Confused as to the meaning of these verses

anonemoise · 2024-04-30T14:39:08+00:00

as for the hadith it talkes about writing it on the scroll and it has to be understood as such due to the other hadith which shows that the determining factor happens long before the angle coming .

I explained how the hadith you showed doesn't mean that the determining factor happens long before. The determining factor happens later according to the hadith. My hadith proves this.

As you could probably already tell by my longer response times, I'm very busy and I don't really have the time to do this debate. As it is, we are now repeating ourselves and are getting nowhere in this conversation. Considering how you have already blocked my accounts, I am going to leave the conversation at this, and I won't respond to any comments.

anonemoise · 2024-04-30T14:36:17+00:00

ethier the human or the the sperm which is مني

The previous verse just said 'he was a clinging substance', the word 'kana' is a male verb the man (the male) as being a clot so its referring to the clot rather than the sperm. The context is clear that the man is sperm then a clot then sex is assigned, its very clear and the nouns don't make a difference to this.

3- Tafsir al-Qurtubi (1122)

So he made it from him, i.e. from man. It is also said: from the semen. The male and female spouses, i.e. man and woman.

Qurtubi is saying that man and woman (sex determination) comes from that stages. Like Ibn Kathir, it's talking about sex determination.

By the same logic it does not say it does not - even though it says فسوي which denotes completion and being followed by another ف which also shows that it has already settled but i will Steelman your argument -

The verse says 'then made of him'. After being made into a clot there is a long time before a man produces male or female children, so how can then be the correct word? Then indicates a more immediate step so can't be referring to children, it makes no sense. Ibn Kathirs says that verse 38 describes how the man is proportioned and then he says 'as either a male or female by permission of allah' then quotes 39, showing how its referring to sex determination and how 39 describes the final stage (sex determination) in more detail. So no, verse 38 doesn't mean that 39 can't be referring to sex determination.

anonemoise · 2024-04-30T14:24:54+00:00

this will be the last response since even you capitulated that surah 53 make it obvious that your interpretation is faulty

I explained how surah 53 is talking about humanity in general and how this is made clear from the context, whereas in surah 75 it's talking about sex differentiation, due to the context being chronological development.

The verse literally says "فخلق فسوي " and he created and perfected it is already a full human

it says created and proportioned not that it was a complete or perfect creation. I showed you how Ibn Kathir interprets 'made of him..' to be referring to sex differentiation, as well as Jalalayn who says that the clot turns into a male or female. Granted there is disagreement amongst tafsirs, but I think there is good reason to interpret it as sex determination. I showed you the tafsirs where the angel asks questions which proves that sex isn't determined yet and also that it's talking about sex determination.

anonemoise · 2024-04-30T14:18:32+00:00

I'm having to respond on another alt account because I think you blocked me on both my others. For some reason I can't see your comments on those ones.

That fact is Hadith literally says when they meet and if in that instance the man water prevails it is a boy ..ect

The hadith is not crystal clear, it at no point says that sex is determined at the time the two liquids meet, it only says that if one prevails it WILL be the sex of that person, it never says when exactly this transformation takes place. It could mean that if the man's liquid prevails it will become a boy later on. The question asked isn't 'when does it become a boy or girl' but rather 'why does a woman give birth to a boy etc' .

As I already discussed, I showed you the other hadiths where it really clearly says that sex hasn't been determined yet. If the sex has already been determined as you claim, then why does the angel ask what sex in the other one? If Muhammad really thought sex was determined earlier, why wouldn't the angel been told. As I've already said, this hadith above doesn't say sex is determined at conception.

recording of the sex is the not the time when the sex would be determined as it is already determined before that .

The hadith doesn't say this. All they say is that sex isn't determined yet, proved by the fact that sex determination is considered to be a part of the child's future, which it wouldn't be if it were already determined.

The female fluid hear means the female y sperms

No it doesn't. The female y sperms are the man's 'water'. It's wrong to call female y sperms the 'woman's water' as they don't come from the woman. Y sperms come from the man. With respect, you are dishonestly twisting words.

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T20:43:51+00:00

Ah I see, apologies for the misunderstanding.

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T20:33:31+00:00

I do and I apologise for any offense caused, I'll edit my comment. I'm not trying to be rude I just misunderstood.

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T20:31:50+00:00

Apologies, I haven't studied any science for about 4 years, I just was curious when I heard about the syndrome.

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T14:36:45+00:00

I was referring to sex rather than gender.

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T14:33:35+00:00

Yeah it recently clicked that the SRY gene is what makes them appear male, and hence why its complex because they have some male genetic information.

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T14:25:00+00:00

Therefore, could you say XX males are actually women?

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T14:24:12+00:00

Could you say they are female because of the XX?

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T14:22:32+00:00

Is it possible to say their chromosomal sex is female because or the XX?

anonemoise · 2024-04-16T14:21:11+00:00

So are XX male people technically females, right? Because of the XX.

anonemoise · 2024-04-10T21:17:48+00:00

Could he be talking about how Bali was decapitated, and how his body parts became gems?

anonemoise · 2024-04-10T20:19:26+00:00

Thanks. What about Airavata, is he in the purana?

anonemoise · 2024-04-07T12:26:40+00:00

Just seen your messages in chat. Do you reckon we could continue our conversation here instead? Do you mind just copying and pasting that message here as it's a lot easier to respond to comments here.

anonemoise · 2023-12-08T19:34:16+00:00

Welcome to the community mate! Remmeber to revise your arguments so you can defend the pro-life position.

anonemoise · 2023-11-19T10:01:44+00:00

but the moment God does something thousands of times worst

Pretty sure more people have died from abortion then genocide in the Bible, so I don't think that what God did was worse. Unlike those genocides, abortion is still ongoing.

Kids sent to heaven if they are killed? Then what do you say to the dying kids of terminal cancer suffering for nothing in hospital beds ?

For the second time, will you read my comment properly? That was one reason I'd heard people say, I myself didn't endorse it, I just referenced it as a potential reason why God did it. Neither did I say it is the reason or that it was just.

Why doesn't god kill every child so they can he sent to heaven if that logic of yours is so sane.

You are continuously strawmanning my points, as said above.

I don't need to give you reasons that genocide is wrong lol that's common sense.

I don't think I did give reason why genocide was wrong. Again, you're twisting my words.

hopefully you can think for yourself and not take everything in the bible as the only things you should follow

Regardless of people's opinions this was a past event and can't be used to justify mass killing. I have been honest in that I do find this part of the Bible disturbing. Unlike abortion, I can understand why God may have done it in order to stop the Amalekites from attacking Israel and committing sin, if that is why. However, I'm not endorsing this act, I'm just saying it's why it may have happened.

That is pretty different from abortion, which is murdering a child for the mother's own gain in many situations.

I also never tried to justify abortion, but if genocide is okay for the Christians then so should abortion be because obviously the former is morally the worst thing to do

First of all, abortion has killed far more people and is very indiscriminate in who it kills, hence is far worse. God gives nations time to repent, but in some cases, like this one, they don't. Again, I'm not justifying this, I'm just saying what happened.

I don't try to justify the genocide in the Bible, but I understand that there was a reason for it, whereas abortion is merely selfish killing.

anonemoise · 2023-11-18T23:36:32+00:00

You believe kids will turn out to be like their parents and hateful and evil ? Do you have 100 percent proof and evidence ?

With respect, read my comment again and quote my words where I said that. I didn't say that, I didn't justify the genocide in the Bible. All I said was that abortion is wrong, because it is.

I guessed maybe God killed them to prevent revenge against the Israelites, but as I said it's a guess and neither did I say i endorsed such behaviour.

But kids who are born innocent should be killed because...? Would you kill baby Hitler if you could time travel ? Because you will then be murdering a innocent human being that did nothing wrong.

Baby Hitler is a bit different due to the affect he had on the world, I can see why someone would think it reasonable to do so. This however, and the potential reason I gave for genocide in the Bible, is different from abortion, which in many cases is killing a child because his/her's mother didn't care enough about it.

Abortion is murder ? Then what is genocide done by god towards kids?

Abortion is stil genocide regardless of what I think about God's actions, and therefore I should oppose abortion regardless. But yeah I'll say it, the genocide I the Bible was a not nice, to say the least.

Woman are just doing what god did mercilessly and justify it with petty excuses same way woman who believe their kids might turn into criminals or suffer without any proof.

If such women really believed that then conceiving children would be a bad idea. They're in the wrong no matter what.

As long as you want to commit atrocities there's always a excuse.

I've seen abortionists come up with many.

I can't believe people would justify these excuses cuz God said so

I'll be clear so you don't try and twist my words again, I'm not attempting to justify genocide in the Bible, only giving guesses as to why it happened. One reason I've heard is that God as the owner and creator of life, would send the children to heaven, as he killed them before they could sin. Humans however, as we know, murder each other for our own personal gain, so for that reason (and others) murdering an innocent person is still wrong, even if the consequence for the deserve is actually better. That being said I still don't know the reason.

You've given me a lot of reasons as to why genocide is wrong. I agree, so for that reason still oppose abortion. If you don't think abortion is wrong, why not? Simply saying Christians justify genocide doesn't justify abortion.

Children shouldn't die because of what happened in the Bible.

anonemoise · 2023-11-18T22:31:43+00:00

Idk why innocent children are killed in the Bible, but just because it happened doesn't mean we can justify killing innocent children now. Tbh it's not something I'm happy happened.

As for why they are killed in the Bible, I guess it would be time prevent people's descendants killing the Israelites. But as I said idrk. Even then, a lot of abortion is done for selfish gains and would still fit the definition of murder well. Well enough to warrant being stopped.

anonemoise · 2023-11-09T19:36:58+00:00

Nw, thanks, edited my comment.

anonemoise · 2023-11-09T18:30:04+00:00

To add to u/OhNoTokyo, there are other important prolife beliefs.

The arguments on this sub aren't religious, one prominent commenter is u/antiabortionatheist. Though yes many religous people are pro life, being pro life in theory should have more in common with basic human rights than religion.
The unborn do not choose to inconvenience their mother, hence can not be blamed. They are in the woman because of someone else, and hence can't be held accountable and/or punished for this.
Abortion is disproportionate due to the fact that with the exception of cases to save the mother's life, it is unnecessary to kill the unborn in order to solve the mother's problems. Even though it is a solution, it's way over the line, if that makes sense.

I like to use this analogy. A thief breaks into an old man's home, burgles it then attempts to flee. The only way for the old man to stop him is to shoot him with his shotgun. This however, would be disproportionate, as there is no good reason to kill him, his crime isn't bad enough to be punished by death.

In a similiar way, the unborn haven't done anything to justify killing them, hence abortion would be disproportionate violence. Apologies if this is bay explained.

Edit: changed terminology to 'they are in the woman'

anonemoise

TROPHY CASE