Islam Debate Thread

**~~Randommembr~~** · 02-04-2021, 07:00 PM

"Islam" debate thread...

**~~Rethel~~** · 02-05-2021, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Azbuzz

"Islam" debate thread...

Actually, there is nothing to debate.

If this, what islam claims about it's own history and origin is true - then it is a false satanic religion.
If this, what islam claims about it's own history and origin is true not - then it is a flase satanic religion also.

So, there really is nothing to debate. Eventually only to expose.

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.

**Laly** · 02-06-2021, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Everyone knows what the Church is about. There are plenty of Christians on this thread who have admitted to it, who are proud of it. I have read your catechism.

? I am using the exact word used in the text, why are you assuming I'm using it differently to them?

Of course, and I enumerated them separately. However, the (or at the very very least some) non-believers are at least possibly going to hell (for the crime of disbelief), see:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

As humans are born with sin, according to the Church, and non-Catholics do not undergo confession, it is directly inferrable this part refers to 'all of us:'

At the very very least, a Christian who renounces the faith is set to burn forever:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

Longbowman Everyone knows what the Church is about. There are plenty of Christians on this thread who have admitted to it, who are proud of it. I have read your catechism.

I’m not interested in your feelings concerning the Church. I’m just fed up with your factual nonsense. And after my first post in this thread, after which you would have had better stopped, you even referred to me with the words “ignorant” and “dishonest”. And you, what are you, then, lol??

You said there would be the purgatory forever for certain people. Your words: “either you believe in the possibility that your God could unironically condemn an unbaptised child to hell or purgatory forever, or you don't. For Catholics, historically, as today, it has been the former.”

None of what you quoted implies that one can’t die in as state of mortal sin, go to hell and then be saved.

You assumed “ignore” was used as “not knowing about”, because you implied that ignorant people (those not knowing the good news) could be saved, in opposition to ex-Christians, saying the latter would be forever in hell. But they could also be called “ignorant” (ignoring knowingly, choosing to ignore). Your words: “ignorant may be afforded salvation - but atheists of Catholic background? Tsk tsk. You're going to burn. […] a Christian who renounces the faith is set to burn forever.”

“he saves from hell those who follow him”: it can very well concern those who are in hell but finally decide to follow him.

You extrapolate so that the texts would fit your preconceived idea. You can’t conclude from them that when someone dies in a state of mortal sin and that they go to hell, it’s necessarily forever, contrary to what you say. For that, one must persist until the end, even after death, after seeing God in hell, until the moment of the Last Judgement, “the end”.

We have quoted from the Bible concerning the Descent of Christ:

Jn 5, 25: “Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.” (I had already posted this one and paintings depicting the episode).

1 P 3, 19: “he [Jesus] went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits – to those who were disobedient […]”.

Here below are some important doctrinal writings.

- The Firmiter, Creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:

“Christ will come at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead and to render to each, both damned and elect, according to their works. All of these will rise with their own bodies which they now possess in order to receive according to their works, whether good or bad. The evil will receive perpetual punishment with the devil, the good eternal glory with Christ.” [DS 801]

- The Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, January of 1336:

“Furthermore we define that, according to the general plan of God, the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin descend to hell soon after death. There they are afflicted with the pains of hell, but nonetheless on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds so that each one may receive according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).” [DS 1002]

- The Creed of Paul VI, June 30, 1968:

“He ascended into heaven, whence He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, each receiving according to his own merits. Those who have responded to the Love and Mercy of God will go to eternal life; those who have rejected that Love and Mercy to the end will go to the fire which will have no end."”

The Swiss theologian Urs von Balthasar, one of the most prominent Catholic theologians of the XXth century, addressed the question of hell, which was quite neglected until then. He says Christ descended to hell to preach to those there, so that they may be saved.

**Longbowman** · 02-06-2021, 08:50 PM

Again, [some] Christians have effectively seen this issue, had problems with it, written it away, so that de-facto there is no Hell, good. It begs the question 'what's the point?' and certainly doesn't negate the catechism I pointed out. It's just an inconsistency. But it's good you believe that.

**Laly** · 02-06-2021, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Aldaris

If you'd take Genesis literally you've already disproved it, unless you wanna ditch away every other scientific field. Doing just that would mean no evolution, around 6000 year old universe, two original humans created from scratch or a worldwide flood covering Mount Everest. We know for a fact this didn't happen. Now sure, the Bible isn't to be read as a scientific textbook, but they you run into the issue of which crazy story should be taken literally - with every one of them it's going get harder and harder and the Bible is littered with them. Furthemore, the narrative of the most them is quite obviously meant as a historical event, not some parable. This point holds even more when you get to the historicity and you leave magic out of the picture. Just a couple of examples - did the Exodus as described in there happen? No. Did the conquest of Canaan happen? No. You would think that more than a half million Jews travelling a distance which would a granny cover in a few months tops for 40 years would leave some archeological evidence. Yet we have nothing. As for Leviticus, that's more about moral issues like condoning slavery rather than inconsistencies. Could make another paragraph just about that.

Tackled that above. Yeah, you don't read the Bible literally, but the issue remains - how do you determine what's basically a Red Riding Hood snuck in there to convey some abstract message and what's to be taken as an actual fact? Because the authors themselves don't make it clear - that's why you have American creationists like Kent Hovind who ditch the theory of evolution, aswell as whole bunch of other factual stuff in order to make peace with the literal interpretation of the Bible on one hand and Catholics who accept it on the other. And yet, Catholic canon still accepts disproven narratives like the supposedly historical examples I've refenced. Thing is, in order to make the Bible credible you have to reinterpret it to such a degree that basically nothing of the original text remains as it is. And then, with little to no scriptural support, how do you know you've done it in the way God intended? The reasoning shoots itself in the foot at that point.

I think what you say is very interesting and opens many perspectives. Of course, the historicity of the Biblical texts must be studied, they must be confronted with the advances of the archaeological discoveries and reason must guide us. But the value of the Biblical texts isn’t only related to the historical context where they appeared, but also greatly to the reactions and decisions they arouse for the reader, to the symbolism.

In the beginning of the Christian era, Christian theologians didn’t really know what to do with the Old Testament. There was a real debate on that, but finally it was integrated in the Christian canon. Facing the problem of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, already at that time then, Origen said that what is “not worthy of God” in the Old Testament (horrors, divine wrath, for example), must be interpreted not literally but spiritually. For him, it was necessary to understand the Mosaic Law as symbols and allegories.

Origen developped the concept of the four senses of Scriptures, saying :«Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia". (The letter speaks of deeds; allegory about the faith; The moral about our actions; anagogy about our destiny).

As for Augustine, he considered the Old Testament as a path to Jesus Christ. He said that transcending the literal sense makes the letter itself credible and that the unity of the Old and the New Testaments is fulfilled through the spirit.

Actually, the intimacy with God humans acquired throughout history let them perceive how he is really, through the person of Jesus (as “Dei Verbum” or “Verbum Domini” state). Before, during the time of the Old Testament, God was deformed, misrepresented in human spirits.

As for the Genesis in particular, ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts from the Middle East were used and assimilated by the inspired authors of the Genesis, but to make something new and original, with a singular intellectual personality. In fact, ancient elements may be integrated into new original conceptions. For ex., the Genesis of the Bible is the only one known from the Ancient Middle East which evokes the particular creation of the woman! It could mean that she is not inferior, because she is taken out of the man: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called ‘woman,’for she was taken out of man.”

**Teutone** · 03-13-2021, 08:34 AM

What makes Islam interesting and impressive, is the fact the quran was exclusively written by mohammed. A book of that complexity, that leaves the greatest mind studiying it, that covers so many aspects in life and inspires billions of people, cannot be written by a regular person.

And western arrogance, I used to be guilty of myself, that tries to insult or downplay mohammed, is not aware of this.

The hadiths in addition to that add alot of depth on islam.

**~~Rethel~~** · 03-13-2021, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Teutone

What makes Islam interesting and impressive...

...is the fact, that it is the most obviously false religion ever.

is the fact the quran was exclusively written by mohammed.

It's a lie. Even mahometans do not belive in this

A book of that complexity,

The Ring of the Nibelungs is more complex than this...

that leaves the greatest mind studiying it,

Where average IQ is below 85...

that covers so many aspects in life

Koran covers nothing. There is even no basic islamic teachings! What are you talking about?

and inspires billions of people, cannot be written by a regular person.

Wasn't. It was started by Abdulmalik and then was written by many authors until Xth century and many times corrected until... 1985...

And western arrogance, I used to be guilty of myself, that tries to insult or downplay mohammed, is not aware of this.

And mahometans are not aware, that all what they claim is false, almost all, let say 90%.
Especially after one of the leading muslims of the internet totaly disproved Koran in last year...

The hadiths in addition to that add alot of depth on islam.

Do you also think, they were written by Mahomet?

There existed at least 2,000,000 Hadiths. It was enaugh to describe every hour of his life.
249 hadiths per day during his "preaching" and 88 per day, as long as he lived.

Al-Bukhari examined only 600,000 of them, which he collected in Turkmenistan, Egypt, Iraq
aso - thousands of miles away from each other and hundreds of years after Mahomet lived.
Then he chose ~7600 just because he want to, and threw out the rest.

He lived 250 years after Mahomet.

Most of these 7600 hadiths proof, that Mahomet was disgusting and the most false prophet ever.
And this is the official version in which Muslims believe!

So, do you really think, they are reliable?

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.