Active Now

Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Why would a Muslim spend a huge amount of time trying to discredit the Bible but avoid discussing the Quran?

texasescimo

Why would a Muslim spend a huge amount of time trying to discredit the Bible but avoid discussing the Quran?

In line with Peter's line of reasoning at John 6:68 about where they should go if they leave Jesus, shouldn't someone that wants to discredit your beliefs want to direct to theirs?

Posted - February 9, 2018

Tags : None

Responses

CLURT

1393

Q "Why would a Muslim spend a huge amount of time trying to discredit the Bible but avoid discussing the Quran?
In line with Peter's line of reasoning at John 6:68 about where they should go if they leave Jesus, shouldn't someone that wants to discredit your beliefs want to direct to theirs?"

1. If the "discredit" or criticism is not valid it should be easy to refute, so just refute it.

2. If the "discredit" is giving you facts, like telling you of Bible passages that are fabrications, then it's good information worthy of being aware of.

3. If the "discredit" is an interpretation that is different to yours then surely there is nothing unusual about that. There are hundreds of different interpretations or sects out there. Discuss and compare in a friendly way. Inform and become informed.

4. Remember that a Muslim does not regard the Qur'an as the only scripture ever sent by God. Muslims believe that God sent guidance to all human beings wherever and whenever they existed, so they accept the Bible as having been a guidance from God. However, you unreservedly discredit the Muslim claim that the Qur'an is from God and accept only the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

5. Remember also that whereas you unreservedly discredit Mohammed as a prophet Muslims accept the prophets of the Bible and have such high respect for them that they unreservedly discredit all the bad things that the Bible scribes have associated with these prophets like prostitution, adultery and incest.

6. If the Muslim is giving discussion time exclusively to the Bible and not trying to squeeze in his scripture, which he knows you don't accept, then surely that's honourable of the Muslim, how is that turned into a criticism of the Muslim? Anyway if the subject under discussion is what the Bible says on an issue wouldn't it be a diversion to start talking about the Qur'an?

Hope that helps

February 13, 2018 5:29 AM MST

0

texasescimo CLURT

2657

1. If the "discredit" or criticism is not valid it should be easy to refute, so just refute it.
Every time that I have, you add a few more things in to your taunts.

2. If the "discredit" is giving you facts, like telling you of Bible passages that are fabrications, then it's good information worthy of being aware of.

Yeah, if.

3. If the "discredit" is an interpretation that is different to yours then surely there is nothing unusual about that. There are hundreds of different interpretations or sects out there. Discuss and compare in a friendly way. Inform and become informed.
Your interpretation is that this verse could mean this so the other verses that clarify said verse are not valid.

4. Remember that a Muslim does not regard the Qur'an as the only scripture ever sent by God. Muslims believe that God sent guidance to all human beings wherever and whenever they existed, so they accept the Bible as having been a guidance from God. However, you unreservedly discredit the Muslim claim that the Qur'an is from God and accept only the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
What a joke. Your understanding of the Bible can only stand if you force an interpretation and throw out all other relevant verses.

5. Remember also that whereas you unreservedly discredit Mohammed as a prophet Muslims accept the prophets of the Bible and have such high respect for them that they unreservedly discredit all the bad things that the Bible scribes have associated with these prophets like prostitution, adultery and incest.

You have no respect for Paul or anyone that says something different than your interpretation which is highly influenced by Mohammad's interpretation. Prophets of the Bible were not perfect. Their honesty and condor in listing some of their sins makes them more credible than other Books. Does the Quran mention Muhammad being a pedophile? If not, why not? If so, do you throw that out?

6. If the Muslim is giving discussion time exclusively to the Bible and not trying to squeeze in his scripture, which he knows you don't accept, then surely that's honourable of the Muslim, how is that turned into a criticism of the Muslim? Anyway if the subject under discussion is what the Bible says on an issue wouldn't it be a diversion to start talking about the Qur'an?
Don't pretend that you have ever had a sincere question about the Bible. You don't accept all the verses I cite to give the context, do you? If you had a sincere question or two once in a while or a couple in a thread, that would be understandable but when I give you the verses, you throw out another baited question and/or accusation against the Bible

February 13, 2018 12:07 PM MST

0

CLURT texasescimo

1393

It IS me. Tricky, slippery slope, but let me try

1. A taunt is "a remark made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone." My remarks are almost never personal, they're directed at the subject under discussion. So why should my view of the subject under discussion be a taunt if it's different from yours? If you discuss Jesus with any other Christian sect their view of Jesus is bound to be different from yours because you see Jesus as an incarnation of the archangel Michael. Is it a taunt if they express their view of Jesus?

2. It's not "if", I have in our discussions pointed out Bible passages that are fabrications. I'm glad you don't regard those as "taunts" but regard them as good information worthy of being aware of.

3. "Your interpretation is that this verse could mean this so the other verses that clarify said verse are not valid." >>>> but why can't I do that? Almost anyone who has a different view to yours, for example, on the nature of Jesus, would similarly regard as not valid some of the verses you use to justify your view. That is what makes their interpretation different from yours. If they saw all the verses as you do then they would have had the same view as you. The same applies to you. You will see as not valid some of the verses they use to support their views.

4. "Your understanding of the Bible can only stand if you force an interpretation and throw out all other relevant verses." >>>your point here is similar to the one in 3 above

5a- "You have no respect for Paul" >>> If you mean I give preference to the teachings of Jesus above those of Paul then yes, I do give Jesus preference. But how that translates to having no respect for Paul, I don't understand.

5b- "Prophets of the Bible were not perfect." >>> When humans want to appoint someone to a post where the person would be a role model they are thorough with their vetting. If humans try to get it right, common sense tells us that God would make sure that He got it right. That's where I come from.

5c- "[1]Does the Quran mention Muhammad being a pedophile? [2]If not, why not? [3]If so, do you throw that out?" >>> [1]No, but perhaps it's good that with Islam people don't feel that they are faced with a 2+2 situation where you have no choice but to tick 4 as the correct answer. With Islam people have several doors through which they can exercise their free choice and reject it. "Mohammed was a paedophile" is a common one. [2]Paedophilia is a relatively modern concept and concern and is still without a universally agreed cut off figure for the age of consent. Even if we apply these concepts to those times we might find that Mohammed might not qualify because strictly speaking paedophilia is "a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification." Mohammed was married to several women, and might have married more if he hadn't been stopped, since many wanted him to be part of their family. Some of his wives were older than him, some divorced and others widows. Anyway, Mohammed was way back in the 6th century and in the remote middle east. Fast forward to the 12th century and right into the heart of Europe and we find that, to forge an alliance between France and the Byzantine Empire, Agnes of France was married to prince Alexios son of the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel I Komnenos when Agnes was 8 [eight]. If that then with Aisha was paedophilia was this here with Agnes paedophilia too? [3]No.

6. I think the points here too are addressed by my response in 3 because they appear to boil down to "why don't you accept the verses I quote to you and see in them what I see in them?"

February 13, 2018 5:26 PM MST

0

texasescimo CLURT

2657

Quote: [4. Remember that a Muslim does not regard the Qur'an as the only scripture ever sent by God. Muslims believe that God sent guidance to all human beings wherever and whenever they existed, so they accept the Bible as having been a guidance from God. However, you unreservedly discredit the Muslim claim that the Qur'an is from God and accept only the Bible as the inerrant word of God.]

That's a bit of a joke coming from you with all the supposed confusion and contradictions you believe exist.

1. A taunt is "a remark made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone." My remarks are almost never personal, they're directed at the subject under discussion. So why should my view of the subject under discussion be a taunt if it's different from yours? If you discuss Jesus with any other Christian sect their view of Jesus is bound to be different from yours because you see Jesus as an incarnation of the archangel Michael. Is it a taunt if they express their view of Jesus?

EDIT: [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/taunt
verb (used with object)
1.
to reproach in a sarcastic, insulting, or jeering manner; mock.

2.
to provoke by taunts; twit.

noun
3.
an insulting gibe or sarcasm; scornful reproach or challenge.

4.
Obsolete. an object of insulting gibes or scornful reproaches.]

At least 4 different taunts in this thread alluding to the scriptures not being valid or my beliefs:
https://answermug.com/forums/topic/46649/can-you-trust-the-bible-below-are-some-links-that-may-at-leas/view/page/4

First taunt as if not at all discernable with different amounts of books of Bibles.

Second taunt as if two genealogies are contradicting each other.

Third taunt that the scriptures in the Bible known as letters of Paul are not inspired scriptures because they didn't exist before he wrote them.

Fourth taunt that your interpretation is facts and mine is only my understanding.

1st [I also assume by "the Bible" you mean some of the widely accepted Protestant [66 book] versions of the Bible, including the JW's NWT version. I suspect that you yourself do not trust the [73 book] Catholic Bible or the [81 book] Ethiopian Bible or the [84 book] Eastern Orthodox Bible to tell you the truth and nothing else but the truth. ]

2nd [ if they study the Bible they can't help wondering if the writers of say the Gospels were guided by the holy spirit. If they were then why did the holy spirit, for example, inspire one writer to give one genealogy of Jesus and another writer to give a different one? If the holy spirit was directing what was going into the scripture then why did, not just a few additional words or an extra verse or two but, whole fabricated passages get into the scriptures?]

3rd [When Paul wrote the phrase "All scriptures" in the letter to his student I think most will agree that neither understood "All" to include the Hindu Vedas. It is reasonable to say that "scripture" to both Paul and Timothy meant all the books that were included in the Hebrew Bible of their time. Neither Paul would have seen the letter he was writing to Timothy as scripture nor would Timothy have regarded Paul's letter to him as scripture. The Gospels did not exist at the time Paul wrote the phrase "All scriptures" so obviously he couldn't have had those in mind.]

4th ["It's up to you to work out how you want to handle any discrepancy between facts and your understanding" >>>]

Then of course you have other threads like the one where you brought up how Jesus and John the Baptist contradicted each other and then when I asked your thoughts on how to reason on the verses, you pop off that they are not important to you:

https://answermug.com/forums/topic/48301/if-vatican-catholicism-is-mystery-babylon-what-are-the-daughter/view/page/2

Quote from CLURT: [. There was obvious confusion and some apparent contradictions.]

Quote from me: [1) Also, were you expecting Elijah himself to come back at that time or someone in a role like that of Elijah?

2) That's a really odd way of reasoning. If baptism was commonplace before John, why would they reason that John had to be the Christ, Elijah or the prophet?

3) Were all of these people doing all of this baptizing the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? If not, why were they baptizing?

4) Also, if all of this baptizing 'was commonplace', why was John known as the baptist? (use 'must have been common' in its place to help you)

5) According to you, John was doing what everyone else was already doing, yes?]

Quote from CLURT: [my position on the five points is that I have not given them thought because they are not important to me.]

2. It's not "if", I have in our discussions pointed out Bible passages that are fabrications. I'm glad you don't regard those as "taunts" but regard them as good information worthy of being aware of.

3. "Your interpretation is that this verse could mean this so the other verses that clarify said verse are not valid." >>>> but why can't I do that? Almost anyone who has a different view to yours, for example, on the nature of Jesus, would similarly regard as not valid some of the verses you use to justify your view. That is what makes their interpretation different from yours. If they saw all the verses as you do then they would have had the same view as you. The same applies to you. You will see as not valid some of the verses they use to support their views.

The difference is that you in one comment profess to believe in the Bible and then when a verse flat out contradicts your understanding, you claim foul where as a sincere person that has found the Bible to be true, finds where supposed contradictions can be understood in light of all the scriptures.

4. "Your understanding of the Bible can only stand if you force an interpretation and throw out all other relevant verses." >>>your point here is similar to the one in 3 above

5a- "You have no respect for Paul" >>> If you mean I give preference to the teachings of Jesus above those of Paul then yes, I do give Jesus preference. But how that translates to having no respect for Paul, I don't understand.

They are in agreement, you just will not use a full verse.

5b- "Prophets of the Bible were not perfect." >>> When humans want to appoint someone to a post where the person would be a role model they are thorough with their vetting. If humans try to get it right, common sense tells us that God would make sure that He got it right. That's where I come from.

No one is without sin other than Jesus. Look at the pedophile prophet.

5c- "[1]Does the Quran mention Muhammad being a pedophile? [2]If not, why not? [3]If so, do you throw that out?" >>> [1]No, but perhaps it's good that with Islam people don't feel that they are faced with a 2+2 situation where you have no choice but to tick 4 as the correct answer. With Islam people have several doors through which they can exercise their free choice and reject it. "Mohammed was a paedophile" is a common one. [2]Paedophilia is a relatively modern concept and concern and is still without a universally agreed cut off figure for the age of consent. Even if we apply these concepts to those times we might find that Mohammed might not qualify because strictly speaking paedophilia is "a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification." Mohammed was married to several women, and might have married more if he hadn't been stopped, since many wanted him to be part of their family. Some of his wives were older than him, some divorced and others widows. Anyway, Mohammed was way back in the 6th century and in the remote middle east. Fast forward to the 12th century and right into the heart of Europe and we find that, to forge an alliance between France and the Byzantine Empire, Agnes of France was married to prince Alexios son of the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel I Komnenos when Agnes was 8 [eight]. If that then with Aisha was paedophilia was this here with Agnes paedophilia too? [3]No.

Anyone that had sex, deflowered a child is a pedophile. Rome, Europe or wherever or whatever century.

Another reason Muslims don't accept Paul:

(1 Corinthians 7:36) But if anyone thinks he is behaving improperly by remaining unmarried, and if he is past the bloom of youth, then this is what should take place: Let him do what he wants; he does not sin. Let them marry.
This post was edited by texasescimo at February 13, 2018 6:28 PM MST

February 13, 2018 6:24 PM MST

0

CLURT texasescimo

1393

I said, "Tricky, slippery slope, but let me try" It's obvious with hindsight that I was wrong with the third one. I shouldn't have tried. At least I was right with the first two.

February 13, 2018 7:08 PM MST

0

texasescimo CLURT

2657

Question, do you think that Paul was only referring to those born before he wrote anything as being born in sin?

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(Romans 5:12) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned—.

Could anything that Muhammad said have applied to anyone that was born after his death?

Quran 10:65 Power belongs entirely to God; He hears all and knows all;
Obviously he only heard all and knew all in the past since the future was not here yet.

Quran 3:109 heavens and earth belongs to God; it is to Him that all things return.
That obviously only refers to all things in the past as the future wasn't here yet.

All power or honour (Depending on which version you believe) obviously only includes all previous power or honour, yes?
Quran 4:139

ABDUL HALEEM

the believers seek power through them? In reality all power is God’s to give.

YUSUF ALI

believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.

February 13, 2018 8:45 PM MST

0