There was no mass genocide

Prove it

No i

We have POW camps.

*u

Yes there were camps

What about the ones that were going to starve?

Nobody was intentionally killed except as a consequence of breaking the rules

People mainly died of disease and starvation, mostly brought on by the destruction of German infrastructure by the allies

I agree.

About 300k people, as per the red cross

Well the goal for the Nazis was to ship Jews to Israel and Madagascar

Yes

But Britain put a stop to the Israel thing.

Yup

Anyway, shower time. I have Church tonight.

Where is the passage where Paul names two future popes?

Anyone know of some quality podcasts on history? Specifically Southeast Asian or Islamic history that's not BS

Can we stop pretending theirs a dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism now?

McCommune

@Mozalbete ⳩

***Miracles in Islam***

You begin by conceeding that the Islamic Sunnah affirms that the prophet did Miracles in the Qu’ran and since the Sunnah is one of the two authorities on Islam, you conceed that Islam believes the prophet does miracles in the Qu’ran. You say that the basis behind these miracles eyewitness reports is them being recorded centuries and decades later but that just shows that you are not well-acquinated with islamic apologetics. Hadiths were often recorded by companions, scribes of eyewitnesses and hostile testimony. Without a doubt, the most exhaustive work on the subject of early hadith literature is Shaykh Mustafa al-Azami‘s Studies in Early Hadith Literature, in which he compiled a list of pre-classical individuals who either personally wrote hadith or allowed hadith to be transmitted from them in written form. The list includes over 50 Companions, 49 first-generation Successors, 87 scholars of the late first century and 251 scholars of the early second century. We also have Sahifa Hammmam bin Munabih, written by the disciple of an eyewitness and Musnaf Abdul Razzaq both of which have many miracles such as the night journey, turning snakes into swords and raising people from the dead. So we clearly have such attestation in the Islamic Sunnah. All you did say about the 2 miracles in the Qu’ran is that it is unlikely given historical issues like lack of a second mention. Yet these are not good reasons to doubt the testimony of the Qu’ran. Firstly, the prophet does keep mentioning this event again and again (Bukhari, Sahih, V. 4, p. 1 86; Muslim , Sahih, V. 4, p. 2159; Tirmidhi, Sunan, V. 5, p. 397).

The reason he does not do this in the Qu’ran is that the Qu’ran is not the prophet’s diary. It would be weird for Gabriel to start revealing the prophet’s personal life events that he already knows about. The prophet is not pressed for miracles later. That’s a very bad misunderstanding about the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran was not revealed in the chronological order it is written in today. Surah 96 was the first surah to be revealed despite being 96th in order. This misunderstanding betrays that you don’t know the basics of Islam. The only thing that came close to evidence here was claiming that the in some instances in the Qur’an (all of which were during the earlier meccan period), the prophet does not provide a miracle as the audience ask him. That could be explained by saying that it was during an earlier period and he did the miracles later, that the audience was new and so did not see his previous miracles and the prophet was telling them the truth by saying only God can do miracles and miracles do reside with him, among hundreds of other ways, that are consistent with the clear-cut testimony of his miracles in the Qu’ran and the Sunnah.

***Notice that the argument from the prophecies of the Prophet is still unaddressed a full day later.***

***Miracles in Christianity and the New Testament***

You argue here that the New testament is very reliable since it has 4 gospels each being independent testimony. To put it mildly, not even most conservative scholars or apologists would agree with this. The Synoptic problem is well-established and the most common position is called the two-source hypothesis proposing that Luke and Matthew copied most of their material from the gospel of Mark and another source called Q. So the gospels copy one another and are clearly not independent. You are free to look up any gospel parallels or find the synoptic problem in any introductory textbook to the New Testament. Since the gospel authors copy one another on most events, they are clearly not independent testimony. Moreover, the writers are anonymous, we have no clue who they are. The attribution given today is by Irenaeus going off a mistake by Papias, that came over a century after the gospels were written. So your only proof is that a guy disconnected from the events living 100 years later claimed so and you still would only have a claim rather than proof. Even if Jesus did miracles, remember that in Islam, he is a prophet and so prophets can do miracles.

Secondly, Here is the passage from Deutronomy 13

“If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods”(gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. “

The passage is saying that if a prophet does a sign or a wonder and he turns out to be a false prophet, then kill him. The resurrection is clearly a sign or a wonder (the same word translated as sign or wonder here means miracle). So clearly doing a sign or a wonder like the resurrection is compatible with being a false prophet. The verse says nothing about demons or nothing to exclude a resurrection.

You try to argue that Jesus says so but after reading the passage you posted, nowhere does Jesus say that demons can’t resurrect people or any of what you are trying to force the text to say.

If anything, the bible contradicts you. “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” - Matthew 24: 24, Mark 13: 22

***Mary in the Qu’ran***

You argue here that Mary is the sister of Aaron and an object of worship in the Qu’ran; yet both claims are laughable. The Qu’ran does call Mary the sister of Aaron as a title not trying to claim a literal relationship but rather a symbolic metaphorical one.

“When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. ***When I came back to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.***” - Sahih Muslim 2135

As for the object of worship, the Qu’ran never says that Christians worship Mary. What the verse actually says is that “Jesus did not teach his disciples to worship Mary”. The verse is saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming it says.

***Salvation***

You argue here that Jesus was not punished but rather voluntarily sacrificed and took the suffering we deserved. But that’s exactly my problem. It is not just for the innocent to take the suffering or penalty for the crime they did not do and let the guilty get away unpunished for their sins. That’s the definition of injustice.

***Trinity***

You have not answered the puzzle laid forth on the table. You argue that they have one divine nature and clearly that does not answer the dilemma. I already know that there is one ousia in three hypostases and that a hypostasis is to an ousia what a particular is to the universal. But that does not answer my question: “is it the case that the persons of the trinity are the same in every respect or is it not the case that they are the same in every respect?” By the law of excluded middle, these are the only two options. If you choose the former, then the persons are identical without any difference (modalism). If you choose the latter, then they have at least one different properties making them different substances or property-bearers (beings) making you a polytheist.

To answer, oh but they have one ousia does nothing to answer if there are differences among the hypostases.

***Violence in the Old Testament***

This response is really subpar. You seem to be okay with what is by your standards, warmongering, as long as you don’t levy taxes on the opponent. Firstly, many scholars do agree that Numbers 31:28 is asking the fighters to bring back the war booty. Secondly, this response is ridiculous, I don’t see how this excuses murdering women and children who were clearly vulnerable (1 Samuel 15:3) or bashing the head of infants against rocks (Psalms 137:9) or marrying rape victims to their predators (Genesis 34), selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21), or commanding you to burn your own daughters (Judges 11), Mauling children by bears (2 Kings 2). The Old Testament is clearly morally repugnant. You have no moral high ground over Islam really and that’s about 90% of your arguments against Islam right there. You really need to step up your game and stop strawmanning. On at least four out of seven of the points being discussed, you had a strawman of some way.

**Numbers 31:28 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<28> From the share of the warriors who went out to battle, set aside as tribute for the Lord, one item out of every five hundred, whether persons, oxen, donkeys, sheep, or goats. ```

**1 Samuel 15:3 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<3> Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"```

**Psalm 137:9 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<9> Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock! ```

so you're muslim?

I am a Muslim.

Hm, I've always wondered

How do you think the world was created?

Ex Nihilo and God sustains everything in being from moment to moment

sun goes down in the mud lmfao

but how was it created

Well good thing no scripture says that.

By the will of the omnipotence of God.

Why does God need a medium to create?

Yes, but how..? Like, Genesis?

Oh, no I don't believe in Genesis neither did the early church interpret Genesis literally