some candy from 7/11, which you do, and then your dad finds out. The way Christians describe the way they view god is like your dad finding out you stole that candy bar and immediately putting you on a plane to North Korea, where you’ll have to live in a work camp until you die, unless you let your brother take the punishment of going to North Korea for you. No sane person would be cool with that, it’s ridiculous and an incredibly extreme punishment for a dollar’s worth of stolen snack.

In the traditions I was raised in, to use the same metaphor, your dad catches you with the stolen candy, so he makes you go back to the 7/11, apologize to the clerk, and pay the cost of the stolen candy. 7/11 still gets the cost of the candy. You probably know not to steal candy next time, and you apologized for your actions. No harm done in the end, your pride might be damaged. But nobody has to go to Eternal North Korea. Obviously it’s not a one to one comparison, not everything a person does wrong is the moral equivalent of snatching a Reese’s cup, but to me, unless you’re literally Hitler or something nobody deserves torture forever. How do you square that with believing the Supreme Being is a good being?

Did you ever watch this one? I think sometimes a good sketch is better than 1000 words!!

 

[JoChris]

She doesn't even need to google them now. Can just scroll down on her old posts and repost them and hope everyone has forgotten that they went through it before. This is deja vu but on steroids.

So you are reading my entries after all... wow you made my day!
What I want to know is how you knew I reposted material on Islam, when I didn't give links I had seen before making the post.

Today in fact I just saw the following clip. If you saw me give this link previously you must be living a few weeks/months ahead in the space-time continuum to us, including the Youtube clip creator.
Dated August 16 2019.

 

[JoChris]

No doubt about that, however if you water down scripture can you really be said to be on the same side?

I haven't seen anyone do that except actual open apostates on this forum.

What do you mean by some are spies? What do spies do in the body of Christ? Also, what do mediators do?

I was thinking of Christians who take in enemy information and don't let the enemy know they know what is going on so they get all the relevant information from them. That way fellow believers are kept safe.
Examples in bible:
The Egyptian midwives demonstrated fear in God by lying to Pharaoh to save the Israelite male babies. See Exodus chapter 1
The harlot demonstrated faith in Israel's God by hiding spies and then lying to the authorities to make sure they got away. See Joshua chapter 2
Disciples made Saul (called apostle Paul) escape at night because the Jews were out to kill him. Acts 9:20-25

A mediator is a peacemaker, diplomat, someone who seeks opposing parties to reach a truce or better (if and when possible).
Jesus is the ultimate mediator.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

As it says, IF possible be at peace with ALL men.
There is no fine print for only believers, or only people you agree with, or only people you like.
There is no fine print saying "if possible" really means no matter what ALWAYS keep the peace, whether the person hates you/ God, has done something that deserves severe consequences [etc] either.

It is a difficult tightrope to walk, and one I have swayed from one extreme to another at multiple times in my life.
The question "What would Jesus do?" is not a flippant one.
Jesus accepted sinners who repented of their sins. Jesus rejected those who rejected Him.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

So you are reading my entries after all... wow you made my day!
What I want to know is how you knew I reposted material on Islam, when I didn't give links I had seen before making the post.

Today in fact I just saw the following clip. If you saw me give this link previously you must be living a few weeks/months ahead in the space-time continuum to us, including the Youtube clip creator.
Dated August 16 2019.

Hi @JoChris

I looked up the Hadith that was quoted:-

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 :

Narrated by Aisha

“The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”​

The genuine questions I have arising from consideration of the account above are therefore -

1 - Is this account of Muhammad reliable at is it a slur on his reputation written long after the events?

2 - if it is a slur, does it cast doubt on the reliability of the Hadith collections in general?

3 - if it is not, and is judged to be authentic, by what standards is Muhammad to be considered someone to look up to? A fair minded reading of this account would have social services alerted these days.

If the Hadith are to be rejected, does Islam need to reconsider it’s sources? The implications are significant.

 

[JoChris]

Hi @JoChris

I looked up the Hadith that was quoted:-

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 :

Narrated by Aisha

“The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”​

The genuine questions I have arising from consideration of the account above are therefore -

1 - Is this account of Muhammad reliable at is it a slur on his reputation written long after the events?

2 - if it is a slur, does it cast doubt on the reliability of the Hadith collections in general?

3 - if it is not, and is judged to be authentic, by what standards is Muhammad to be considered someone to look up to? A fair minded reading of this account would have social services alerted these days.

If the Hadith are to be rejected, does Islam need to reconsider it’s sources? The implications are significant.

A quote from a muslim website + link.


.... the Hadith is the source of the history of Islam. If we do not consider its reports to be reliable, we cannot believe with certainty that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali -- may God be pleased with them -- were Companions of the Holy Prophet, who succeeded him in this order, and also died in this order. If Hadith is considered unreliable, then there is no evidence to definitely believe that these holy personages existed. It would be possible, in that case, that all these names were fictitious, and in fact there had not been an Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Ali, because according to Mr Ata Muhammad, the objector, all these traditions are isolated, and these names are not given in the Holy Quran. So according to this principle, they cannot be accepted as authentic. Similarly, the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s father having the name Abdullah, his mother having the name Amina, and his grandfather having the name Abdul Muttalib; one of his wives being called Khadija, one Aishah and one Hafsa, and his wet-nurse being called Halima; the Holy Prophet’s withdrawing to the cave of Hira for worship, the emigration of some of his Companions to Abyssinia, his staying in Makka for ten years after the Call, and then all those battles no mention of which is to be found in the Holy Quran -- all these facts are known only from Hadith. Should all of these be denied on the grounds that Hadith is not reliable? If this is true, Muslims would not be able to give any details of the life of the Holy Prophet, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him.

https://www.muslim.org/books/testi-hq/ch1.htm

so pretty well if the Hadith isn't believed, then the accounts of the life of muhammad can't be believed, and therefore Islam the religion falls apart minus the Hadith.

So it looks like Quran-only believers are like extreme red-letter Christians [who believe only the actual words of Jesus literally and explain away everything else that disagrees with their worldview].

 

[JoChris]

Hi @JoChris

I looked up the Hadith that was quoted:-

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 :

Narrated by Aisha

“The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”​

The genuine questions I have arising from consideration of the account above are therefore -

1 - Is this account of Muhammad reliable at is it a slur on his reputation written long after the events?

2 - if it is a slur, does it cast doubt on the reliability of the Hadith collections in general?

3 - if it is not, and is judged to be authentic, by what standards is Muhammad to be considered someone to look up to? A fair minded reading of this account would have social services alerted these days.

If the Hadith are to be rejected, does Islam need to reconsider it’s sources? The implications are significant.

That Aussie Imam was interviewed by David Wood a while back. Very interesting interview.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A quote from a muslim website + link.


.... the Hadith is the source of the history of Islam. If we do not consider its reports to be reliable, we cannot believe with certainty that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali -- may God be pleased with them -- were Companions of the Holy Prophet, who succeeded him in this order, and also died in this order. If Hadith is considered unreliable, then there is no evidence to definitely believe that these holy personages existed. It would be possible, in that case, that all these names were fictitious, and in fact there had not been an Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Ali, because according to Mr Ata Muhammad, the objector, all these traditions are isolated, and these names are not given in the Holy Quran. So according to this principle, they cannot be accepted as authentic. Similarly, the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s father having the name Abdullah, his mother having the name Amina, and his grandfather having the name Abdul Muttalib; one of his wives being called Khadija, one Aishah and one Hafsa, and his wet-nurse being called Halima; the Holy Prophet’s withdrawing to the cave of Hira for worship, the emigration of some of his Companions to Abyssinia, his staying in Makka for ten years after the Call, and then all those battles no mention of which is to be found in the Holy Quran -- all these facts are known only from Hadith. Should all of these be denied on the grounds that Hadith is not reliable? If this is true, Muslims would not be able to give any details of the life of the Holy Prophet, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him.

https://www.muslim.org/books/testi-hq/ch1.htm

so pretty well if the Hadith isn't believed, then the accounts of the life of muhammad can't be believed, and therefore Islam the religion falls apart minus the Hadith.

So it looks like Quran-only believers are like extreme red-letter Christians [who believe only the actual words of Jesus literally and explain away everything else that disagrees with their worldview].

Many people found the series of skits that David Wood did some time ago “Islamicize Me” to be very offensive:-

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuXxHEHGRVu9TEFZ6wIS1CXcHY1CR50IZ

However, these were simply a visualisation of what taking these Hadith would look like if applied consistently. It seems to me that, if I were a Muslim, I would find myself caught between a rock and a hard place, with the “redneck” ISIS brand of Sunni Islam consistently embracing the literal interpretation of dangerous Hadith and the reforming type of Islam reviewing what can be reliably known about the actual teachings of Muhammad.

Some time ago, @Kung Fu had questioned me on the supposed interpolations into scriptures, suggesting they were added to improve or harmonise the text. He was brusque and direct in his style and I took his questions on as being genuine, looked into them and found some surprising answers.

https://www.vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-critical-text-criticized.3461/

I think it would be fair to say we are all wholehearted people here, and seek truth. I believe truth has nothing to fear from cross examination. I have watched critiques of Christianity from channels like “Merciful Servant” and others, looked into answers to those challenges and come out the better for the process.

 

[manama]

Hi @JoChris

I looked up the Hadith that was quoted:-

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 :

Narrated by Aisha

“The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”​

The genuine questions I have arising from consideration of the account above are therefore -

1 - Is this account of Muhammad reliable at is it a slur on his reputation written long after the events?

2 - if it is a slur, does it cast doubt on the reliability of the Hadith collections in general?

3 - if it is not, and is judged to be authentic, by what standards is Muhammad to be considered someone to look up to? A fair minded reading of this account would have social services alerted these days.

If the Hadith are to be rejected, does Islam need to reconsider it’s sources? The implications are significant.

First of all that Aussie imam is a joke. He is basically a troll thats being taken serious by people for whatever reason. He has made very weird statements to the point that our actual imams had to warn people to do their research before believing whatever he says.

Also the hadith you mentioned, like we've said many times in this forum, is fake. Its inauthentic. The chain of narration is weak, the narrator NEVER met Aisha r.a. so the fact that he narrated this from her point of view is very suspicious. Also the man had dementia lol.

-The hadith also is clearly fake because it says that their nikkah was when she was 6 years old. But Aisha r.a is said to be 6 when she accepted Islam as she accepted it when her father did who accepted it during year 1 of prophethood.
-The time gap between year 1 of prophethood and the migration to Medina is 13 years and Aisha and Prophet married a year AFTER the migration.
-Not just that but Aisha r.a. was the daughter of Abu Bakr's first wife who died way before the prophet started preaching Islam.
-Also Aisha took part in the battle of Badr as a nurse and you had to be 14+ to be allowed near the battlefield.
Basic math tells us she was atleast 19-20. History tells us she was 19-20. ONE hadith that has been again and again proven wrong tells us she wasn't. Quran doesn't even allow marriage unless the person is physically and mentally mature.

While our language might sound crude but you have to realize that I don't live in the first world. I know along with many others that this hadith is fake and we know that it was spread around by people who wanted to exploit Islam using misinformation and marry young girls.
I've seen young kids get married off as child brides in South Asia. And I, along with other Muslims have been trying to fight it by educating people that its wrong and that its NOT a part of Islam.
So you can't blame us for getting pissed off when someone comes in and tries to shove it down our throats that "its islam". We are the victims of this, we ARE fighting this and we don't need to be told that its islam by people who are trying to make themselves feel good about their own faith.
When you say that this hadith is correct, you are causing damage and Muslim kids are at the receiving end. This is something that needs to be exposed, spread awareness about. Not forced into Islam. Its easy to say "hurr durr if it hadith it true" when you are living in a safe space.

You can tell whether a hadith is accurate or not by whether its in accordance with the Quran. Other methods include verifying the chain of narration and time etc. Hadith are basically quotes and sayings that the Prophet said or things he did. But we aren't hearing this from him but rather people who heard it from them. It includes people who are narrating accurately, people who forgot stuff and people who spread lies.
This is the old "if its on the internet it must be true" thing. We have to verify stuff before believing them and the reason we are in such a mess is because of people who don't bother with research or context.