Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

Obviously I do. Now do you have some point to make related to my acknowledgement that I grant some people the right to kill?

Ok, that was not too hard. I will answer you as long as you post things dealing with actual issues. Not personal commentaries or diatribes against my faith unless accompanied by evidence.

Humans:
1. Do not have all possible information to make informed decisions about killing a person. We may have aborted the guy who would have cured cancer.
2. Humans did not create the lives they take.
3. Humans have no universal sovereignty over lives.
4. Humans are fallible, and display a moral insanity and always have.
etc.....

God
1. Has all possible information to make decisions about life and death.
2. Created all lives.
3. God has every claim to sovereignty that exists.
4. God is not fallible, and is morally perfect.
etc....

Yet you grant rights to the humans but not God. That is indefensible.

By the way, the one person whom I do not grant the right to kill? A prophet of God.

So the guy with the greatest clarity on moral truths is the only person you deny rights to judge?

If a man tells me that God wants to kill all (or any) of a city's inhabitants and encourages the army to go and kill them? I vote to imprison that prophet of God before he can pretend to speak any further for God. If he won't shut up, I say let's kill him. Better to lose one nut than for the city to suffer genocide.

That would not end well for you as it didn't for many of those that impeded God's messengers.

If only someone had done that to Joshua.

Then the conduit used for God's revelation would have died in the cradle. God is opposed by humans and demons. He must and has triumphed.

So why do you assume that you know God better than I do? Seriously. It's pretty clear that you are not smarter than me. Nor more educated than me. Nor more wise or spiritual than me.

Because the revelation I believe in has infinitely more evidence than yours.

So why do you assume that your God knowledge is truer than my God knowledge?

You have given no reason for me to believe you know anything about god. That is not an insult it is a reasoned conclusion.

Just because you think so? Or is there some good reason?

Good reasons. It is certainly possible I am wrong but so far I have seen no evidence to believe I am. I have 750,000 of the most influential and studied book in history to very its accuracy. What exactly am I supposed to have as evidence you know about a God?

The Bible is surely not a record of historical events. Anyone who has the least knowledge of history can see that.

That is completely wrong. The bible is even a primary resource for secular archaeologists and has 25000 historical corroberations.

Yikes. So he kills women and children, but he hasn't killed so many of them? Yikes.

In what way does how many he killed matter? If he had the moral justification to kill a single person then why would 2 or a million be any different.

He commits genocide, but he only does it now and again? Goodness.

You have not shown any evidence he ever did a genocidal thing. However on what basis is he restricted from doing so and still having moral justification. We nuked and fire bombed more people to death in one war than he has ever killed and we gave medals to the pilots who did it.

My God never condemned anyone to eternal damnation and therefore had no need to save anyone from eternal damnation.

Then your God is not perfect and is not just. Mine can not dwell with imperfection for ever because he would not be just in doing so. What Hitler did must offend a just God. I have no reason to believe your God exists so what comparison can be made?

But if you are too biased or proud to accept this truth about God, well....

I have no need and never have denied that God has killed.

Sure. And it's just coincidence that you have wound up following the same Holy Book as you grew up with? That's what you think?

Once again your are 100% wrong about my faith. I tried every philosophy, theology, and mystical concept I could trying to deny the Bible. They did not work. I literally hated God if he existed at one time. It was along road to finding him and he did most of the work against my will. That is also a genetic fallacy BTW.

You think that a map of the world's religions just coincidentally shows that religions are region-specific?

I think they do. The Bible predicted just such a thing. If geography is the standard the Bible is the only faith present in all nations. No other faith is.

Not me. I think Indonesians tend to be Muslims because their parents and culture are Muslim. And I think 1robin is a Christian because he has embraced the beliefs of his family, friends, culture and childhood.

God predicted that would occur. Atheist parents would attempt to keep their kids away from God. Entire cultures have done the same. In many nations false beliefs attempt to eradicate all churches and proselytizing.

Great making properties? I'm afraid I have no idea what that might mean to you.

It means it is evidence that the Biblical authors had knowledge they had no way to know.

Whatever you prefer to believe about the nature of God, you should believe, I guess.

I believe nothing that is not reasonably concluded from the evidence.

It sure gives the lie to 'All-Loving,' doesn't it?

That is not an argument and not true. God can love everyone and regrettably be forced by some of them to kill them. As a veteran I did not hate our enemy but would have killed them if necessary. It wasn't for me anyway.

Or does He kill us because He loves us... as the psychopaths in the movies like to say?

He kills us at times to keep our hatred of him from wiping out his people or his message.

 

[1robin]

I question your notion of "goodness" in conjunction with at what age he married a young person. Are ethics regarding marriage tied into a cultural phenomena you simply disagree with, or are you using his marriage as a stepping stone to a much large ethical issue?

So if a 50 year old married a baby your fine with that? Is anything wrong if that is right? The excuse every one else is doing it is the worst defense possible.

 

[illykitty]

Because the revelation I believe in has infinitely more evidence than yours.

Lol, that's what everyone says about their religion. I'd love to see such "evidence".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yet you grant rights to the humans but not God. That is indefensible.

I withhold the right of genocide from the false prophets of false gods... yes.

And it's a quite defensible position. In fact, you yourself agree with it.

So the guy with the greatest clarity on moral truths is the only person you deny rights to judge?

A guy who claims that God wants to do genocide -- that's a confused and false prophet.

That would not end well for you as it didn't for many of those that impeded God's messengers.

Don't believe everything you read in a book. Sometimes writers -- especially religious writers -- fudge the truth.

Because the revelation I believe in has infinitely more evidence than yours.

Yeah. Sure.

You have given no reason for me to believe you know anything about god. That is not an insult it is a reasoned conclusion.

Sure. You're obviously a great reasoner. I'm not sure why that great ability doesn't seem to show up in your writings here on the board, but since you believe it it so, I guess it must be so.

That is completely wrong. The bible is even a primary resource for secular archaeologists and has 25000 historical corroberations.

Do you have any idea how people view your claims of '25,000 historical corroberations'?

In what way does how many he killed matter? If he had the moral justification to kill a single person then why would 2 or a million be any different.

Sure. Your God can torture us all to death if it's the moral thing to do. It's why everyone used to find Him so terrifying and why many now find Him just a silly caricature of God.

Then your God is not perfect and is not just.

Because He doesn't condemn people to fry for eternity... He's not just?

Well God save us all from just Gods then.

God predicted that would occur. Atheist parents would attempt to keep their kids away from God. Entire cultures have done the same. In many nations false beliefs attempt to eradicate all churches and proselytizing.

False beliefs about God. What a quaint notion.

God can love everyone and regrettably be forced by some of them to kill them.

He kills us at times to keep our hatred of him from wiping out his people or his message.

You take my breath away sometimes. A scary theology you've built.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread now unless you want to talk about Mohammad's goodness.

 

[1robin]

Lol, that's what everyone says about their religion. I'd love to see such "evidence".

There are 25000 historical corroborations for the Bible. The Gospels have passed every single test the greatest experts on testimony and evidence could conceive (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst.). The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized and cherished words in human history. Billions have testified to a personal experience with God using the Gospels as a road map. Millions testify to supernatural healing and visions. In what way is even this tiny portion of what justifys faith insufficient?

 

[1robin]

I withhold the right of genocide from the false prophets of false gods... yes.

And it's a quite defensible position. In fact, you yourself agree with it.

I certainly agree that false prophets have no justification in taking life in a false God's name. I however do not know how that applies to the Bibles prophets.

A guy who claims that God wants to do genocide -- that's a confused and false prophet.

You can't possibly know this. God could kill us all without defying any aspect of his nature. I am glad his love is so great he does not do so but there is no foul in him doing so if he determined to wipe us out.

Don't believe everything you read in a book. Sometimes writers -- especially religious writers -- fudge the truth.

I am very careful to require much justification for belief before I adopt any position.

Yeah. Sure.

That is not an argument.

Sure. You're obviously a great reasoner. I'm not sure why that great ability doesn't seem to show up in your writings here on the board, but since you believe it it so, I guess it must be so.

The arguments I use most often have been reasoned out by histories greatest scholars and have stood the test of 3000 years of scrutiny. Your statement about those arguments says more about you than them.

Do you have any idea how people view your claims of '25,000 historical corroberations'?

That is not really my concern. My job is to provide truth as best I can determine it. What is done with it is not my responsibility.

Sure. Your God can torture us all to death if it's the moral thing to do. It's why everyone used to find Him so terrifying and why many now find Him just a silly caricature of God.

This is not an argument, at best it is an objection. What in what you have posted can be debated? It is one opinion after another or one complaint after another. They contain no arguments in need of discussion.

Because He doesn't condemn people to fry for eternity... He's not just?

I never claimed he did. I believe hell is eternal separation from God by annihilation. He supplied a life and it was misused to rebel and serve its self. He takes back the life he granted. Exactly what is unjust about that.

Well God save us all from just Gods then.

I have njo idea what his means.

False beliefs about God. What a quaint notion.

THis is not an argument.

You take my breath away sometimes. A scary theology you've built.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread now unless you want to talk about Mohammad's goodness.

The theology I have adopted is the theology more associated with love, goodness, and hope than any in human history. Your opinion and emotional based objections say more about you than what your condemning.

I can discuss Muhammad's tyrannical character if you want. Do what ever you wish.

 

[illykitty]

There are 25000 historical corroborations for the Bible. The Gospels have passed every single test the greatest experts on testimony and evidence could conceive (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst.). The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized and cherished words in human history. Billions have testified to a personal experience with God using the Gospels as a road map. Millions testify to supernatural healing and visions. In what way is even this tiny portion of what justifys faith insufficient?

Unless I know who these "experts" are, I can't agree or disagree. Numbers don't mean anything if they're all brainwashed, biased or pseudo-experts. When you talk of corroborations, I can't affirm or deny it but how does that make something true? The Bible could be a fabrication. A lot of texts didn't make it under the authority of men who lived a lot after any of the events. why are people leaving Christianity if it's so true? It's not cherished by all, a lot would say it's a horrible book.

What makes your side's evidence any more true than people who refute them? What about people who have healing, visions and experiences with other religions?

I'm sure many people would refute your evidences a lot better than I could, after all debates aren't my strong point.

 

[1robin]

Unless I know who these "experts" are, I can't agree or disagree. Numbers don't mean anything if they're all brainwashed, biased or pseudo-experts. When you talk of corroborations, I can't affirm or deny it but how does that make something true? The Bible could be a fabrication. A lot of texts didn't make it under the authority of men who lived a lot after any of the events. why are people leaving Christianity if it's so true? It's not cherished by all, a lot would say it's a horrible book.

I provided 2 of the greatest if not the greatest experts on testimony and evidence who have exhaustively examined the scriptures. Here is a link to the co-founder of Harvard's law school and his examination of the scriptures by modern legal standards. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Christianity is not shrinking. It adds to its ranks every year a number of people equal to the current population of Nevada, it is no. 1, and is the only faith present in significant numbers in every nation on Earth.

Let's just take the 25000 corroborations for granted (because it is true but more to illustrate what that means). If the testimony laid down by 40 authors over 1800 years is accurate in every way that can be verified then it is the height of absurdity to claim these very careful and studious authors that died for what they claimed went insane whenever the claimed something that can't be verified. Add to that 2500 detailed and accurate prophecies and you you start to build a case that only the biased would reject based on preference, not evidence.

Historical studies are resolved to a probability not a certainty.

1. You verify what can be verified to establish the general reliability of a document.
2. Then from what evidence is known you evaluate it's claims and see if the evidence is consistent with it.

What makes your side's evidence any more true than people who refute them? What about people who have healing, visions and experiences with other religions?

There is not a meaningful fraction of people from other faiths that claim supernatural experience compared to Christianity, of the major faiths only Christianity demands and offers a spiritual experience to every believer the moment hey first believe. Hinduism may claim to have an enlightened Guru or two running around in caves or living in trees, in 20 years of debate I have heard only Muslim who claimed direct experience with God, Judaism has quite a bit more but compared to the billions of Christian who have experienced God it is a drop in the sea.

I'm sure many people would refute your evidences a lot better than I could, after all debates aren't my strong point.

Yes some can be very challenging but most have an emotional motivation in search of evidence and desperation makes that evidence very weak. The only way to get good at debating is to spend years being bad at it, but your civil and reasonable so you should pick it up quickly. Jump in and screw up, it's the only way to get better. I spent 27 years denying the Bibles claims so I am patient with honest doubt. If you do nothing else please read that Greenleaf link, it is legendary scholarship.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What? Secular reasoning granted human beings the right to kill innocent life in the womb as a form of birth control. In every single category secularists use to grant human authorities with the right to take life God exceeds them infinitely in qualifications. Now if you deny any human that would at least be consistent. Do you? You would still not have the slightest qualifications to suggest God was ever unjustified but at least you would not be contradicting your self. I think your point mainly had to do with what humans do in God's authority. Outside of the few Biblical authors who gave evidence for their claim to prophet hood I would be inclined to agree in principle. If God ordered a person to kill another (I mean he actually did so) then on what basis could you ever claim he was unjustified? I however do not defend humans outside of Biblical prophets.

The problem being how does one prove that "god" actually requested it? How do we know the person simply isn't delusional? Until solid evidence is provided for god then I cant accept him much less someone killing in his name with no other alternative reason.

 

[1robin]

The problem being how does one prove that "god" actually requested it? How do we know the person simply isn't delusional? Until solid evidence is provided for god then I cant accept him much less someone killing in his name with no other alternative reason.

That is certainly a problem but I was discussing the principles involved not the issue involved in implementing laws or procedures to allow for prophets. I was making an ontological argument not an Epistemological one. My point is true prophets would truly have moral justifications not how do we decide who and i they do.

While typing the above the above I thought of several possible ways to identify prophets and evaluate what they claim. It has no bearing on my original point but we can look into seeing if we can lay out ways to determine who should be concluded as speaking for God and the way in which God has allowed for the very issues you brought up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

While typing the above the above I thought of several possible ways to identify prophets and evaluate what they claim. It has no bearing on my original point but we can look into seeing if we can lay out ways to determine who should be concluded as speaking for God and the way in which God has allowed for the very issues you brought up.

Why don't you post it as a new thread. It is the most important question in all of life, after all.

Who has the right to tell us what is objectively true?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is certainly a problem but I was discussing the principles involved not the issue involved in implementing laws or procedures to allow for prophets. I was making an ontological argument not an Epistemological one. My point is true prophets would truly have moral justifications not how do we decide who and i they do.

While typing the above the above I thought of several possible ways to identify prophets and evaluate what they claim. It has no bearing on my original point but we can look into seeing if we can lay out ways to determine who should be concluded as speaking for God and the way in which God has allowed for the very issues you brought up.

It has everything to do with the post if there is no such thing as god or true prophets and its just people and empty beliefs. Then there is no moral justification.

 

[1robin]

Why don't you post it as a new thread. It is the most important question in all of life, after all.

Who has the right to tell us what is objectively true?

Well as in the past you grant rights to some of the worst authorities possible (in fact you granted it to your self) to determine what is true, but are denying it to the beings who have the greatest capacity actually know what is true. Why? Is it only God's authority you are rejecting. If you can reconcile your double standards then I will post what the criteria are for prophet hood.

 

[1robin]

It has everything to do with the post if there is no such thing as god or true prophets and its just people and empty beliefs. Then there is no moral justification.

If your conclusion results from you assumption above then of what use is it? I did not claim Muhammad was a false prophet and thereby claim Islam is a false religion. I looked for evidence he was and found only evidence he was not. I did not assume he was lying and make a conclusion I discovered evidence he was lying, plagiarizing, contradicting himself, acting tyrannical, killing for his own reasons, and exhibiting the classic symptoms of demon influence described in exhausting detail in the Bible and in the history of documented exorcism. After that plus a whole lot more became self evident I concluded he was a false prophet.

As you will find if review my posts I have said only two possible truths can apply to anyone claiming prophet hood.

1. If they are false prophets (not in contact with God or his emissaries) then they are the most evil category of people possible.
2. If a true prophet speaking on behalf of God then they are the most valuable and authoritative people possible.

There are potential ways as I illustrated plus many additional ones to determine the likely hood a person is in touch with a benevolent supernatural being but it is not an absolute science. My claims however have been what a true prophet would deserve not methodology required to determine if they were.

Let me state it a different way. Let's say a person demonstrated they were from God in some manner. In what way would their demands by invalid or unjust?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well as in the past you grant rights to some of the worst authorities possible (in fact you granted it to your self) to determine what is true, but are denying it to the beings who have the greatest capacity actually know what is true.

Um... are you serious? You grant yourself the right to determine what is true. You arbitrarily accept the Bible as the word of God. Then you accept yourself as the best interpreter of that word.

Which means you are denying all the really true prophets in the world. Denying God, we could say.

Why? Is it only God's authority you are rejecting.

No. You are rejecting God's authority. I'm embracing it. How could I deny God's authority if I follow everything He tells me???

That really doesn't make any sense.

If you can reconcile your double standards then I will post what the criteria are for prophet hood.

Done. I look forward to reading your OP about the criteria for prophethood.

 

[1robin]

Um... are you serious? You grant yourself the right to determine what is true. You arbitrarily accept the Bible as the word of God. Then you accept yourself as the best interpreter of that word.

You are not making any sense. Expecting you to might make even less. If any theological concept or text on Earth has less arbitrary reasons to accept it that the Bible I have never heard of it. Newton, Da Vinci, Faraday, Maxwell, Greenleaf, and Lyndhurst among a thousand just like them have been the most exacting and meticulous people in history and have all had my faith. If any theological claim on Earth has greater arbitrary reasons to adopt than yours I also have no idea what it could be.

I have never thought, hinted, or thought about hinting I am the greatest interpreter of anything, especially the Bible. I have no unique interpretations. My entire theological doctrine is shared by most of the greatest theologians in the past 200 years. You just make it up as you go don't you.

Which means you are denying all the really true prophets in the world. Denying God, we could say.

It is impossible to make a statement with less meaning than that. Maybe you just like seeing what you type or something. Nothing legitimate has the slightest chance to explain your motivations. I can't even use the excuse you are so unintelligent as to believe it. No one including you can believe much of what you post.

No. You are rejecting God's authority. I'm embracing it. How could I deny God's authority if I follow everything He tells me???

See the above.

That really doesn't make any sense.

If you do not think so there can be no better reasons for concluding it did make sense.

Done. I look forward to reading your OP about the criteria for prophethood.

I never promised to create a thread. I can't get to all the ones I am in now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are not making any sense. Expecting you to might make even less.

What can I say. Not everyone is capable of extracting sense from others.

If any theological concept or text on Earth has less arbitrary reasons to accept it that the Bible I have never heard of it. Newton, Da Vinci, Faraday, Maxwell, Greenleaf, and Lyndhurst among a thousand just like them have been the most exacting and meticulous people in history and have all had my faith.

It's so odd. You claim that majority opinion has nothing to do with truth, but when you are challenged, you immediately makes claims to majority opinion.

I can't make sense of you.

I have never thought, hinted, or thought about hinting I am the greatest interpreter of anything, especially the Bible.

If 99.9% of all Christians interpret the Bible as supporting homosexuality, will you consider yourself to be a greater interpreter than all of them and insist that God hates homosexuality?

Of course you will. Yes?

I have no unique interpretations. My entire theological doctrine is shared by most of the greatest theologians in the past 200 years.

Theological doctrine is like jello. Like prophecy. We can believe it is anything which we please. The absolute and irrefutable and final truth is that Christian theologians from 200 years ago would want to run you out of town on a rail for heresy.

It is impossible to make a statement with less meaning than that.

Word worshippers often miss meaning. People who are confused about the workings of language think that 'words mean what they mean.' It's why they can't follow the meanings of other people.

Maybe you just like seeing what you type or something. Nothing legitimate has the slightest chance to explain your motivations. I can't even use the excuse you are so unintelligent as to believe it. No one including you can believe much of what you post.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. So boring.

I never promised to create a thread. I can't get to all the ones I am in now.

OK. But meanwhile I proclaim myself the final judge of who is an actual prophet and who isn't. (Sorry about those guys who wrote the Bible. They just don't make the cut.)

 

[Jack marvin]

Hello muizz99,

In Christianity God is seen as :
The Holy One, Source of justice, goodness, perfection:
He created everything perfect , without sin , He hates sin , He revealed His holy standard in the commandments given to Moses and these commandments reveal His 'character'.

My question is: how would Muslims describe the 'character' of the one and only Creator of the universe?

Or more specifically: when we, as people who are created by Him, slander our fellow human being , steal his possessions or , say, rape, murder and pillage : are we then acting contrary to His will and character?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am totally shocked this argument has gone on as long as it has but what many fail to realize is that Muhammad was a conqueror and although his message was a gimmick and his rule may have been harsh it was far better than the past tribal rivalry.

The issue is that Muhammad used religion and that his supposed peace did not last very long at that. It was entirely built upon a facade and did not end the way Muhammad imagined it. It was not like the Jewish ethnic nation nor Christendom. It fell apart and fell apart hard over the years after Muhammad's death.

Muhammad used violence and he also used peace and although he preached peace more than violence the peace he offered was obtained through the threat of violence. Many bad and good things can be found in his message that range from beautiful to outright evil.

Muhammad sadly wiped out numerous cultures and individuality though because of his false unification of Arabia. Although his actions were a failure when one perceives his actions as the result of the efforts of social unity, Muhammad was still not as wicked as people make him out to be.

 

[Gharib]

I am totally shocked this argument has gone on as long as it has but what many fail to realize is that Muhammad was a conqueror and although his message was a gimmick and his rule may have been harsh it was far better than the past tribal rivalry.

The issue is that Muhammad used religion and that his supposed peace did not last very long at that. It was entirely built upon a facade and did not end the way Muhammad imagined it. It was not like the Jewish ethnic nation nor Christendom. It fell apart and fell apart hard over the years after Muhammad's death.

Muhammad used violence and he also used peace and although he preached peace more than violence the peace he offered was obtained through the threat of violence. Many bad and good things can be found in his message that range from beautiful to outright evil.

Muhammad sadly wiped out numerous cultures and individuality though because of his false unification of Arabia. Although his actions were a failure when one perceives his actions as the result of the efforts of social unity, Muhammad was still not as wicked as people make him out to be.

The amount of evidence you have posted in support of your claims is astounding.