Killing in the Name of Religion

[Averroes]

I'd love to think you mean that. And I'd love to think we could do it. But there are two factors from Islam that make it impossible for me to believe that.

I find it amazing that all this time you had no trouble discussing with me but suddenly after my last post only, you are finding it impossible to discuss with me! What happened?? Anyway, let’s address those factors that suddenly arose and are causing you so much trouble if God wills.

It's not such a marvel. If I can't know that you are speaking truth, then I can still speak truth myself, should I have the chance.

It’s good that you have decided to speak the truth now. I am still waiting for the credible source of the statistics you posted earlier on this thread. It was high time you start speaking the truth about the source of those numbers.

__________________________

For in the New Testament, it explains that God's very purpose was that the curse of mankind should be placed on God's Son, so that man might be forgiven. So we read: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:13-14)

Galatians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible is a letter written by Paul (who never met Jesus) in which he expresses his opinions addressed to the people of Galatia. You said: “it explains that God's very purpose was that the curse of mankind should be placed on God's Son, so that man might be forgiven”. This is the statement about which the Rabbi in the video I linked to you before says that anyone who believes in that is “thick headed”, an “idiot” and “retarded”. Here is the video again if you want to refresh your memory:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy-RnubpsAk

____________________________

3. In Mathew 15:24, biblical Jesus says that he was sent only to the Jews who were lost.

• He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”[Mathew 15:24]

If that verse is not abrogated then you and all gentiles cannot be followers of Jesus, as you are not Jews.

That verse is not "abrogated." It's descriptive of a phase of ministry of Christ, where he FIRST came to the Jews, THEN came to the Gentiles.

Let’s be exact about the description of the facts. As you mentioned, first biblical Jesus came “only”[excluding the gentiles] to the Jews, as per Mathew 15:24:

• He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”[Mathew 15:24]

Then much later, when he was about to leave this world, in Mark 16:15:

• He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.[Mark 16:15]

So, first Biblical Jesus came to the Jews only. Then afterwards, towards the end of his mission, the gentiles were included as well. Up to here you got the facts correct. But still you failed miserably to identify that this is a textbook example of abrogation!

Don't you know how abrogation is construed in law? Let me educate you.

From Cornell Law School Website, we can read the following:

To abrogate is to formally annul or repeal a law through an act of legislation, constitutional authority, or custom. For example, the Supreme Court of Michigan explained in Ferency v. Secretary of State that “an existing constitutional provision is altered or abrogated if proposed amendment would add to, delete from or change existing wording of provision, or would render it fully inoperative.” Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abrogate

The judgement can be found here: https://casetext.com/case/ferency-v-secretary-of-state

To be clear, as per Ferency vs Secretary of State, the SC of Michigan stated that adding to the existing wording of a provision is an instance of abrogation. This is basic legal concept of how abrogation is construed.

And similarly with divorce where the valid conditions or grounds for divorce in the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1, were changed by biblical Jesus in Mathew 19:9. But let us examine this further because your understanding of the legal concept of abrogation is clearly mediocre (I am being polite here, for your understanding is clearly inexistent in reality).

In Deuteronomy 24:1, a man can divorce his wife on grounds other than adultery. In fact, in the Law of Moses, according to some biblical commentators, adultery would not be a ground for divorce because adultery resulted in the death of the adulterer. Below I have provided some of these commentators exegesis after quoting Deuteronomy 24:1.

• When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.[Deuteronomy 24:1]

Some Bible commentaries which comment on the term “some uncleanliness” in Deuteronomy 24:1

Benson commentary:
Deuteronomy 24:1. Some uncleanness — Some hateful thing, some distemper of body, or quality of mind, not observed before marriage: or some light carriage, as this phrase commonly signifies, but not amounting to adultery.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Uncleanness; Heb. nakedness, or shamefulness, or filthiness of a thing, i.e. some filthy or hateful thing, some loathsome distemper of body or quality of mind, not observed before marriage; or some light and unchaste carriage, as this or the like phrase commonly signifies, but not amounting to adultery, which was not punished with divorce, but with death.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
because he hath found some uncleanness in her; something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and cruel to her; so that her life was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, both for the badness of the man's heart, and in favour of the woman, that she might be freed from such rigorous usage. This word "uncleanness" does not signify adultery, or any of the uncleannesses forbidden in Leviticus 18:6; because that was punishable with death,

Link for commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/24-1.htm

While in Mathew 19:9, it is stated that sexual immorality or adultery is the only condition for divorce before remarriage of a man:

• I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” [Mathew 19:9]

How could you not have seen these clear-cut cases of abrogation? That is the problem when people talk about subjects that they have no knowledge of.
______________________

The whole Trinitarian theology depends existentially on the principle of abrogation.

Again, it does not. From Genesis on, God is described in Torah as a compound unity.

You will not find any principle of "abrogation" in Christianity. Rather, you will find this declaration from Jesus Christ Himself,

“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!" (Matthew 5:17-18)

So Jesus Christ accomplished the Law, and did not abolish.

Here again, your ignorance of your own scriptures shines. Notice that you quoted me talking about Trinitarian theology, but you failed miserably again to recognise the implication of this term. And if someone was still in doubt about abrogation in the Bible, Paul explicitly talks about abrogation in his letter to Ephesians.

Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:13-15 :

• 13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
  14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
  15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

From Mathew Pooles’s commentary on the Bible on Ephesians 2:15 we can read:

Having abolished; abrogated, taken away the power of binding men.

In his flesh; not the flesh of sacrificed beasts but his own flesh: before he mentioned his blood, and now his flesh, to imply the whole sacrifice of Christ, comprehending his flesh as well as blood. The ceremonies had their accomplishment in Christ, and so their abolishment by him.

The enmity; by a metonymy he so calls the ceremonies, which were the cause and the sign of enmity between Jew and Gentile: the Jews hated the Gentiles as uncircumcised, and the Gentiles despised the Jews for being circumcised.

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances: either, by the law of commandments, the apostle means the law of ceremonial rites, and by the word which we render ordinances, he means doctrine, and then (the word contained not being in the Greek) the sense is, that Christ, by his doctrine or commandments, abolished those ceremonial rites: the word commandments seems thus to be used, Deu 16:12 1 Kings 2:3 Ezekiel 18:21. Or else (which yet comes to the same) the word rendered ordinances signifies such ordinances as depended upon the sole will of the lawgiver; and is, Colossians 2:14, taken for ceremonial ones, and so is to be taken here. This the apostle seems to add, to show what part of the law was abrogated by Christ, viz. nothing of the moral law, but only the ceremonial.
See BibleHub: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/ephesians/2.htm

So who is right, Mathew 5:17-18 or Ephesians 2:13-15? Or both, I.e. there is and there is not abrogation at the same time in the same respect? Or neither? Anyway, let's not get into the subject of the contradictions in the Bible again as we already addressed that on other threads before. However, it is abundantly clear now that you are embarrassingly ignorant of your own Bible.
_______________________

So I think we've said as much as we can.

Indeed, I tried my best to educate you, hoping that you benefitted. If not then others reading this may have benefitted. Anyway, you have already said in your previous post that it would be “impossible for us(you and I) to discuss with each other” but you changed your mind and came back for some reasons, for which I am glad. Now, in case you change your mind again, make sure you truthfully answer my question about Numbers 31:17-18 that I asked you thus:

And Jesus is God.

You say "Jesus is God." Is Jesus the same one who revealed the Torah to Moses? If so, is it the same Jesus who revealed to Moses Numbers 31:17-18

• 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
  18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [Numbers 31:17-18]

And also don’t forget to append the references to credible sources of the statistics of war casualties you posted on this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s good that you have decided to speak the truth now.

I wish I had the same assurance about you. But because of taqiyya, because of what the Imams and the Haddiths tell you is your religious duty, I cannot ever tell if you are...but if you are an observant Muslim, I can be assured by your own religion that you are willling to practice taqiyya.

So no conversation is possible. No wonder, then, that nobody can make progress in dialogue with the conservative Muslim world. They don't deal in truth, but in strategy...and that's a very different undertaking.

I have no more, therefore that I can say to you. I can't know whether or not you're honest. I can't even be reasonably confident you are, and the more Muslim you turn out to be, the less I can be assured of your truthfulness...the more likely you believe in taqiyya.

But whom do you have to blame for that? Only Islam. It's a problem of their creation.

[Averroes]

It’s good that you have decided to speak the truth now.

I wish I had the same assurance about you. But because of taqiyya,

There is no taqiyya in the Holy Quran, but clearly there is lying about one's faith in Christianity in the New Testament for sure.

• Peter Disowns Jesus
  
  69 Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said.
  
  70 But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
  
  71 Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
  
  72 He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
  
  73 After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”
  
  74 Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”
  
  Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.[Mathew 26:69-75]

Because of what the example of Peter, lying about his association with biblical Jesus, tells you, you have to follow such examples and not talk about Numbers 31:17-18. So you can keep ignoring answering my question, finding precedent in the denial of Peter. In addition, the credible sources for the statistics you like quoting about war casualties are still lacking. Why not speak the truth and say that you made it up? It's because of the example of Peter lying, you have found a way to keep evading providing credible sources for your claims. And whom do we have to blame for that? Only Christianity of course. Clearly, Protestant christianity seems to be the cause for your dishonesty. Like Luther inspired Hiltler, you are being inspired by the denial of Peter in addition to Luther.

But contrary to you, I do not fear anyone's lies because, by the permission of God, the All-Knowing, I can expose these lies for everyone to see for themselves and judge. I do not have to run away from a conversation like you have the habit of doing when you converse with me. This is not the first time that you run away when the going gets tough for you. For certain, you will never be able to bring about the credible sources of the statistics you claimed about war casualties and you will always have to run away like a liar who has been exposed.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s good that you have decided to speak the truth now.

I wish I had the same assurance about you. But because of taqiyya,

There is no taqiyya in the Holy Quran...

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Scriptural authority for taqiyyah is derived from two statements in the Qurʾān, the holy book of Islam. The 28th verse of the third sura (chapter) says that, out of fear of Allah (God), believers should not show preference in friendship to unbelievers “unless to safeguard yourselves against them.” The 16th sura was revealed (according to tradition) to ease the conscience of ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir, a devout follower of the Prophet Muhammad, who renounced his faith under torture and threat of death. Verse 106 of this sura proclaims that if a Muslim who is forced to deny his religion is nevertheless a true believer who feels “the peace of faith” in his heart, he will not suffer great punishment (16:106). The meaning of these verses is not clear even in the context of the sura in which they appear. Thus, even among Islamic scholars who agree that the verses provide Qurʾānic sanction for taqiyyah, there is considerable disagreement about how the verses do this and about what taqiyyah permits in practice.

The Hadith (record of the traditional sayings or accounts of Muhammad) has also been cited as providing theological warrant for taqiyyah. One hadith in particular mentions that Muhammad waited 13 years, until he could “gain a sufficient number of loyal supporters,” before combatting his powerful polytheistic enemies in Mecca. A similar story relates how ʿAlī, the fourth caliph (ruler of the Muslim community) and Muhammad’s son-in-law, followed Muhammad’s advice to refrain from fighting until he had “the support of forty men.” Some scholars interpret these legends as examples of taqiyyah. By avoiding combat against enemies of Islam until they could muster sufficient military force and moral support, ʿAlī and Muhammad preserved not only their own lives but their divinely appointed mission to spread the faith.

[Averroes]

I wish I had the same assurance about you. But because of taqiyya,

There is no taqiyya in the Holy Quran...

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

First of all, Britannica itself admits that it does not understand the meaning of those verses:

The meaning of these verses is not clear even in the context of the sura in which they appear.

While Britannica admits its ignorance on the meaning of these verses, you on the other hand don't even know that you are ignorant. You are quoting a source that admits its ignorance to prove something that does not exist in the Holy Quran. How do you expect to succeed like that? So much can you be blind?

Secondly, Surah 16 verse 106 does not mention taqquiya.

• مَن كَفَرَ بِٱللَّهِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ إِيمَـٰنِهِۦٓ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُۥ مُطْمَئِنٌّۢ بِٱلْإِيمَـٰنِ وَلَـٰكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِٱلْكُفْرِ صَدْرًۭا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌۭ
  Whoever disbelieves in Allah after their belief—not those who are forced while their hearts are firm in faith, but those who embrace disbelief wholeheartedly—they will be condemned by Allah and suffer a tremendous punishment.[Holy Quran 16:106]

While the Bible clearly narrates how Peter lies three times through his teeth in saying that he does not know Jesus:

• Peter Disowns Jesus
  
  69 Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said.
  
  70 But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
  
  71 Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
  
  72 He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
  
  73 After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”
  
  74 Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”
  
  Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.[Mathew 26:69-75]

Your lies will continuously be exposed. As I said, never will you bring credible sources for the statistics you claimed about the war casualties. You will keep running away from one embarrassment to another.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no taqiyya in the Holy Quran...

If there is, if Britannica is right, then you'd be compelled to lie, by the principle of taqiyya.

Again, there is no conversation possible when somebody had lying to protect his ideology as a sacred duty. And Islam has that.

[Averroes]

There is no taqiyya in the Holy Quran...

If there is, if Britannica is right, then you'd be compelled to lie, by the principle of taqiyya.

I already told you there is no taquiya in Quran and Britannica has already admitted it does not understand the meaning of the verses it quoted. And now you are telling me to assume that there is (by saying "if there is") and then you are telling to assume again that Britannica is right (by saying "if Britannica is right"). Did't you realise how retarded you sounded when asking me to assume all that?

Allah, the All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran:

• وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ
  But if you were to obey most of those on earth, they would make you stray from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but assumptions, and they do nothing but guess. [Quran 6:116]

Is this how you came to the war casualty numbers you quoted on this thread, by assuming they were true? In Islam we don't follow assumptions like in Christianity. In Islam we follow the truth, while in Protestant Christianity like you have shown here, you follow assumptions. As is being shown here again, your fate is sealed, you will keep going from one embarrassment to another.

[attofishpi]

.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no taqiyya in the Holy Quran...

If there is, if Britannica is right, then you'd be compelled to lie, by the principle of taqiyya.

I already told you there is no taquiya in Quran...

That's taqiyya.

[attofishpi]

Nice one.

[Averroes]

If there is, if Britannica is right, then you'd be compelled to lie, by the principle of taqiyya.

I already told you there is no taquiya in Quran...

That's taqiyya.

That's stupidity. Aren't you ashamed of embarrassing yourself like that? First you lie about war casualties statistics, then you quote sources that are irrelevant and unreliable, and now you are back to making unsubstantiated claims again. The fact that Hitler followed Luther to the T, in no way obliges you to do the same. You still have the choice, you can break the stupidity cycle.

[Immanuel Can]

I already told you there is no taquiya in Quran...

That's taqiyya.

That's stupidity. Aren't you ashamed of embarrassing yourself like that?

Aren't you ashamed of belonging to a religion that makes deception a virtue?

And let's be honest: it's not just deception, but racial hatred, murder, rape, wife abuse, child slavery, terrorism, infanticide, kidnapping, genocide...just like Hamas, and ISIS, and the PLO, and al Shabaab, and al Q'aida...and any number of other such groups.

Islam isn't doing great PR work lately.

[Averroes]

That's taqiyya.

That's stupidity. Aren't you ashamed of embarrassing yourself like that?

Aren't you ashamed of belonging to a religion that makes deception a virtue?

I left the deceptive religion of Trinitarian Christianity long ago. See how I answer your question, while you are incapable of answering mine. You are incapable of telling the truth about the war casualties statistics.

[attofishpi]

I left the deceptive religion of Trinitarian Christianity long ago.

To join the king of deceit, Morhammad.

What a boring planet it would be if everyone was a Muzzlem (God would be bored in no time!)

[Averroes]

I left the deceptive religion of Trinitarian Christianity long ago.

On that part, namely of the deceptive nature of Trinitarian Christianity, we are agreeing! Few Christians admit that Trinitarian Christianity is deceptive, you are of very few who admit that. I have hope that you too have the potential, if God wills, to reach the conclusion that Paul of Tarsus was the king of deceit.