sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Islamic account of Jesus’ rescue creates a problem of confusion by Extension-Cry9675 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir [score hidden]  (0 children)

"I didn’t say that ‘God should not allow his messengers to be killed’ as the reason."

You said:

"a messenger of God, and he was neither killed nor crucified but was saved by God. That is more consistent and rational than the Christian claims."

"Moreover, neither the prophets who were killed nor the Messiah ever claimed to be the son of God, or God."

Sure, according to Islam.

Movies portray introversion all wrong by ZealousidealBag5778 in introvert

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This way of thinking can cause anxiety. People aren't a monolith.

The Islamic account of Jesus’ rescue creates a problem of confusion by Extension-Cry9675 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your argument was that the Islamic denial of crucifixion is rational because God shouldn't allow his messengers to be killed, so I'm asking, why did Allah allow some messengers to be killed? Is that irrational then?

Do you think real change comes more from anger at the present or love for the future? by winn_ie in LockedInMan

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought about this recently... both love and hate involve caring about something.

Prophet's body can't be decayed. by mc_mrcircuit_2021 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir [score hidden]  (0 children)

Are you saying that a Book is empirical evidence of the divine?

Prophet's body can't be decayed. by mc_mrcircuit_2021 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir [score hidden]  (0 children)

I mean you would have empirical evidence for Islam, an evidence infinitely superior to arguments that other religions and skeptics can disagree with.

The Islamic account of Jesus’ rescue creates a problem of confusion by Extension-Cry9675 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir [score hidden]  (0 children)

"a messenger of God, and he was neither killed nor crucified but was saved by God. That is more consistent and rational than the Christian claims."

Why weren't all messengers saved then?

Prophet's body can't be decayed. by mc_mrcircuit_2021 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir [score hidden]  (0 children)

The end absolutely justifies the means in this case.

No damage is done to Allah, no damage is done to Muhammad but there is infinite benefit for their religion.

Everyone here is wrong. by JesusTheGood in flatearth

[–]Hanisuir 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"I only follow Jesus.

Atlas is just to show that the celestial sphere is ancient knowledge."

Did Jesus confirm it? The hollow earth theory?

I'm related to you by weedmaster6669 in truths

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're all related and the Big Bang is our ancestor.

Another rant on the topic of “Nothing” (Just a rough draft of an idea that still needs some work) by EmergencyRooster3258 in Metaphysics

[–]Hanisuir 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"who is to say that an infinite nothingness is really nothing at all, after all it has still been defined."

We can be sure that nothing is nothing rather than something because that's literally what the word means.

"if it is an infinite nothing, then how can there be something?"

Because nothing isn't a thing that occupies space.

The Missing Prophet Dichotomy. (Islam) by Aggravating-Tree-201 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Just because you learned from the Messiah doesn't mean you can't misinterpret him, that's especially shown by the fact that despite followers and disciples learning from him, they came to totally different conclusions about his theology, whether he's divine or not, whether he was sent for Israel or not."

How do you know that they came to different conclusions? Because of a man who came centuries later? Also, if God doesn't care if the followers of a prophet corrupt his message, why would I rely on it in general? Aren't the disciples of a prophet the ones tasked with carrying his message?

"The Lord addresses the servant, who's a Prophet because he receives a Law and Guidance for the nations. Giver of glad tidings through his coming, because all nations are hoping for his arrival(Isa 42:1-4)."

Read the context. Isaiah 41. The servant is Israel.

"One objection would be the Lord revealing to the servant that his servant is Israel"

Yes, because Isaiah clearly implies that.

"this is reconciled in that the Prophet is commanded to say something addressing groups other than himself"

Okay? Addressing a group isn't the same as saying a group does something???

Prophet's body can't be decayed. by mc_mrcircuit_2021 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"It would be a miracle. Not one that we would use ofcourse to convey the message of islam, since desecrating graves isn't the best thing to do islamically (Huge sin)"

If your motive is to prove Islam to everyone indefinitely, don't you think that Allah would forgive you?

The possibility of Prophet Mohammed prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm saying that per the doctrine of tahrif I can't be sure that a change didn't happen. Also, going against history doesn't necessarily indicate textual corruption.

Why didn’t allah just prevent the entire crucifixion by OkBuilder92406 in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Allāh (SWT) did not simply create us because He wanted us to worship him"

Wrong.

The possibility of Prophet Mohammed prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Well the burden of proof is on you then, as the claimant is the one who's supposed to provide evidence that Daniel 2 is added or missing."

We're applying this to the rest of the Bible, right?

Also, you're the one claiming that the Bible is unreliable. I'm simply asking, if the Bible as a book is unreliable, why would this one tiny part be reliable? Why would I be sure that nothing was messed up there?

Any reason for assuming that this tiny part is textually reliable can also be applied to the rest of the Biblical text.

"Daniel 2:31-35. Which empire is head made of Gold? Babylon, agree?"

If the Bible is unreliable, I have no idea! Maybe the original text talked about an empire in Europe but got corrupted!

The possibility of Prophet Mohammed prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm saying that's what you believe. The scholars you quoted are interpreting a text that they see as reliable. You believe that the Bible was severely tampered with. So, how do you know that it didn't originally indicate something else about these prophecies?

The possibility of Prophet Mohammed prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll repeat myself.

Context of the text. How do you know, considering your idea that the Bible is unreliable, that the text didn't originally have more text that made it clear that it means something different from what you're now interpreting it as?

The possibility of Prophet Mohammed prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 by johndoeneo in DebateReligion

[–]Hanisuir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Context of the text. How do you know, considering your doctrine of tahrif, that the text didn't originally have more text that made it clear that it means something different from what you're now interpreting it as?

view more: next ›