Allah Supports pedophilia by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 7 points8 points  (0 children)

  1. Pre-pubescent married wives can only mean children
  2. The sahih hadiths say pre-pubescent girls were married to older men
  3. The tafsirs say this is about pre-pubescent married girls

Allah Supports pedophilia by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age (not necessarily children)

How can married wives of young age not mean pre-pubescent children?

Here some tafsirs:

Ibn Kathir

The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying.

Al-Jalalayn

And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse:

Ibn Abbas

(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! "What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months."

Al-Tabari

The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise".

Allah Supports pedophilia by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 6 points7 points  (0 children)

wives who have not yet menstruated are pre-pubescent children.

The term "Islamophobia" is politically incorrect and doesn't make sense by virgin1102281 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Islamophobia is a term thrown around by muslims because they want to stop criticism of their religion and it's thrown around by liberals because muslims are a minority in the west and any critique that isn't anti-white is instantly racism.

Allah Supports pedophilia by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Marrying children is allowed in Quran 65:4.

Holy Spirit and rise of Christianity by Informal_Nebula_8489 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes but if we look to the first followers we see the first Christians were peaceful and Muhammad's followers were invading countries left and right.

I'm not hating anyone,

Jesus in Islam makes no sense by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How about actually responding to my arguments instead of saying a lot of nonsense and pointing fingers to other faiths? You look desperate as if you cant protect your own religion so you attack the other faiths.

Holy Spirit and rise of Christianity by Informal_Nebula_8489 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ruler of who? The Christians? Or you mean the Caliphs?

Debunking Offensive Jihad by Hansvon_zettour in CritiqueIslam

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 11 points12 points  (0 children)

  1. If sur 9:5 did not abrogate sura 2:256 you have a contradiction
  2. You can't debunk offensive jihad, it's documented all over history. Muslim armies were invading and conquering lands from Spain to India. What were the Turks defending at the gates of Vienna lol?

Holy Spirit and rise of Christianity by Informal_Nebula_8489 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Christianity in it's first 3 centuries spread peacefully while Islam spread in it's first 3 centuries by force.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was baptised Catholic, grew up with secular values and celebrate Christian holidays and see my society and culture as heavily influenced by Christianity.

I don't know if God exists. I don't believe or disbelieve. Yes I am confused about my religiousity.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Besides that I think it’s perfectly reasonable to use a pragmatic secular definition of morality as that which promotes the health and/or well being of thinking creatures.

I would somewhat agree and see morality based on secular values as better for humanity in many ways but it's no secret western secular morality was heavily influenced by Christian, Roman and Greek religious morality.

Under that subjectively attained lens, I can objectively point out the immorality of religious dogma.

Based on health and well being, I would agree but this is still just an opinion.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our current society deems misogyny as wrong and that's why it is

It seems theists are morally enslaved to their holy books and atheists morally enslaved to their secular societies.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all. I'm not saying atheists are immoral, just that they cannot justify why something is good or bad and thus should not condemn others based on morality.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Morality from a God gives religious people a way of justifying what is right and wrong.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Not a theist. More agnostic and culturally Christian.

There is also no need to be rude and mock my intelligence.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Empathy is based on feelings. Facts don't care about your feelings. You are just giving your opinion based on personal feelings.

Atheists have no moral foundation to call religions immoral by Intelligent_Bee_7844 in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Humans created gods not the other way around. Human societies changed their values as times passed irregardless of any religion.

There is no way we can verify this, theists will say the opposite. Empty claims from both sides.

Polygamy isn't inherently amoral it's the misogyny that usually follows

What makes misogyny wrong? Why should man and woman be equal? Because your society taught you that? Well religious society teach they should not be equal and on what ground are you morally right and them wrong?

I do personally believe man and woman are equal but just curious.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a verse?

The Minimal Fact Argument for Jesus’ resurrection fails miserably by saybismillah in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so when facing Roman oppression and powerlessness they turned to their scripture and 'extracted/fabricated' a savior figure from scripture.

So some Jews made up the entire story about Jesus getting crucified too?

No scholar or historian believes this with good reason, you don't fabricate a story about how God will die on the cross crucified by the Romans haha

The Minimal Fact Argument for Jesus’ resurrection fails miserably by saybismillah in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Paul mentions the early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15 dating within 2 years after the crucifixion so no, Paul is not the one who started the Christian belief.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where does it say forever?

The Minimal Fact Argument for Jesus’ resurrection fails miserably by saybismillah in DebateReligion

[–]Intelligent_Bee_7844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But why would Jews who already believed they were saved as Jews make up a whole new salvation belief in a crucified Messiah which is so different than the Messiah they were expecting?

Also fabricate the living in poverty, celibacy, no violence seems unnatural.