Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumPlease try and convince me otherwise.
This was not a basis for Israel residing in the Holy Land, the basis for Israel residing in the Holy Land was because of the covenant between Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, if you were to read the context of those chapters you are glossing over, you will see the so called conquering of the canaanites, hittites, amalekites, were 1) For punishment as they attacked Israel in the same manner when they were in the wilderness, no jew practices this anymore, and this has no bearing on christianity 2) The Israelites were not asked to conquer the neighbouring tribes, or asking them to pay the jizya in willing submission and subjecting their women and children to join sexual harems for the mullahs, caliphs and imams, the Israelites were told to wipe out these tribes, they did not do so, and again this has no bearing on christianity. This is an error, if you were to read the context of those verses you would see that the jews did not subject the women to rape or passing among themselves to practice coitus interruptus with as Mohammed and his mujaheddins did. The very context of these verses are what condemns a muslim trying the logical fallacy of tu quoque, rape is wrong, why on earth would a human being in this day and age say "well it was done alledgedly by the same God so we are ok alhamduillah" this is insanity. Taking a look at Numbers 31:17-18: To a muslim ofcourse the "save for yourselves" obviously means rape, since they are fully aware Mohammed raped jewish women, and his mujaheddins practiced coitus interruptus with them, so tanishing and bringing everybody down to their level makes them feel a little justified no matter how sick this mentality is. Reading the very chapter of that verse gives the context of exactly what it meant with "save for yourselves" Again the context is clear from the chapter at hand, "the save for yourselves" bit does not even remotely refer to rape, but the exact opposite they were to be used for God, in the service of the tabernacle, to join the Israelites, which applied to all persons and property taken, the modus operandi normally utilised by the Israelites on all such property and people were that they were to be destroyed. The reason why the women who had slept with a man were to be killed was very simple in verse 16 it tells you why: Again this has no bearing on christianity, we have the law of grace, as stated earlier in a world without penicillin you cut the leg to save the body or you risk destruction of the whole body. There was a plague running through the midianites, it may look cruel looking back in time with christianized morality, there was no healthcare, there were no medication, destruction of whole livestock for contamination was the same for the Israelites. However as a christian if someone was to turn away from Christ you do not kill them, no you pray for them instead, if a muslim on the other hand turns away all madzhabs state he/she must be killed. You are denying the antecedent, affirming a negative premise, and practicing the fallacy of tu quoque, why are you skipping entirely what Jesus has to say? we are no longer subject to the law, man cannot fulfill the law, it leads to ridiculous legalism islam is notorious for such as how many pieces of toilet tissue to use and which hand to use it with, you cannot judge christianity based solely on the law of Moses, this is ridiculous reasoning, the jews did not rape captured women, they were kept in quarantine for several days before being allowed to join the Israelites, hardly the behaviour of sexual lechers: the bible reaffirms in several places the Israelites were to be fair to those taken in war becase "remember you were slaves in Egypt" I fail to understand the point of your argument, as I have highlighted in your statement, if you understand that without the old testament there is no basis of Jesus's coming, then you will understand that Jesus's coming was a fulfillment of the entire old testament, legalism cannot work, doing things in a partcular routine will not save you, it will be a burden to you at the end of the day, the law was meant to be in the heart, like food you eat it to live, with legalism you pile the food in ridiculous laws, skipping and hopping to maintain a balance to the point that the food becomes a burden, when you are supposed to eat the food to give you the strength you need. How many muslims will tell you how hard it is to maintain their 5 times washing and prayer a day?
What it seems you are doing, far from being an honest objective look at both religious text and their context is to align christianity with the practice of rape and coitus interruptus done by Mohammed and the early muslims, and attested by the earliest and authentic religious biography of Mohammed and the early muslims, this is tu quoque, the jews did not practice raping their captured women, neither do christians, what exactly is your point? Again God did not command Moses to rape women, would you care to show me where it says so?, Mohammed on the other hand raped women, this is undeniable and authenticated by the most rigorous matn and isnad that Mohammed was a rapist. This is a denial of the antecedent and tu quoque logical fallacies, the so called conquest by Moses and Joshua was not to spread religion, which is what Mohammed commands every muslim to do via jihad which is what muslims wether they be a moderate muslim in Florida or a wahabi in saudi arabia aims to do, judaism is notorious for not seeking proselytes, it was fought for survival and it is still being fought to this day.
Don't you find it a little strange that the same God who commaned the Israelites to wipe out the ancestors of the muslims, would all of a sudden command the muslims to wipe out the Israelites? Mohammed as you well know told the muslims to rid the arabian peninsula of jews, Isn't that a little strange? would the same God be responsible for both messages? This is a moot point, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the prophet who commited adultery, incest, fornication, pedofilia, without a prophecy to his name, frothing in the mouth in an epileptic fit was not speaking on behalf of God. what are you trying to say here? that we should disregard the raping, pedofilia, incest, adultery and fornication of Mohammed? is this what you are trying to say? that in the midst of contradicting the old and the news testaments he still has some basis for prophethood? "By their fruits you shall know them" we as christians cannot disregard someone's fruits because they claim to be speaking on behalf of God, their fruits will give us proof, for Mohammed his fruits are an insult to associate it with God. From the koran... |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame