Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Case for Allah instead of God in English

SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think he makes a pretty good case.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 8:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:



I think he makes a pretty good case.

You mean that divine creature that supposedly had his prophet marry a pre-pubescent girl and consummate marriage and issue all sorts of lunatic disgusting vile revolting laws that belong nowhere except in the enzyme tank where they're recycled into methane?

If that were the case - and I seriously doubt it - just another reason, on top of so many compelling reasons, to be an eco-friendly good sport and use the Bible as toilet paper.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 8:59:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Christians and Jews refer to God as "Allah" in Arabic speaking countries. Whether or not you accept Islam isn't really the point here.

The point is that "Allah" is a really fine name for God, and that the word "God" is confusing to people who think of it as being the same thing as "god". I'd say that this is a stumbling block for atheists, but its pretty clear to me that they have chosen their delusion, and aren't really concerned about the truth so much as they are justifying their own weakness.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 11:05:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 10:21:38 PM, desmac wrote:
You can call your invisible friends whatever you like.

Sig Change.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 9:44:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 11:05:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 10:21:38 PM, desmac wrote:
You can call your invisible friends whatever you like.

Sig Change.

I'm honoured.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 6:29:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I wonder if any of you actually watched the video.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 7:54:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

I think he makes a pretty good case.
Perhaps this video was not aimed at Christians such as myself. I do not particularly have any objection to Christians using the word "Allah." The Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about the term:

"Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, 'the God.' The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for 'god' was il or el, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Allah is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims."

However, I do object to one of his statements made within the first four minutes of the video. Simply because an Arabic translation of the King James Version of the Bible uses the Arabic term "Allah" does not mean that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (see 2:54). Do Muslims have any concept of the trinity? Not at all, in fact, the Qur'an grossly misrepresents the doctrine.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:08:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 7:54:56 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

I think he makes a pretty good case.
Perhaps this video was not aimed at Christians such as myself. I do not particularly have any objection to Christians using the word "Allah." The Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about the term:

"Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, 'the God.' The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for 'god' was il or el, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Allah is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims."

However, I do object to one of his statements made within the first four minutes of the video. Simply because an Arabic translation of the King James Version of the Bible uses the Arabic term "Allah" does not mean that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (see 2:54). Do Muslims have any concept of the trinity? Not at all, in fact, the Qur'an grossly misrepresents the doctrine.

This topic is more about the usefulness of "Allah" over "God" as far as language goes, not necessarily about accepting Islam.

So no, you aren't necessarily out of place here. This topic is for Christians as well as anyone who believes in The One True God.

A lot of Muslims worship scripture and religion, but their scriptures and religion testify of The One True God, which transcends these outward manifestations of religion. Likewise, a lot of Christians worship created things as well, but that isn't what the scriptures testify of.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:15:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:08:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

This topic is more about the usefulness of "Allah" over "God" as far as language goes, not necessarily about accepting Islam.
Sure, I was just commenting on what I believed to be a rather false statement. He may have just been soft in his language. I would perhaps encourage Arab Christians to use the Arabic term "Allah." It would not make much sense, however, for English speaking Christians to use the term.

A lot of Muslims worship scripture and religion, but their scriptures and religion testify of The One True God, which transcends these outward manifestations of religion. Likewise, a lot of Christians worship created things as well, but that isn't what the scriptures testify of.
I am not sure I follow. In what sense do Christians worship created things?
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:25:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:15:30 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/3/2016 8:08:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
A lot of Muslims worship scripture and religion, but their scriptures and religion testify of The One True God, which transcends these outward manifestations of religion. Likewise, a lot of Christians worship created things as well, but that isn't what the scriptures testify of.
I am not sure I follow. In what sense do Christians worship created things?

Well, I suppose you'd have to know the difference between created things and The Uncreated to figure that one out. As for me, I'd prefer not to go down this line of discussion. God knows best.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:25:12 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Well, I suppose you'd have to know the difference between created things and The Uncreated to figure that one out. As for me, I'd prefer not to go down this line of discussion. God knows best.
I am very familiar with the difference between something that is created and something that is uncreated. There is an infinite chasm between the two. However, you mentioned that Christians worship created things. I am curious as to what you meant by that statement. Why bother mentioning it if you have no desire of discussing it?
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:39:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:30:09 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/3/2016 8:25:12 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Well, I suppose you'd have to know the difference between created things and The Uncreated to figure that one out. As for me, I'd prefer not to go down this line of discussion. God knows best.
I am very familiar with the difference between something that is created and something that is uncreated. There is an infinite chasm between the two. However, you mentioned that Christians worship created things. I am curious as to what you meant by that statement. Why bother mentioning it if you have no desire of discussing it?

Not all Christians, but a lot of them.

Does that make more sense?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:42:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:39:53 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Not all Christians, but a lot of them.

Does that make more sense?
No, because you still did not tell me what you mean by the statement. We do not have to engage in some sort of debate or heated exchange. I am just asking you to expand on your comment.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:44:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:42:06 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/3/2016 8:39:53 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Not all Christians, but a lot of them.

Does that make more sense?
No, because you still did not tell me what you mean by the statement. We do not have to engage in some sort of debate or heated exchange. I am just asking you to expand on your comment.

The same type of idolatries you find within any tradition. The idolatry of scripture, the idolatry of man, the idolatry of creation.

All of these idolatries are addressed in the scriptures, so you have to understand that I don't want to discourage people from reading scripture simply because the scripture isn't God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:56:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:42:06 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/3/2016 8:39:53 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Not all Christians, but a lot of them.

Does that make more sense?
No, because you still did not tell me what you mean by the statement. We do not have to engage in some sort of debate or heated exchange. I am just asking you to expand on your comment.

Though shalt now bow down before any graven image.

https://ivarfjeld.com...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:57:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:42:06 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/3/2016 8:39:53 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Not all Christians, but a lot of them.

Does that make more sense?
No, because you still did not tell me what you mean by the statement. We do not have to engage in some sort of debate or heated exchange. I am just asking you to expand on your comment.

Thou shalt not bow down before any graven image is how that should have read, the link is unchanged, apologies.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 6:08:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 11:56:05 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Though shalt now bow down before any graven image.

https://ivarfjeld.com...
I agree that the Catholics and Orthodox Christians are standing right on the line of idolatry. In all honesty, it is the least of their concerns, theologically speaking.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 6:21:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Idk about you guys but if I were Mary and had premarital sex and either had to lie to cover it up, or be stoned to death and let my lover mourn for the rest of their life, I would choose to lie.

About the Allah thing, eh whatever floats your boat, its your personal preferred preference just like its your preference not to stone people to death. (as far as I know) So if you do think its fair to pick and choose and customize or personalize your deity then by all means.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:40:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 8:59:40 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Christians and Jews refer to God as "Allah" in Arabic speaking countries. Whether or not you accept Islam isn't really the point here.

The point is that "Allah" is a really fine name for God, and that the word "God" is confusing to people who think of it as being the same thing as "god". I'd say that this is a stumbling block for atheists, but its pretty clear to me that they have chosen their delusion, and aren't really concerned about the truth so much as they are justifying their own weakness.

I cannot myself say I've ever had a problem distinguishing Yhwh from 'some god', however I do have a problem working out which Yhwh people are talking about, because there seem to be about forty of them, each with different morality, cultural biases and metaphysical intent for the universe in general, and humanity in particular.

Then there are the Deists who say God but don't mean Yhwh, and the Hindus who do the same.

This is not a problem for atheists to own, I think. It's a problem for Abrahamic denominations to sort out among themselves before they make collective representation to Hindus and the few remaining Deists.

I'm not clear whether using the Arabic name will be sufficient to clear up the confusion, though it might be if militant Muslim revivalists would be so kind as to conquer and rule us all.
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:23:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 8:27:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:



I think he makes a pretty good case.

You mean that divine creature that supposedly had his prophet marry a pre-pubescent girl and consummate marriage and issue all sorts of lunatic disgusting vile revolting laws that belong nowhere except in the enzyme tank where they're recycled into methane?

If that were the case - and I seriously doubt it - just another reason, on top of so many compelling reasons, to be an eco-friendly good sport and use the Bible as toilet paper.

Joseph the husband of Mary married a 14 year old....and?
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:27:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 11:23:07 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:27:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:



I think he makes a pretty good case.

You mean that divine creature that supposedly had his prophet marry a pre-pubescent girl and consummate marriage and issue all sorts of lunatic disgusting vile revolting laws that belong nowhere except in the enzyme tank where they're recycled into methane?

If that were the case - and I seriously doubt it - just another reason, on top of so many compelling reasons, to be an eco-friendly good sport and use the Bible as toilet paper.

Joseph the husband of Mary married a 14 year old....and?

Would you acknowledge someone who married a 6-year old and consummated marriage when she was 9, nine, as an ethical guide sent by the supposedly morally prefect Creator of the Universe?
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:38:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 7:54:56 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

I think he makes a pretty good case.
Perhaps this video was not aimed at Christians such as myself. I do not particularly have any objection to Christians using the word "Allah." The Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about the term:

"Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, 'the God.' The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for 'god' was il or el, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Allah is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims."

However, I do object to one of his statements made within the first four minutes of the video. Simply because an Arabic translation of the King James Version of the Bible uses the Arabic term "Allah" does not mean that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (see 2:54). Do Muslims have any concept of the trinity? Not at all, in fact, the Qur'an grossly misrepresents the doctrine.

There is no concept of the trinity in Islam nor in Judaism and in fact, even Jews reject your trinity. The famous philosopher Moses Maimonides once told his followers:

"The Ishmaelites [Muslims] are not idol worshippers at all, and it [idolatry] has ceased to exist in their mouths and hearts and they attribute the proper Oneness to God with no blemish. And if someone will say that the house they worship in is an idolatrous shrine . . . as their ancestors worshiped idols there"that does not matter. Those who bow towards it today, their hearts are dedicated to heaven [towards the One God] . . . and the Ishmaelites today, all of them, women and children, have ceased to believe in idolatry and their mistake is . . . in other things . . . however in attributing Oneness to God"they have no mistake at all."

Because in Judaism, Christianity is seen as idolatrous therefore when Jews are in a foreign land or cannot pray at home, they are allowed to pray in a mosque instead of a church because Islam is seen as monotheistic "Noachidism."

What do you say about that? Even Jews do not follow the Christian trinity....
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 11:51:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 11:27:01 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 11:23:07 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:27:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:



I think he makes a pretty good case.

You mean that divine creature that supposedly had his prophet marry a pre-pubescent girl and consummate marriage and issue all sorts of lunatic disgusting vile revolting laws that belong nowhere except in the enzyme tank where they're recycled into methane?

If that were the case - and I seriously doubt it - just another reason, on top of so many compelling reasons, to be an eco-friendly good sport and use the Bible as toilet paper.

Joseph the husband of Mary married a 14 year old....and?

Would you acknowledge someone who married a 6-year old and consummated marriage when she was 9, nine, as an ethical guide sent by the supposedly morally prefect Creator of the Universe?

People during those times had bizarre customs based on how we look at things today. So it would be unfair to not acknowledge that during those times given the life expectancy then and the lack of technological advancement which extends human life, people tend to marry young. It is ironic that people often depict Mary as a woman in paintings and drawings yet she was no more than 14 years old. In today's age, she is barely entering high school. That would be our idea of Mary today, but during those times people like Mary and younger were seen as mature. Imagine, being 21 and being considered "old" by your society? That is my point. You are using your idea of what is considered "too young" and placing that idea in an old custom much older than you and I.

This custom is not isolated to Arabs, many people in Europe married young because again, life expectancy was short. I am 34 years old, so in Muhammad's time I would be considered an "elder" of sorts because I'm passed the life expiration age. Although many educated Christians know this, I think a lot of times they used Muhammad's union with A'isha to discredit Islam.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:01:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 11:51:44 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/4/2016 11:27:01 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 11:23:07 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:27:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:



I think he makes a pretty good case.

You mean that divine creature that supposedly had his prophet marry a pre-pubescent girl and consummate marriage and issue all sorts of lunatic disgusting vile revolting laws that belong nowhere except in the enzyme tank where they're recycled into methane?

If that were the case - and I seriously doubt it - just another reason, on top of so many compelling reasons, to be an eco-friendly good sport and use the Bible as toilet paper.

Joseph the husband of Mary married a 14 year old....and?

Would you acknowledge someone who married a 6-year old and consummated marriage when she was 9, nine, as an ethical guide sent by the supposedly morally prefect Creator of the Universe?

People during those times had bizarre customs based on how we look at things today. So it would be unfair to not acknowledge that during those times given the life expectancy then and the lack of technological advancement which extends human life, people tend to marry young. It is ironic that people often depict Mary as a woman in paintings and drawings yet she was no more than 14 years old. In today's age, she is barely entering high school. That would be our idea of Mary today, but during those times people like Mary and younger were seen as mature. Imagine, being 21 and being considered "old" by your society? That is my point. You are using your idea of what is considered "too young" and placing that idea in an old custom much older than you and I.

This custom is not isolated to Arabs, many people in Europe married young because again, life expectancy was short. I am 34 years old, so in Muhammad's time I would be considered an "elder" of sorts because I'm passed the life expiration age. Although many educated Christians know this, I think a lot of times they used Muhammad's union with A'isha to discredit Islam.

Don't you think that the supposed prophet sent by the morally perfect Creator of the Universe should be held to higher standards than those governing the lives of illiterate men?

I take it that the prophet's message contradicted the customs of the time on a number of instances, otherwise it would have been virtually indistinguishable from the contemporary culture in the Arabic peninsula. Why was it then that in this specific instance the prophet did not see fit to distance himself from said culture? Yet, like you admit, we see him behaving just like any other ordinary male from the 6th century, which inevitably casts his claims of being a prophet sent by the morally perfect God under a unfavourable light.
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:14:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 12:01:01 AM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 11:51:44 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/4/2016 11:27:01 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/4/2016 11:23:07 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/2/2016 8:27:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:36:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:



I think he makes a pretty good case.

You mean that divine creature that supposedly had his prophet marry a pre-pubescent girl and consummate marriage and issue all sorts of lunatic disgusting vile revolting laws that belong nowhere except in the enzyme tank where they're recycled into methane?

If that were the case - and I seriously doubt it - just another reason, on top of so many compelling reasons, to be an eco-friendly good sport and use the Bible as toilet paper.

Joseph the husband of Mary married a 14 year old....and?

Would you acknowledge someone who married a 6-year old and consummated marriage when she was 9, nine, as an ethical guide sent by the supposedly morally prefect Creator of the Universe?

People during those times had bizarre customs based on how we look at things today. So it would be unfair to not acknowledge that during those times given the life expectancy then and the lack of technological advancement which extends human life, people tend to marry young. It is ironic that people often depict Mary as a woman in paintings and drawings yet she was no more than 14 years old. In today's age, she is barely entering high school. That would be our idea of Mary today, but during those times people like Mary and younger were seen as mature. Imagine, being 21 and being considered "old" by your society? That is my point. You are using your idea of what is considered "too young" and placing that idea in an old custom much older than you and I.

This custom is not isolated to Arabs, many people in Europe married young because again, life expectancy was short. I am 34 years old, so in Muhammad's time I would be considered an "elder" of sorts because I'm passed the life expiration age. Although many educated Christians know this, I think a lot of times they used Muhammad's union with A'isha to discredit Islam.

Don't you think that the supposed prophet sent by the morally perfect Creator of the Universe should be held to higher standards than those governing the lives of illiterate men?

I take it that the prophet's message contradicted the customs of the time on a number of instances, otherwise it would have been virtually indistinguishable from the contemporary culture in the Arabic peninsula. Why was it then that in this specific instance the prophet did not see fit to distance himself from said culture? Yet, like you admit, we see him behaving just like any other ordinary male from the 6th century, which inevitably casts his claims of being a prophet sent by the morally perfect God under a unfavourable light.

I just explained this to you. Many of those semitic cultures married young. A lot of tribes that wanted to ally with other tribes tend to marry off their daughters when they're young. It was their custom. Again, you or I are looking at it from the perspective we have now. I mean we can also ask the question on why God allowed a 14 year old girl to become impregnated as opposed to a 20 year-old. We can also ask the question why a prophet like Noah got drunk and had sex with his daughter. There are a lot of questions we can ask.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:36:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:40:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

This is not a problem for atheists to own, I think. It's a problem for Abrahamic denominations to sort out among themselves before they make collective representation to Hindus and the few remaining Deists.

They've been killing each other for hundreds and hundreds of years, how much more time do you think they need to hammer things out?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:55:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 12:36:33 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:40:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
This is not a problem for atheists to own, I think. It's a problem for Abrahamic denominations to sort out among themselves before they make collective representation to Hindus and the few remaining Deists.
They've been killing each other for hundreds and hundreds of years, how much more time do you think they need to hammer things out?

I agree, B. The blind slaughter and deaf contempt isn't reconciling doctrinal differences nearly fast enough. :( Perhaps there's a way for the devout to make their own brains explode in fits of pious sanctimony, so the infidels can scrape up the brain matter to measure who the true believers were?